Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday (time)

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

The article should be deleted as per WP:DICDEF, and converted into a {{Soft redirect}} to the Wiktionary definition. The article's content currently consists of a dictionary definition, and a brief touch upon its usage in learning and language. Sources that could be added are flooded out with things named due to the word, but not about the concept itself. Furthermore, as the article itself states, the concept of "yesterday" in time is abstract, and far too broad for a dedicated article, and could reasonably be discussed in spin-off articles, e.g Yesterday in fiction, Yesterday in philosophy, etc. If this nomination passes, I intend to nominate Tomorrow (time) alongside it, since the same rationale applies with that article as well. I'm not opposed to a potential merger of Yesterday and Tomorrow as an alternative to deletion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all of the 'keep' votes thus far have consisted of some variation of 'not a WP:DICDEF', not based in policy (just saying 'not a DICDEF' without explaining why is not an argument), and not countering the fact that I already mentioned it's only a brief touch on other subjects. I haven't seen anything compelling indicating that this is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT, otherwise I would have withdrawn the nomination at this point. The fact that someone considers the one sentence mention of the hesternal tense 'useful' is not a policy based argument and is purely subjective. (WP:USEFUL). Bandit Heeler (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Mies

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

Sources used are all primary: either interviews quoting him, his profiles on university websites, or even his research articles. His personal website lists multiple media appearances, but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here. The best sources could be this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him. However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him.
The only other things found in a quick WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting: a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases [1] [2] [3] [4], a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar. Nothing close to establishing notability. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one. User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to Keep this article? And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination. With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy Keep here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premalatha Vijayakanth

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

General Secretary of unrepresented party, previously stood for election. Fails WP:NPOL. News coverage seems to primarily be about her husband, and the party in the context of the upcoming election. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-WUAB (Airbus A300B4-203)

[edit]
F-WUAB (Airbus A300B4-203) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable aircraft. All three sources, one of which is unreliable, are just passing mentions and do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no evidence why the 238th aircraft is notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge - This article is new, and I suggest that someone update the article to have more significant coverage or even merge it with the A300B1 in preservation into one article. 14.201.100.184 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve merged the content 14.201.100.184 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've undone it.
    There should be a consensus decision, to my understanding, before things like this are done.
    I undid all three. The page you merged them into just passed AfC as a disambiguation page specifically.
    Also, notes about deletion discussions on articles shouldn't just be removed. Please wait for consensus when there's a discussion about what should happen.
    ((Meanwhile, I know nothing about airplanes, so I have no vote on that matter. Now I'm off to fix the ref names b/c those articles "merging" caused a huge problem.)) OIM20 (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per GNG. Bhivuti45 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College of International Education

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

This article has clearly been created only for the purposes of promoting the organisation. It is clearly not notable - there are no articles online about it I can find. It seems to be largely sourced from the CIE website itself, or unsourced. DansterTheManster (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree. The organization seems completely unimportant in the scheme of things and surely not deserving of an article. Gnilhtrae (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darkstalkers characters

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

Less than a week ago, I merged the contents of this list into Darkstalkers#Characters after condensing it down. However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus.

However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally.

