Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 07	September 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pidge (company)

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

(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

(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} 20:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Grotts

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

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

Weak keep She's called on by media as an "etiquette expert" [1], [2] and [3]. Her publication in the Reader's Digest article also has some discussion in the media. She might pass as AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mention of the book here [4] Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that any of those links do anything to establish notability.The firstthree merely quote her; they are not about her. I couldt find the mention in the fourth, but I think it takes more than a mention in an alumnus newletter to establish the notability of a book. Two reviews in independant reputable publications, I believe. TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the perpetrator of this article (whose editing history- ten edits and then this confection- suggests that they are either Ms Grotts herself or a paid lackey of some stripe) could only come with an Amazon listing and something from a PR company as refs for the "book" (more a booklet; only 58 pages) suggest that there is nothing of any substane out there. Is there a different set of notability criteria for pamphlets?TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find trivial mentions, nothing that I would consider WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and any other notability standards I can think of. Jacona (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Livingston

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

Subject does not have the sustained coverage to meet WP:GNG as the winner of a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Mexico. Let'srun (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cierra Kaler-Jones

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG as a beauty pageant winner. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petz Rescue: Ocean Patrol

(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. [5]. 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

(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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Amiga

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

Notability is borderline but I think this one falls on non-notable. Her most notable role is likely the recurring one in Rome but past that WP:SIGCOV seems extremely limited. I found an interview in Selig Film News but nothing more significant. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting that sources have been added to the article but that I do not believe they rise to WP:SIGCOV of Amiga herself. Of the sources, one is a database entry, one is the interview linked above, and the others only give her single-sentence (or less) mentions about projects she's worked. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nominator how this may considered borderline, especially with zero references at the time. I have added 12 citations since nomination - some of which are sigcov, or sigcov reviews, of works she played a major part creating. Both WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER apply: as an actor, Amiga has had significant roles in definitely notable productions (Rome, Southcliffe), and as a screenwriter and director of short films her work has attracted several sigcov secondary reviews. There has been some attention from notable film festivals too, however I am still working to ascertain the full list of what awards she has either won or been nominated for (TorinoFilmLab has a bio with further detail on her filmmaking career [6]). Taken altogether and in the spirit of WP:BASIC, that multiple sources may be combined, I lean towards the presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Slight keep~~ Delete, Depending on how strict you want to be with sources that contribute to notability, it could flip. I would say that it does pass with FNs 1, 11, and maybe 2 and 9 (with others possibly contributing). Though if any of these were decided to not contribute to notability, I will switch my !vote. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis is that 1 is a bio at an event Amiga was involved in - Probably WP:PRIMARY and only a paragraph, so not WP:SIGCOV. 11 is a database entry with no actual coverage, it's just a list of three things she's been involved with - Again, not SIGCOV. 2 doesn't even mention Amiga's name, just a show she played a character in. 9 is decent but an interview, so it's also PRIMARY. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote to delete. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I largely agree with ResonantDistortion's assessment here, and will further note that the guideline raised, also known as WP:CREATIVE doesn't require the contributions to be in a single form. Acting, writing, directing, all-in-one, etc go towards the SNG. Evaluating the collective body of work, anchored by Rome, I think the SNG is met and presumption of notability is there. —siro χ o 08:10, 30 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

(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

(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)

(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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solhah Singaarr

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

Tagged for notability since 2019. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 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) 11:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:48, 8 September 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 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:18, 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 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

(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. ✗plicit 13:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parrivaar

(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) 11:19, 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) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:48, 8 September 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 23:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Easily fails WP:NTV Nagol0929 (talk) 12:58, 18 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

(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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lordship of Hasley

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

Really this should never have left Draftspace because of the poor quality of the sources - I can add a source analysis if that would be useful - but it did, and it's too late to send it back even if it were possible to return an article to draft a second time. Some of the content is salvageable, but a lot is too vague or too inaccurate to warrant keeping, and there is a paragraph of what looks like self-promotion in the middle. I am suggesting deletion for the article itself because the topic Lordship of Hasley is not notable. Manor of Hasley on the other hand might be notable if written in the right way but that seems unlikely to happen as long as the original author(s) want to focus on the "lordship" and slant the content in that direction. It would also be possible to merge the useful parts to the two relevant village articles (Thornton, Buckinghamshire and Radclive. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Being lord of a manor is not a title of nobility, though it might qualify the owner to have the status of a gentleman or even squire. The article seems to be about Thornton Hall and the article might be repurposed as a history of that mansion, currently occupied by a girls school Thornton College, but that article redirects to the village article Thornton, Buckinghamshire. I do not think that there is much worth rescuing to merge elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback and every exchange is an opportunity to learn. This was my first attempt at starting an article, "poor quality" sources were unintentionally so. I have no personal agenda with focusing on the "lorship" topic, and the focus was made after researching uncovered the Banes article. I am here to learn, and if the gurus find my contribution unsuitable, then so be it. Cambridge Prof Scholars (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the manor (Thornton College) notable? That could be a strong WP:ATD if it is. Curbon7 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, and I agree with Peterkingiron that actually there is not a great deal worth saving. The Thornton College website makes - as far I can see - no mention at all of Hasley, and the former Hasley-related website, which is what the claim of a connection is apparently based on, has clearly lapsed and now redirects to a site advertising a London hotel, so there is no reason to mention Hasley under the college. Thornton College has a paragraph under Thornton (Buckinghamshire) because it occupies the former Thornton manor house but may not be notable in its own right. The only usable sources in this article are the VCH and the Baines article. I've already added ~~them~~ Baines to the Thornton article (VCH was there already) as a note to the effect that formerly but wrongly Hasley was thought to be located there, which seems to be all that is required. Ingratis (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Baines (clearly a RS) has shown that the old identification with Thornton is clearly wrong and that Hasley has been subsumed into Radclive. If a redirect were needed it would be to Radclive, but I still think that the best solution is plain deletion.