I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past merges, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, "Flying Omelette"?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming no information is being lost, I am not opposed to a merge to Darkstalkers#Characters. CaptainGalaxy 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2: Electric Boogaloo Similar to the last AfD, deletion is not cleanup and there's no particular reason a character list should not exist, as these sorts of articles are VERY well established on Wikipedia. It was shown that the article can certainly stand on its own if improved, as the cast of Darkstalkers is one of the more well-known in video game history. "Overflowing list problem" is a personal opinion and it's impossible to tell whether or not it will be improved, as you are no fortune-teller. That's simply a WP:NOEFFORT argument. If you really want to see it fixed, your time's better spent fixing it than arguing it should be removed. See also WP:BEBOLD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zx your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because "other articles" are established does not mean that one cannot be merged. This not a "No Effort" approach or a lack of "Being Bold", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at "cleanup" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I am not arguing this article should be kept because it's the same as another particular article. I said that this TYPE of article is common, which implies it is typical under Wikipedia policy. Unless you are arguing that all character lists should not exist, which is not really an issue to be decided in a single AfD, but something like RfC. I didn't mean to marginalize the effort you put into the merger, but cutting something down tends to be easier than building it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does feel like the argument fits into a form of OTHERSTUFF, because the argument's being made that similar lists are considered "acceptable" on their own on wikipedia, which is debatable on a case by case basis. And I feel significant effort was done to maintain the reader has an understanding of each character in the context of the franchise. If all the information is retained in the series article as it is in the list, how is any information lost?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This makes the other article too long if put there. Having it separate makes it more readable. Kung Fu Man made the article in October 2008‎. It was far longer through most of its existence. In December 2023, Kung Fu Man reduced it from 84K to 15K. [43] 104 references down to 7. I think some of the referenced information where reliable sources talked about the characters should be included. Also the overview chart showing which games had which notable characters should've been kept. Dream Focus 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the refs appear to have shuffled off to standalone character articles so no information appears to have been lost. — Masem (t) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is only one standalone character article, Morrigan Aensland, the rest are just redirects to here. Kung Fu Man seems to have merged them over here last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_Bonnie_Hood&diff=1154824604&oldid=1154823810 Dream Focus 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given KFM's work on character articles and cleaning up bad sourcing, I trust that these trims and removal of sources followed in line with eliminating sources that barely touched on the subject, along with excessive primary sourcing. This judging from a scan of the ore trimmed version and where sources were used. Masem (t) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will say that I would have objected more to the mergers of the various characters if I knew that the character list was set to be merged too. Moving them all to a list is due weight. Moving them all to the series article is undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an important point that bears a lot of scrutiny. Non-transparently planning to eliminate content via repeated mergers is arguably tendentious editing. You want 'em all gone? Fine: nominate them all. Don't merge them all editorially... and then force a re-merge in AfD so there's very little left. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This, plus many perfectly reliable sources demonstrating WP:LISTN were purged from the character list for some reason and I frankly have no clue why they were removed, with the only thing I can think of being to make the article seem less notable for a deletion or merge. Why purge the character list from HG101, or GamesRadar? It makes no sense; this is literally a list of characters from the game, so it's absolutely relevant. I tried to add a bit back in, but I'm of half a mind to revert the article gutting entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You know, considering that you had just previously took umbrage over the implication that you were applying double standards based on whether an article whose notability is being questioned is one you made or not, I find it kind of distasteful to go around and suggest an editor in good standing is, in essence, intentionally doing harm to the project for nefarious purposes. I don't think it's right to show such offense over that if you do not extend the same level of courtesy to other users. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Policy and guidelines argue against unnecessary splits of material, and the nom demonstrates that a merged article is nowhere close to a size problem where a split would be required. Add that there are no non-primary sources, and that supports including the content in the main article to avoid notability issues with the list. Zxcvbnm's argument amounts to a form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; character lists like this with minimal sourcing are tolerated but I would not consider them widely accepted.Masem (t) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy Keep The topic of "List of X characters" is "X" so as long as Darkstalkers exists List of Darkstalkers characters is not subject to deletion on notability grounds. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, because this is the same topic covered in multiple articles. Now, if things fail V or NOR, that's a different issue, but usually one that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion. More to the point: of all the problems in Wikipedia, who thinks that collapsing character lists into their franchises is in the top 10? Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clemens, not a single thing there addressed my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I suppose. What precise DEL#REASON applies? Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content fork in this case: the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to keep them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how a character list is an impermissible WP:CFORK. It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently an unnecessary fork, and an argument can be further made that it strengthens the body of the series article as a result versus separate from it, and again the dev and reception info would be echoed between the series article and list. It's not a Street Fighter or Guilty Gear situation where we have entry upon entry for many of the characters: Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly "full" games between Darkstalkers/Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If all you want is to merge the articles, why is this a nomination for deletion instead of just a merge request? It seems like doing this at AfD just makes the discussion more stressful. Toughpigs (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Information from the article is still in the series article currently, so "Redirect" is a valid option here. But more importantly is that it was quickly obvious this was going to be a contentious subject. AfD is viable for this sort of discussion, especially compared to how much of a mess merge discussions have become where they stretch months on end before requesting a closer, at least as far as VG project articles go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've just admitted that there is no reason this content is impermissible: No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the content on the list can fit into the main series article just fine without a loss of information; the current series article demonstrates that. Can we not engage in wikilawyering?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering is defined as "Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities". Asking for a basic policy reason when you gave none (besides "it's not necessary", more of a WP:USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrading my keep to speedy keep per #3: no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be deleted. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a merge outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's not about whether the list meets LISTN or not, it's about whether there needs to be a split in the first place. KFM has proven that this list reasonably fits within the Darkstalkers article without disrupting it, so I don't see a need for an unnecessary content fork here. Arguments above have been ignoring the core argument of this AfD, which is about whether or not this split is necessary. NLIST isn't being argued here, that can be established, it's whether or not we really need this article to be separated. Based off what I'm seeing, I don't think a split is necessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being "merged", including removal of numerous WP:RS. It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been "proven" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any cut characters. The only issue I see is that RS were removed, and if that is the case, simply add them back to the article. One or two articles per character (Which seems pretty unlikely) should not bloat the article to a significant extent. This seems like a matter that can be resolved by simple editing, and if the article does in fact achieve significant bloat by adding the sources to its current state, then that can be a separate split discussion. The size is manageable, and further discussion should have been done before a BLAR revert. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: This is what you really want to defend as "fleshed out"? Really? The one with Eventhubs, "FlyingOmelete", and leftover gameguide commentary from past merges?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources really were unreliable, yes - there were a number of blatant blogs that failed WP:USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also deleted many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, "baby out with the bathwater" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist deleted despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did jump in on this during an ongoing effort to clean it up and rework the series article as a whole, a long term effort not unlike those you do. The list was merged less than a weak ago, and had an AfD disrupt things to boot. Stuff like VentureBeat wasn't worked back in *yet*, but it also doesn't say a lot and can be taken down to a sentence. For comparison, the List of generation I Pokémon is being worked on by cogsan, and many of those Pokemon undoubtedly have at least one SIGCOV article somewhere, but one also has to consider the list as a whole. That said it feels like some of this could be ironed out on my talk page instead of muddying this discussion further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a longterm effort at cleanup, gutting and/or blanking this article is the very wrong way to go about it. It should remain untouched, and a new draft created elsewhere until it is ready to replace the existing content. At that point you can start a merge discussion using the draft as evidence. It still doesn't mean deleting this article wholesale is merited at all regardless of how poor quality you think it is right now. Currently there is no replacement for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On one hand, I strongly agree with the nominator that the listification approach can be redundant and often produces poor-quality articles where the subject matter is better canvassed within the primary article. But in the context of this article, editors worked to improve the quality and merge non-notable characters to it, stripping the pretty wide (if highly flawed) sourcing in the purpose. Fighting games also strike me as having appropriate separated character articles because the characters tend to have significant attention as the narrative and gameplay anchor for the games. Although noting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is a commonplace practice of having character lists accompany the article: such as for Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, which originally didn't look too dissimilar to how this used to be honestly. It feels like there's not a settled approach to the future of this that has been exposed by the deletion nomination, and because there is not a self-evident notability issue the direction should be to err on the side of caution. No expert on this stuff though - as stated above there's not a lot of guidance on where the best approach lies for character articles and fictional lists. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ＶＲＸＣＥＳ Offering some food for thought, but I feel a big thing to consider with that comparison is that MK, Street Fighter and KoF also have had 10+ games each to build canon from for their characters. Darkstalkers, as a series has only had two: Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior, story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has done searches for Darkstalkers characters, there's very little sigcov on the cast. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD2.0, we were just debating this article a month ago. I'm relisting the discussion as opinion is split between those editors advocating Keeping the article and those supporting a Merge. One editor states that the nominator is arguing for a Merge, is that accurate? No one is supporting an outright deletion, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The nominator is very clearly arguing for a merge, as they stated "does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article", which is a merge rather than deletion argument. They acknowledge the notability of the cast but nevertheless believe it should be merged as after they cleaned up what they believed to be poor sources, the article became a hollow shell. In its current state, the article could be merged with nothing lost, however, many of the sources they removed are perfectly good, viable SIGCOV and their deletions resulted in a net loss of information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sigcov was removed? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx I'm just going to be blunt, that's hogwash. The issue is WP:NOPAGE: the information in this article can fit neatly inside Darkstalkers#Plot (as it currently does), and the development and reception info is going to be the same for the series as for the list. There's no need for a separate list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, I know claims don't mean much without evidence, so here's proof of the significant sources that are not in this version. As mentioned above, an article on Anakaris was removed, and the significant coverage from Den of Geek is still AWOL for no apparent reason, despite also having a full character list of the original roster and a bit of analysis. The character list from Hardcore Gaming 101 was purged to the aether until I added it back myself. At the time of the AfD the character roster from GamesRadar+ wasn't there either. Some of the articles were truly trivial/unreliable coverage, but yeah - baby with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to ask a dumb question, but wouldn't Den of Geek's article make more sense in the series article given it's reception on, well, the series? As for Anakaris' it is it's entirely about the character's gameplay which would be hard to work in; I mean many characters on List of generation I Pokémon have similar articles, would you argue those should be worked into there as well?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be used for both articles, certainly. I am unsure why it would be disqualified from use in a character list however, as significant coverage is not required to be the focus of the source material. And "entirely about the character's gameplay"... it's perfectly reasonable to use an article about the gameplay as a source. I don't see anywhere in policy that bans such a thing, frankly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. while gameplay coverage from secondary sources should be incorporated into our video game coverage, we don't want to pull gameplay from primary sources like gameplay guides. — Masem (t) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly some confusion here about what WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE actually means. It states that writers should "Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context". It's not a blanket prohibition of anything talking about gameplay, only specifies that guides should not pop up apropos of nothing, like just wanting to write a FAQ for the cool new game that just released. None of the sources I gave are primary; all are secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So, it seems the main argument here is that the article isn't "needed." But on the other hand, I don't see any convincing reasons on why the article shouldn't exist either. In its current state, you can argue that it fits fine in the series article, but I also see WP:POTENTIAL for some expansion. There are some articles discussing some of its characters, such as from Game Rant, The Gamer and GamesRadar. MoonJet (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these sources give at most a sentence of commentary on the characters as a collective, focusing more on giving short snippets towards the individual members. There's not enough in any of these articles to really buff up this one substantially, and I'd argue that your argument as a whole falls under WP: NOPAGE. If it doesn't need to exist and can be better covered at another article, than it should be. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, seeing as Felicia will soon almost surely be merged per AFD result, that will leave Morrigan as the only Darkstalkers character with their own article. Surely there could some discussion on some of the characters merged in there, even though it proved to be not quite enough for their article? Demitri also had has own article, until fairly recently, for example. Keep in mind that WP:LISTN notes that one way to establish notability for lists is to have sources that discuss the set as a group, not the only way. In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a valid split here. You don't. MoonJet (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's enough for a split, maybe, but most of the commentary is very fleeting for the bulk of the characters. There's probably a good chunk for recently merged characters like Felicia and Demitri, but most won't have that, and those chunks can likely be covered in the main Darkstalkers article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [44][45][46][47] Rjjiii (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two articles have already been cited by Moonjet above and the other two suffer from similar reasons as above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Foxx