As Thornton College educates Catholic girls from 3 to 18, it qualifies as a secondary school, which we might regard as notable, but this article is unlikely to be capable of being repurposed for that. The claim to be 18th or 19th Lord of Hasley is plain original research. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying nomination above - delete - inadequate sourcing and no notability - fails GNG. I agree with Peterkingiron on the undesirability of redirecting. Ingratis (talk) 13:13, 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 speedy delete‎ per WP:A7. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youngboi OG

(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.

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}}.

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

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

Christopher Michel

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

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

Keep. Interesting and multi-faceted American photographer, entrepreneur and writer. Notable enough to be artist-in-residence at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. And yes, article needs some editing and refs. Vysotsky (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Photography, and United States of America. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ - changing !vote to keep per WP:HEY after improvements made by Sj and Drmies. It has been improved with the addition of reliable sources and cleaned up. - Not one of the sources used in the article are independent of the subject. All I am finding in a BEFORE search is social media, his own website, LinkedIn, and more primary sources. What I am not finding are the usual coverage for notable artists and photographers, such as works in notable exhibitions, reviews of his work, or work held in notable museum or national gallery collections. I'm also finding a ton of images that are professional headshots of him, in his own Commons category, mainly uploaded by a banned editor, Russavia, indeffed on multiple language Wikipedias for cross-wiki spamming and socking which may strongly indicate UPE. Neverthless, this photographer does not meet WP:PHOTOGRAPHER nor WP:GNG criteria for inclusion as a notable artist.Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how to respond but want to provide a bit more color: my images and articles have been used in countless publications (including covers), album covers, seen by millions of people, and been the subject of many articles. My work has been covered extensively (USA Today, The Daily Beast, etc etc). I was also a columnist for the Naval Institute, photo editor at large for the Bold Italic, and have been sent on assignment for Outside Magazine, IDEO, etc etc from the edge of space, both poles.... My latest book is being co-written with Pico Iyer. I was also the Dalai Lama's photographer on one of his US visits. I was also the Ambassador for one of Leica's latest cameras and recently finished a nationwide speaking tour for them. I lead photo trips in extreme locations and teach for the Santa Fe Workshops. My work has also been in shows -- it's not held by any museum permanent collections but that's typical for photojournalists. I'm also the founder of Military.com, Affinity Labs, and Nautilus Ventures. In the early days, Wikipedia editors were scraping my creative commons flickr images and auto uploading them. I'm now spending my time assisting the National Academies to help raise the profile of scientists, engineers and medical professionals in society. Cmichel67 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add that one of my photos was the runner-up to the commons picture of the year in 2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2014/Results Cmichel67 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that image was also featured on the homepage of National Geographic. Cmichel67 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few relevant links:

Washington Post

The Photoblographer

Outside Magazine Archives

National Academies:

Daily Mail

Daily Beast

Smithsonian

USA Today

Caltech

Atlas Obscura

Daily Mail Antarctica New York Times

The Bold Italic

Psychology Today

New York Times on Leica

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Leica Camera

Leica Camera Interview

Natural World Safaris Guides

Santa Fe Workshops Instructors

Esalen Instructors

Union of Concerned Scientists Bios

Something Ventured Podcast

Long Now Foundation Speech

US Naval Institute Article Archive

Protagonist in the Intelligent Entrepreneur

Author The Military Advantage

Author 90 Degrees South Cmichel67 (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we have two broad issues here — one is odd targeting of me by a wikipedia editor named AncientWalrus and the other is related to issues with my wikipedia entry, primarily having to do with notability and payment.

Context:

For the past three years, I have been working full-time as the inaugural artist in residence at The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine. I work for free. Essentially, I fly around the country and make portraits of people that have made significant impacts in sciences, engineering & medicine — I license all those portraits with a creative commons license and make them freely available to the world. I also update their wikipedia pages when their photos could benefit from a more recent or higher quality image. You can see some of those images here: https://www.christophermichel.com/New-Heroes/National-Academies-Portraits/ and a description of my appointment here: https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/03/national-academies-of-sciences-engineering-and-medicine-name-inaugural-artist-in-residence

A week or so ago, I was leading a photo trip in Greenland when I received a message from AncientWalrus (whom I don’t know) asking if I was being paid to put those portraits up on wikipedia. I said no. Shortly thereafter, he marked my wikipedia page for deletion, questioned whether I had paid people to update my page, and deleted me as the founder of military.com (on the military.com page). He claimed that many of my countless images on wilkipedia were headshots etc put up by a banned editor named Russavia (whom I also don’t know).

1. I am the founder of Military.com — there are countless references to this on the web — including appearances on CNN, news publications, my book etc (I referenced these on the links on the deletion page)

2. I never paid anyone to do anything. Nor do I receive payments for my work. I do all this to give back. To help elevate scientists in society.

3. In the early days, wikimedia was scraping my flickr page for alll the creative commons content. I had nothing do do with selecting or uploading

4. Over the 20 years since I started military.com, I tried to update my wikipedia page to keep it accurate.

Notability:

Notability is a subjective concept. Here is my bio as background: https://www.christophermichel.com/About

There are two elements here: one is whether I am generally notable. The other is proving it.

I am generally well known in the entrepreneurial and photography fields. I am the founder of Military.com, one of the few web 1.0 companies still doing well. We have 10+ million users and help service members access the benefits of service. We were one of the first social networks to reach scale. We continue to be an important source of news and information for the broader military community. I sold the company to Monster.com. I then started Affinity Labs, which did the same for nurses, teachers, police officers, etc. I also sold that company. I also started a venture capital firm called Nautilus Ventures, which made close to 100 investments. I wrote a book about Military benefits published by Simon & Schuster. And my experiences as an entrepreneur were the subject of a book called, The Intelligent Entrepreneur, Published by Holt. I was asked back to Harvard to be their entrepreneur in residence and given an honorary doctorate by Tiffin University.

In 2008, I became a full time photographer and photojournalist. I’ve written for many publications, including Outside Magazine and as a columnist for Proceedings. My photos have been seen by millions and have been used by google as a screensaver, on album covers, magazine covers, front page images in newspapers. I was a Leica Ambassador and teach for the Santa Fe Workshops, Esalen and Natural World Safaris. I’ve been interviewed by many podcasters and my work has been the subject of a number of articles and features. Here’s just one example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901372/Pictures-edge-space-Photographer-riding-U-2-spy-plane-captures-stunning-images-13-miles-Earth.html. I added a bunch more to my deletion page — although I can see now, they don’t want images where my work appears but articles about me. Like this: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/07/22/how-photographer-christopher-michel-makes-stunning-soulful-portraits/ or this https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mesmerizing-photos-of-abandoned-structures-in-the-high-arctic or this https://magazine.caltech.edu/post/national-academies-new-heroes-faculty-portraits or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO_BALVMepM. There are many more. I have exhibited by work but don’t submit for awards (though did receive a 2nd place finish in the wikimedia commons photo of the year — an image that was put on the National Geographic home page. Cmichel67 (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Founder of military.com citation: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB998858467773570917 Cmichel67 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Select Media Interviews:

Accidental Creative Interviews Christopher Michel

Dark Room Podcast with Photographer Christopher Michel

Something Ventured with Chris Michel

Kevin Kelly interviews Chris Michel

CXO Interviews Chris Michel

Long Now Foundation interviews Chris Michel

Christopher Michel Opens the LeWeb Conference

The Enlightened Executive with Chris Michel

Leica Interviews Chris Michel

Om Malik interviews Chris Michel

AFCEA Interview Chris Michel Cmichel67 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these select media interviews qualify as reliable sources per WP:RS. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm clearly not expert at communicating notability for photography - surprising as the appointment with the National Academies I have and qualifications and reputation would seem clear. I'm not a typical photographer as I mostly work to give back and not for galleries etc. It would seem that the business angle might be more straightforward! Cheers Cmichel67 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today on Chris Michel Cmichel67 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed this He [AncientWalrus]] claimed that many of my countless images on wilkipedia were headshots etc put up by a banned editor named Russavia (whom I also don’t know)., Netherzone did. Thank you for clarifying that you are unpaid. This has nothing to do with the potential lack of notability. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just reacting to your comment here, "I'm also finding a ton of images that are professional headshots of him, in his own Commons category, mainly uploaded by a banned editor, Russavia" - sorry if I misunderstood you. Cmichel67 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a comment made by Netherzone, not by me, see this diff [7] AncientWalrus (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Cmichel67 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded below. Netherzone (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My page was never created or edited for payment. I made factual changes to the pages over the years as information changed. Cmichel67 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made all these edits without going through the appropriate pathway for editing with WP:COI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Michel&diff=1036499663&oldid=963970346 You changed wording to sound more flattering, you removed a "citation needed" tag etc. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AncientWalrus, thank for the ping. Yes that was my comment, I had noticed that the editor who created the article, User:Russavia, has been globally blocked for socking. But the real smoking gun that this article was created purely for promotional purposes WP:PROMO, WP:NOT is this:[8]. I have counted over 170 photographs depicting this photographer, many of them are vanity shots. To my mind, this is a sure sign of conflict of interest editing, promotional editing or undisclosed paid editing. Something's not right here. Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That may be the pattern you've observed but it is not happening here. As per last search, there were 11,912 photos that I made on commons. The majority are auto-uploads from my flickr account of images created with a creative commons license. I did not initiate these uploads or review them (and they include personal photos of me and other family and friends). They were done by a wikipedia editor. There are good images and bad, personal and professional images in my flickr. I believe that practice has stopped. For many many years, the only images I'm uploading are very high quality images of notable people -- astronauts, nobel laureates, authors - images I make for free and give away under a commons license for the public good. For example, I just spend the day with Dr Tony Fauci and made his portrait for the National Academies -- and made the photos available to the commons. I do this as a matter of practice. Just a quick search on commons will be illustrative. Versions of all of these are now on the commons and have been used in many entries. Cmichel67 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the big gallery of scientist & engineer portraits that I use for the commons. They are all downloadable and usable with a creative commons attribution license. I do this for free. Cmichel67 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(each thumbnail is a gallery) Cmichel67 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The metadata tells a slightly different story, it states that you hold the copyright - "all rights reserved" along with your name and website. However, it seems someone must have provided your permission for Russavia to upload them under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Netherzone (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the metadata (could have been created in camera) but all of my uploads are licensed creative commons attribution. And also listed that way on Flickr. What happened many years ago with Russavia and other editors is opaque to me - but none of it was done with anything but good intentions. This conversation is seeming intent on punishing me in some way -- rather than trying to help me and the National Academies better contribute to the community. One would think that our serious dedication to providing high quality photography to commons would be easy to observe -- and would be something to praise not create an environment where people who don't understand all the intricacies of wikipedia and are made to feel badly and are punished. Enforcement of rules is important but creating an environment of generosity, kindness, and civility with the big picture in-mind would seem paramount. I'm trying my best! Cmichel67 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmichel67, I totally get that you are here in good faith, and please rest assured that no one is wanting or trying to punish you. The encyclopedia has a labyrinth of guidelines and policies that exist for one main reason (at least IMHO): to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. These "rules" if you will, have been drafted over many years collaboratively by the community thru the process of consensus. Some of those guidelines have to do with notability, and how it is established for biographies of living persons (and other subjects), and some are specific to their field of practice. Some of our policies are in place so that the encyclopedia is not used/deployed in certain ways. Others have to do with what constitutes an independent, secondary, reliable source, and significant coverage therein. And others have to do with COI. If these structures were not in place every single garage band in the world would have a WP article about them, as would every person out there looking for a job would want one, and every single advertising/PR agency would be clambering for a high-profile free advertising platform read by millions. So periodically we analyze the contents of the encyclopedia. That is why the editors in this discussion are scrutinizing the article that was put forth here. Let the AfD process unfold naturally, the community will decide the best path forward. Your input is welcome, but you don't solely get to decide the outcome. I hope that helps...! Netherzone (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing @Netherzone: please take this discussion and the article tagging in good faith. Thanks for your tremendous contribs to Commons over the yeras! We are sometimes harder on contributors than others, out of a desire not to show preference; this is not at all personal, and certainly no reflection on the quality of your work. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Cmichel67 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Cmichel67 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Few if any articles about the individual. The CBC article is a photo of hot air balloons in Egypt, not the subject of the article, just added as an aside. Working photojournalist it appears. No awards won, no articles about his owrk. Heck one of my photos was 7th place in Wiki Loves Monuments a few years back, I'm nowhere near notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are many articles about my work Here and here and here etc. In addition, I'm the founder of Military.com, one of the notable web 1.0 companies still around and the largest military membership organization. Cmichel67 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this will give more context: Bio Cmichel67 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and the Daily mail are not acceptable sources. Daily Mail in particular does not fact check or publishes falsehoods, which actually lowers your brand's credentials. I'd avoid working with them... Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks notable in more than one dimension. A rare case of someone with a prolific Commons portfolio who is notable for something other than photography, but the photography seems notable in its own right. I did a bit of cleanup. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on how Michel passes GNG? Can you provide two sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Or do you think this is not about GNG but rather a specific photographer criterion? The majority of the links provided by Michel very obviously violate one of the 3 requirements which means they ought to not count. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- the subject seems separately GN for founding and selling two companies (primary coverage in non-fiction work, in nyt + wsj, fellowship); for publishing a reference work that was widely reprinted and used in its field; and for photography work which more recently attracted mention by a range of regional or niche outlets (residency, photo communities, news about two separate events/collections). I added a few examples to the article for clarity. – SJ + 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Military. Netherzone (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Cmichel67, I'm wondering if your photographs are held in the permanent collections of any notable museums or national galleries. If there are two or three verifiable notable collections that would count towards WP:NARTIST criteria #4, it would really help. I've also added Visual arts, & Military to the delete sort categories to get some more eyes from those WikiProjects. Netherzone (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Although my photographs have been used in museums as part of exhibitions, they are not part of any permanent collections that I know of. That being said, it's not typical that museums collect the work of photojournalists! There might be some hybrid cases, for example, I just photographed Dr Jennifer Doudna for her official Nobel portrait and have photographed many Nobels and National Academies members whose portraits hang at institutions, like this portrait of Dr Margaret Levi, which hangs at Stanford. Cmichel67 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmichel67, Is there a CV or resumé somewhere online that would list these? It would help to analyze the collections to see if they may be equivalent to notable museums or national galleries. I had a look at your website, but could not find that info there. Netherzone (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, not that I know of. The metric for photojournalist is typically where their images appear. But, I'm different than most other photojournalists in that I give away most of my photography. Cmichel67 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, meets GNG and per the appreciated referencing and explanation of sources by Cmichel167. Someone working on the page can greatly expand it from these, and hopefully Cmichel167 will use his skills at research in editing other Wikipedia articles (but be forewarned, Wikipedia is actually addicting - no joke as Biden would say - so keep that in mind if you do venture out from providing references for your page). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. correction, Cmichel167 has been active on Wikipedia, and of course on commons. My fault for not checking editing history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your insight and help Cmichel67 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please pinpoint the references that in your view demonstrate GNG? There are lots of links and most of them definitely violate at least one of the requirements of a source to count for GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's important to beware that we have someone with a strong COI taking up a lot of space in the discussion. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ARTIST. WP:BEFORE shows a lot of social media, which I think should include the subject's uploads to Flickr. Photographer uploads to FLickr and then uploads to Commons. Zero curation for this collection that includes a very high percentage of selfies. Doesn't really matter if he is on top of a mountain, it is still a selfie. I am not finding in depth discussion on independent reliable sources. Not in any known collections. Working photojournalist. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you use WP:BEFORE correctly here. I think it means that one should do research before nominating, not that for the deletion discussion only the state at the time of nomination matters. I agree that it would be good to collect a list of reliable sources to support the notability claims. The ones I found:
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB998858467773570917 (https://archive.is/2whS8): Christopher Michel, chief executive of the San Francisco company, makes no bones about the fact that the company is a consumer-oriented business.... The quote is the only mention of Michel. Not an in-depth article about Michel.
- https://usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/11/meet-photographer-chris-michel/70151730/ Potentially in-depth podcast
- https://www.thedailybeast.com/capturing-the-extreme-from-deep-space-to-the-north-pole?source=articles&via=rss In-depth profile
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2015/05/28/on-the-edge-of-space-a-photographers-out-of-this-world-selfie-70000-feet-above-the-earth/ (https://archive.is/V5n8w) Single event coverage
All the other links posted by Michel in the discussion above are either niche publications/blogs without clear record of qualifying for reliable, or are not independent, or don't cover Michel in detail. Some of the reliable publications just mention him as author of a picture. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AncientWalrus, while it is not mandatory, it is generally considered best practices for editors to conduct a BEFORE search prior to !voting. I've seen this stated many times in deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone I see. This is confusing because WP:BEFORE is explicitly about nominations not !voting. Thanks for explaining. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I mentioned, many years ago a wikipedia editor used a tool to auto upload thousands of my flickr creative commons images into commons. I had nothing to do with it. For many years, the images have been highly curated and are unique images of people who have had significant impact in society. Cmichel67 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another recent article, if useful: http://www.asee-prism.org/up-close-6/ Cmichel67 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two things 1. On September 19th 2023 you uploaded 16 portraits of Robert Sapolsky so I stand by the observation that the photographs are not curated before being added to the Commons. 2. You seem to be conflating your activities as an editor with the discussion surrounding the notability (by Wikipedia standards) of the photojournalist Christopher Michel. Also, you may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPThe attempt to delete this page is completely uncalled for and unjustified. My read on this is that the attempt to delete the entry on Christopher Michel is an attempt at vandalism. BWJones (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC) — BWJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that BWJones (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Edit request performed by AncientWalrus (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @BWJones it is strange that this is your first edit after a 16 year editing hiatus (before you had only 5 edits [9]) which makes it look like a sleeper account/sock. Who would not edit for 16 years, remember their login details and come back just now? Do you have any conflict of interest to declare? I note that just a few hours ago, an IP made similar allegations on my talk page [10] [11]. Together with the fact that the subject of the article has heavily edited the article and written the majority of words in this deletion discussion leaves me rather confused. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I forgot to mention, there was also this incident today of an IP impersonating an admin and closing the discussion [12].
  
  AncientWalrus (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: BWJones appears to have a conflict of interest. I'm not outing, as BWJones self-declared that they are "Bryan William Jones" here and providing a link to their website here as well where BWJones states Photo above, courtesy of Christopher Michel. (see https://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/about/) which indicates that BWJones knows the subject of the article and may have been canvassed to vote in this AfD. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attempt at finding reliable sources that discuss the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep, but it's thin. The sourcing is OK, IMO, though I just plucked some feathers from the turkey. It's a good idea for the editor to stay away from the article--and after reading their comments here, and the lengthy and spammy list of links I was ready to vote down the article as well. Fortunately the article is better, and better referenced, than I feared, but I think it's also a good idea for the editor/subject to stay away from this AfD. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - mainly per SJ, and generally agree with Drmies. Doesn't look like any rules have been broken, but Christopher is perhaps learning that autobiographers get a heaping dose of scrutiny and cynicism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to note that editor Netherzone has changed their 'delete' to a 'keep' above, occuring after this relisting. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Randy Kryn! Yes, I've changed my !vote based on the excellent improvements to and clean up of the article - it now makes his notability apparent. Netherzone (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG can be shown with sources available including The Washington Post and short piece in USA Today. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hey, the sources that have been uncovered since the start of the AfD are sufficient to meet gng. Jacona (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zubaida Rahman

(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 [13] and [14]. 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 [15]. 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

(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)

(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 [16] ,[17] [18] [19]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)

(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 no consensus‎. Little participation and no agreement after three relists. RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center Tallinn

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

Non-notable business centre. Despite the impressive name, this is just an office complex that happens to be part of the WTC network. As such, it needs to demonstrate notability per GNG, but the sources cited don't come even close to this, and a search finds nothing of substance. I PROD'ded this at NPP, but the author didn't like that, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Estonia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly difficult to find material on. A little dismayed as well at the lack of coverage on World Trade Centers in general. - Indefensible (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I managed to find detailed coverage in this source, while of uncertain reliability, it pointed me to https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raadio-Elektroonika_Tehas#Hoonestu, which describes the redevelopment project, using sources such as https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/50723547/ret-i-arengugrupp-ootab-pilvelohkuja-ehitamise-luba, and I was able to find http://www.estonianart.ee/architecture/the-new-forekspank-%C2%ADacclaimed-bank-architecture/ as well, searching for sources related to Raine Karp. I'm assuming more can be found in Estonian language sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:36, 3 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 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 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

(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 [[20]] 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

(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 [21], 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 [22] 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 [23] [24] [25] [26], 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 [27]. 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)

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 [28] 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 [29] Company site. Non-rs.
Ref 3 [30] Another routine annoucement of formation. It is WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 4 [31] Raw search url is non-rs.404
Ref 5 [32] It is WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 6 [33] This reads like another annoucement from a press-release announcing its formation.
Ref 7 [34] This is an interview with Mark Nam. Its is not independent.
Ref 8 [35] This comes closest to be a real article but it is not independent.
Ref 9 [36] States it a press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [37] 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIL-DTL-5541

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

WP:ROTM military standard without WP:SIGCOV that I could find. The closest I got was an analysis of different materials that may be compliant, but it's less about the standard and more about the materials themselves. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 06:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 06:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 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. 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

(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 [38]), 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 redirect‎ to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. ✗plicit 00:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD, schools are no longer inherently notable as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This article fails WP:NSCHOOL and only primary sources are provided. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOLS. I can not find any relevant WP:SIGCOV. Listings and passing mentions are not enough. The Banner talk 13:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as ATD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.Lankanrhino (talk) 22:29, 20 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

(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)

(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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R/art

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV. The only sources specifically covering it are related to a controversy in late 2022. A bunch of other sources are about art on Reddit in general but only fleetingly mention r/art as one (of very many) places the reader can find that. ― novov (t c) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Internet. ― novov (t c) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reddit. Possibly merge the controversy section with AI art, though I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be worth mentioning there. On reconsidering, I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. There's not a lot of major coverage, but I think what's there is nontrivial enough to justify an article.

Revolutionary girl euclid (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, very well-known subreddit focus on art with 22 million members, if art on Reddit is to have an article at all this would be it. The controversy itself is worth keeping the page and not merging it elsewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 10 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!} 05:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reddit#Subreddits. This could set a precedent on individual subreddits having their own articles but I do not think it has enough standalone notability currently. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, many Reddit sub r/ are notable and a precedent should not be set for considered them for deletion or merging (or picking topic articles off one-by-one, as seems to come up on AfD too often). This one is one of the major r/, known to artists and art historians, and if it gives space to covering a controversy then that only adds to its sources and notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but I'm seeing No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and spin off the AI art section into it's own article. It's easily the most notable thing about this community and would pass a notability check on it's own; the rest can exist within another article. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a search for "r/art AI" and there were 9-10 high quality links on the first page alone. More than notable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the AI art section is so notable then the entire article of this well-known community is notable. Your found sources add to the already adequate sourcing of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 2 October 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!} 03:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belleville, North Dakota

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

I'm finding no evidence that this was anything other than a 4th class post office in someone's house. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Dakota and Geography. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information found, nothing to suggest notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:38, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Trails Publishing

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: Lacking substance is not a reason for deletion. Likewise, it reads like an advertisement is also not a reason for deletion. Both of those are reasons to tag the article for improvement, but you can't justify deletion based on those criteria. Failure to meet WP:GNG is a reason, and you need to focus your reasoning on that. See WP:CORP for specific GNG criteria for companies (which is what this is). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:21, 30 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 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Christianity, Montana, and Oregon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 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!} 03:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only one source appears to provide any kind of SIGCOV whatsoever, and it's just churnalism (Christian Post). Not seeing remotely enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per the above written by Rhododendrites. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as your Delete vote so I've struck your duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know but now I do! Thanks for the notification. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is WP:PROMO, and I don't see any way this article meets WP:NCORP.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

(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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi

(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 2021. PROD removed because it "ran for 37 episodes". Still needs reliable sources though. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This series appeared for 10 years on NHK, Japan's primary public broadcasting station; see WP:NTVNATL, although WP:NTV cited above is not an accepted notability guideline. As noted here and here, I am concerned that there does not appear to have been sufficient WP:BEFORE performed here. Last time I wrote "WP:BEFORE directs us to 'search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.' I understand that this is not practical for all editors, but there is always the option to ask someone (say at the article's talk page, or at WT:JAPAN, etc.) before taking something like this to AfD. In this case we have a nationally-televised series from the 2000s with a double-digit audience share. How did you go about checking for sources?" Pretty much everything I said then also applies here, and I did not receive a reply last time. Dekimasuよ! 05:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More recent sources are easier to find in this case, since the show was mainly broadcast between 2007 and 2009 but the most recent episode was broadcast in 2017. That ranked fifth in the drama category for weekly viewership ratings. An article on that episode from Sports Nippon can be found here. Here is another article on that episode. The book series on which the show is based has sold 20,000,000 copies and the author discusses the TV version here. Dekimasuよ! 05:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two notes above by Dekimasu are convincing. Notable show. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more evaluation of the new sources discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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)

(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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News Watch (Indonesian TV series)

(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 2016. PROD removed because "it ran for 3 years". Still needs reliable sources though DonaldD23 talk to me 03:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Indonesia. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not any evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. Fails GNG, fails NTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacona (talk • contribs) 14:46, September 28, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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

(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

(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 no consensus‎. This is not the first time I've seen this with an "event" type article of this nature, where there is substantial disagreement over whether the references meet the requirements of sustained coverage beyond "breaking news" type material, and at the end of the day no consensus is reached. I might, therefore, encourage some general discussion over that subject and maybe the formulation of some RfC questions on it, to perhaps develop a consensus on what standards the community wishes to set for the inclusion of articles on events, rather than trying to hash out the issue at many individual AfDs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Philadelphia shooting

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pennsylvania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is painfully difficult to find sourcing for one particular mass shooting event in Philly for obvious reasons. That said, I can find nothing that suggests either WP:SUSTAINED or WP:EFFECT for this event, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT as WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another routine shooting, in a city that's become known for such types of crimes. Three people is about what you'd expect from such an event. The last part reads like a memorial, which really isn't suitable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these points address anything in WP:DEL-REASON. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree with The ed17, these are not reasons to justify deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet Sustained,NotNews particularly. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for very obviously passing WP:GNG with lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlets, including The New York Times. Thebiguglyalien, from your posts at WP:ITNC I get that you have far-out views on NOTNEWS, but this isn't it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, current policy does not consider lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlet as a stand-alone reason for inclusion. You also need to satisfy the rest of WP:NEVENT like WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE, etc. This simply does not meet the minimum policy guidelines. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the first bullet point in NEVENT references GNG. And if you really want to go down the persistence road, I've just added a source that looked back on the event one year later. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17, the logical conclusion of your argument is that just about anything ever published in newspapers is worthy of its own article. You can't use primary sources like breaking news to say something meets GNG. If you have an issue with that, then you need to propose a change to WP:GNG, not make a policy-ignoring !vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words into my mouth. WP:GNG is the north star, and that says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis in original). This topic ticks every one of those checkboxes thanks to in-depth coverage from gold-standard reliable sources. WP:SBST gives additional guidance, and there are sources used here that contain coverage which is far more than just routine. (Also, news reports are almost always secondary sources. For something like this, witnesses are the primary sources. See our article on secondary sources and WP:PST.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in WP:RSBREAKING: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, and I apologize for misremembering and therefore overstating the case for them. It doesn't undercut the main thrust of my argument, as the NYT source in particular is one that takes a step back and looks at the wider picture, and I've shown that there has been additional coverage of the shooting well after it happened. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to look again at WP:NEVENT, specifically WP:EVENTCRIT. Yes, WP:GNG is mentioned, but as part of a longer sentence, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline... (emphasis added). I just can't see enduring historical significance in this. Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it? I don't see that in sources. The follow-ups articles you cite are not interpretation[s] of primary source material (emphasis in original) as discussed in WP:PRIMARYNEWS as strong sources for notability; they are adding new primary material about how locals feel about the event a year later. If anything, they show that the impact is localised both geographically and over time which argues against a stand-alone article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS really applies strongly here in that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. There just is not a policy way around the fact that this particular mass-shooting event does not meet the clear policy criteria for inclusion. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it?" I've never seen that guideline applied with that high of a bar, but if you believe that's the case, I look forward to your nominations of many more of Wikipedia's event articles in the near future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you don't like the policy, Ed, but those are literally the examples used in WP:NEVENT. There are many other ways to reach historical significance. If you can explain to me how this particular mass shooting has the historical significance as mentioned in policy, fine. But I can't see it. With the sources presented, it simply cannot pass the policy threshold. Sorry, Last1in (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll agree to disagree then, particularly with how that policy is actually applied in practice. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and The ed17 above. Entry needs a bit of work, but I see no reason for deletion at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. WWGB (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the (very limited) extent that the coverage of this event falls outside a two-day window, it is WP:ROUTINE. As such, it fails WP:NOTNEWS. --JBL (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This fails WP:NOTNEWS. The claim of WP:SUSTAINED coverage is based on two retrospectives in local news sources, resting on brief comments from local traders/residents on how the street/area has "picked up" after the shooting. This seems to be the only/main impact. There's no analysis of why the shooting happened. The shooting's mentioned in the South Street, Philadelphia article. Maybe merge some of the content into that article as an AtD? Rupples (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The ed17's reasons. Bzzzing (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Delete Cant see how a common and generic shooting in America is notable. It fails WP:SUSTAINED and its not really news in the traditional sense, so failing WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:DEL14. ~~It is just another generic example of the gross and blackest evil that is allowed to exist in America, assuming you believe in that sort of thing.~~ scope_creep^Talk 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise, another delete vote from Scope creep on any article I've ever worked on... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not do this? Scope creep, your editorializing in an AfD discussion is entirely inappropriate. Another Believer, please at least try to respect WP:CIVIL; if you don't want editors to cast delete !votes on articles you work on, check to make sure they meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT before you work on them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, spare me the lecture on civility and direct your comment at the editor who clearly enjoys hounding me, calling me a liar, casting aspersions, and voting delete in any article by me brought to AfD. I've had enough, and I've asked Scope creep to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're has been 470 mass shootings in America this year already. I don' see crime articles as being particularly notable, since each event is so generic in terms of its commonality. The same thing happens everywhere all the time. There is very little that differentiates them and the reporting is exactly the same in almost every instance. Ultimately folk on Wikipedia who create these articles are not interested in the special and unique, instead decide to record the mundane and common. Lastly, I never knew this was an article that Another Believer's wrote. But either way, it is just another generic crime article that is exactly the same as all the others. scope_creep^Talk 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:scope creep, don't you look at the page history when evaluating articles for AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I never look at article contribution history, there is no value in it. The first thing I look at is the article content, then the references, then do a WP:BEFORE to see if there is anything else that can support the article. To repeat the message above. I've no interest in Wikipedia of becoming a directory of shooting's or crimes, which it seems to be starting to do. It puzzles me why folk seem to latch onto individual instances of criminal events, as dreadful as they are, and think that somehow that because they are heavily reported that somehow make them notable. It doesn't. All crimes are heavily reported, even when they are identical. At best it makes them instances of a single type of a crime event, that crimologists don't even look at over historical time, never mind historians of crime and its effects. At the end ,we will end up with reams, 10000's of crime articles that are almost identical in there nature, while the real articles, academic articles that examine crime and history of crime don't get written. Instead its this low-hanging fruit. Its junk really. scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the purpose of WP:NEVENT, which no one else seems to read, much less follow. The word, 'and', appears to be of particular difficulty for many editors: have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, is the big one, as echoed in the Background section. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Attempts to explain any of that ends with (at best) a perfunctory 'agree to disagree' as you can see above. Since policy arguments are seen by most closers as no more persuasive than emotional pleas, we are ending up exactly where you say, with many thousands of articles on shock news. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I wish I could just copy-and-paste this for my justification whenever I nominate a non-notable crime article for deletion (there are many more that I would've liked to have nominated, but I try not to clog up AfD). Replace a few words and it also applies to accidents, disasters, "incidents", etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed your view on a couple of "accident" AfDs in July using WP:RAPID as rationale, while admitting they were within the remit of NOTNEWS. My thinking was that if in a year's time nothing much had resulted from or been subsequently reported on the incidents, I'd likely go for delete in a follow up AfD. Brief particulars of this shooting are listed in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, though why such comprehensive listings of these shootings are being maintained is itself questionable. We're already up to 23 separate US mass shooting articles for 2023, which looks like a record year in terms of numbers. This one from 2022 being gang related, suggests little or no political impact, so a year later we no longer need a separate article, the brief note in the list covers the main aspects, but on balance it was acceptable to publish an article on this immediately after the incident. Rupples (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ed's well thought out logic and rebuttals. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. A burst of coverage at the time, then crickets. Only local coverage afterward on the one-year anniversary. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article passes the WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. The case to delete appears rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT for which prove of WP:SUSTAINED is brushed aside. gidonb (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain prove of WP:SUSTAINED, please? Other than two retrospective articles that are more about the community reactions a year later, I couldn't find anything. If you could add your sources, that could sway the conversation. Also, please remember that events have special guidelines under WP:NEVENT that are equally important. Lastly, all but one Delete !vote specifies a policy objection, so could you expand on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT point as well, please? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction illustrates what I just said: The sustained coverage has been identified, yet it is brushed aside. If anyone else wants to support my opinion they are also welcome to it! gidonb (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gidonb, not to mention court proceedings will continue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb, you didn't answer either question, so I'll rephrase: what WP:SUSTAINED sources are you talking about? They aren't on this page, and they aren't in the article. The only ones here are local mentions of the fact that the event happened with no analysis or integration, nor mention of any WP:LASTING impact... or even lasting interest. In fact, the articles themselves explain why this event cannot pass WP:NEVENT (emphasis added in all): Despite last year’s violence, she wasn’t shocked to learn that it had happened. “There’s constant shootings. And it’s like, ‘Oh, there was one only two blocks from us. Oh, this is a carjacking.’” and “family and friends mention it,” he said, “but South Street is still packed every Thursday through Sunday.” and "It slowed down dramatically because the traffic slowed down, but as of now it's picking up to where it used to be," Maverick said. Sarah Cowell from the South Street Headhouse District told FOX 29 no businesses closed as a direct result of the South Street shooting, and 38 new business have opened since 2022. This is the poster child for a terrible crime that, sadly, is simply not notable. I would also still appreciate some sort of explanation of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT assertion. It seems the only people who are providing policy specific are the deletionists (a group in which it is extremely odd to find myself). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that the two sources produced to support SUSTAINED don't cut the mustard. Those two sources are local media reports so don't contribute to notability under WP:GEOSCOPE. For the article to be retained I'd want to see coverage outside Philadelphia. However, User:Another Believer may have a point on the court proceedings, which could feasibly be reported more widely. That's why I'm uncertain as to what's the best course of action at present and have refrained from !voting. Rupples (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You could really see it either way depending on how you interpret guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS. I think it might be more productive to have a community discussion to more clearly define WP:NCRIME on which cases meet on notability and which do not, looking at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 for other examples. Also, it might be worth moving articles such as this over to Wikinews instead. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely support either option, a merge into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 or movement to Wikinews. The subject and sources meet policy for either (or both). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to list (most of the entries there are a single sentence) or move to Wikinews. I agree with WWGB here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like an article in Wikinews would get the level of readership and exposure as one here, based on page views. Don't see much point in merging to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, other than to add the outcome of the court case as the salient facts of the shooting are already mentioned there. A redirect to that article or to South Street, Philadelphia would however be appropriate and is preferable to outright deletion. If the page history is retained, the article could always be 'resurrected' should anything of significance result from the court case. It would maintain the integrity of NOTNEWS/SUSTAINED/GEOSCOPE which in my view this article is not compliant with, notwithstanding it passing GNG on sources. Rupples (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does pageviews really matter that much? The main point is the content lives somewhere across Wiki rather than just being deleted. The main suggestion I gave above was actually to improve WP:NCRIME which is largely useless right now. Once better thresholds are defined, it would become much clearer which articles meet the criteria for inclusion and which do not so that we do not have as many of these split decisions that end in no consensus. For the cases which do not meet, we could simply move the content to Wikinews and then cross-link it on the list page. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Street, Philadelphia or delete. Not convinced by the Keep arguments, none of which have addressed WP:EFFECTS. WP:EVENTCRITERIA asks us to consider whether an event has longstanding or historical impact and the scope of coverage. This has not been demonstrated. Indeed, as User:Last1in has astutely pointed out, the retrospective 1 year anniversary sources lately added to the article imply the opposite. Police presence in the area increased for a few months, then returned to normal. Trade diminished in the aftermath, then recovered. Locals naturally scared to venture out, but confidence has largely returned. In summary, no lasting, significant impact and any temporary impact confined to the immediate neighbourhood, so WP:GEOSCOPE another indicator of notability is not satisfied. That's why I suggest a redirect to South Street, Philadelphia as an AtD — a bit more detail of this incident could be added there, but a full merge would give disproportionate weight to the incident. Also consider WP:DEPTH, yes, sources report the incident but where's the analysis that gives context to the shooting? Failing support for redirect, on policy grounds, it's delete. Rupples (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. AryKun (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the response to my relist, I'm leaving this discussion for another closer to handle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Garrison

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!

(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 [39]. Here's at least two albums that made it to #1 in England [40][41], here's some others that made it onto the charts [42][43][44]

Many received reviews and other coverage in print and television. For our immediate edification we have various AllMusic reviews[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] ... 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

(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 [55] and a memorial thing [56] (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 California Aqueduct. History will remain, so anyone interested in doing a merge will be able to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista Pumping Plant

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

Unsourced since 2018 with no improvement. This plant does not appear to be notable as a separate entity to the California State Water Project, with no in-depth coverage of the plant itself. The only easily accessible thing I could find that comes close is this page on UC Davis' website, but it's not even two paragraphs. Newspapers.com turned up WP:ROTM coverage only. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know that "looks big" is not a basis for keeping an article. Just the same, I'll note that on Google Earth, this thing is big -- about 200' high.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This plant appears in the table at California State Water Project#Pump plants. If no reliable sources turn up to prove notability, that's a good redirect target. Note that only 3 of the other 17 stations have articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 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!} 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~merge~~ to California State Water Project#Pump plants per my comments above.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}<

Merge as recommended by A. B. seems like the best option, not much SIGCOV out there outside of a couple primary sources. This article on proquest is the best I found and could help add a line or two of context to the destination section. [57] —siro χ o 03:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., are you sure about this Merge target? Because it's just a list. I don't see how any other information could be incorporated here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Facepalm) Liz -you're right. Sorry. Redirect.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Following other links on that page, maybe California Aqueduct could be a better merge target. (or California State Water Project § California Aqueduct)? —siro χ o 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to settle on one Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think redirecting to California State Water Project#Pump plants makes sense since it presents information on the plant itself in a more accessible way. If people are interested, it's just one more click to the California Aqueduct for details on the broader project. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California State Water Project#Pump plants seems the most appropriate in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California State Water Project#Pump plants, context makes sense. Bestagon ⬡ 02:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean redirect? There's so little information in the article as-is that I'm not sure what could be ported over to the CSWP article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please read my comment. It makes no sense to Merge to California State Water Project#Pump plants as this section is just a list. How would you Merge article content to a list? Please do not just rubber stamp what other editors have suggested and look at the possible target articles yourself. I'm giving this discussion another relist to see if editors can come up with a realistic suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: https://www.topozone.com/california/kern-ca/locale/buena-vista-pumping-plant/, http://wikimapia.org/11413011/Buena-Vista-Pumping-Plant,https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/SWP-Facilities/San-Joaquin, https://research.engineering.ucdavis.edu/gpa/excavations/buena-vista-excavation/ All our passing mentions or include very little detail. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
California Department of Water Resources	~ Partially	Yes	No	✘ No
Wikimapia	Yes	No	No	✘ No
Topozone	Yes	Yes	No	✘ No
UC Davis Civil & Environmental Engineering	Yes	Yes	~ Partially	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The way the soil shifted during construction is interesting, and so is the seismic study before construction. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @PaulGamerBoy360, Bestagon, Indefensible, Siroxo, and A. B.: Pinging participants to see if we can agree - Per my comment above, I think redirecting (not merging) to California State Water Project#Pump plants makes the most sense. @Eastmain: I went ahead and redid the source table with the sources you added but I do not think there's enough there for GNG.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Water.ca.gov	State government		~	✘ No
Wikimapia		Open wiki		✘ No
Topozone			Database entry	✘ No
Tessa		~ No fact-checking, just a photo		✘ No
Final Design Report	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Final Geologic Report	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	? Unknown
Seismicity Near	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Office Report	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Analysis of Soil			Article is not about the plant but is about the soil more broadly	✘ No
Buena Vista Excavation			~ Short article + only about a very small aspect of the plant	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think we should redirect the page, we don't have sufficient Independent RS with in Depth Coverage. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recommend California Aqueduct as an ideal merge target. It already has the most coverage of this topic outside the current article, and could fit a few more sentences. —siro χ o 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California Aqueduct per Siroxo. California State Water Project#Pump plants is simply a list of pump plants, whereas the Aqueduct article has some prose for context. Also, thank you to TON for the source analysis - I agree that it is accurate and shows that the GNG has not been met. Toadspike (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Changing my recommendation to a REDIRECT to California Aqueduct per others! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. International School

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

Created by a single purpose editor. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks references to support; but allow draft refund if the author wants to continue editing. - Indefensible (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found some very glancing mentions on a database search; nothing that demonstrates sigcov, but a REFUND for the author might allow something to incubate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:05, 20 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)

(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)

(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.

[1] "Nike Phantom Football Boots". Sports Direct. Archived from the original on 31 July 2023. Retrieved 31 July 2023.

[:1-2] "Nike Phantom Luna Elite Firm-Ground Football Boot. Nike UK". Nike.com. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

[1]

[2]