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

Fails WP:GNG and could not find any additional sources which shows he passes WP:GNG in a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IceChat

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Posted to the wrong daily log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider this a First Relist as the previous one was just to move the discussion to the correct daily log page. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The sources proposed by Jonie148 have not been questioned by others. Sandstein 08:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Radar Volume 2

[edit]
Under the Radar Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG –Davey2010Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

--Jonie148 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there's enough coverage for a short but helpful album entry here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Radar Volume 1

[edit]
Under the Radar Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG –Davey2010Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

--Jonie148 (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there are enough sources for a short but helpful album entry here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors wanting to pursue a Redirect/Merge option can open a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sestre (drag act)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only notable for one event, their Eurovision participation. 92.249.247.173 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Puspa Zakaria

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

The individual in question serves as a government official in a third-level subdivision of Indonesia. The majority of references in her article pertain to her work within her region, lacking significant national coverage as required by WP:BASIC. Additionally, her designation as a lecturer potentially qualifies her as an academic, yet fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACADEMIC. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already part of a bundled nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This reads as an extended family biography, I don't see notability with the sources presented. I can't find any in Gsearch, but there might be more in the native language. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebirah

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

A minor Kaiju from Godzilla. I can't seem to find much on it, barring two book sources I stumbled on (One of which is already cited in the article.) While these are solid, there just isn't much more than that, and thus I don't see enough justifying a split here. I'd personally recommend a redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, its debut film, given that seems to be its biggest role. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Japan. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Several other languages have a separate page for Ebirah, most notably Japaneses, which has a lengthy page with numerous citations. Moreover, a Google book search turns up numerous references to Eibrah in credible sources, including additional information that is not currently found in our article. Ebirah has also appeared in other comic books and media beyond what is listed in our article. Eibrah is having a bit of a moment of late, and if anything is only going to appear even more often going forward. I think rather than deleting this article should actually be updated and expanded --Ash-Gaar (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an article has versions in alternate languages does not mean that it is inherently notable. A recent merge, Charmander, was in more than thirty languages and yet had a unanimous merge consensus. All bar the Japanese article as well are in similar if not worse states than ours. It has some decent dev info in the Japanese article that is certainly better than ours, but I don't think it's enough to justify the article either way given both a complete lack of Reception and the fact the development was not so incredibly well documented that it justifies a separate article on its own, though I am willing to debate that point. In any case, numerous appearances and numerous hits do not contribute to notability either. Most of the book hits I saw were just mentions of the Ebirah movie and associated plot recaps. There's very little in the way of actual commentary on Ebirah in most of those sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. As the article stands, its strictly in-universe content with no real world reference. It can show up a billion times on several google hits mean nothing as the character needs real world relevance outside of the Godzilla series. The characters appearance outside of the film seems to be limited to just showing up in video games, other films, comics etc. Without context, all this can be covered in a paragraph within the film article in a Legacy or influence section after. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, the first film the kaiju appeared in, and the only one in which it had a significant role. Much like in the similar AFD for Manda, simply citing the number of references in the Japanese article is not sufficient when actually looking in-depth at those sources show them to be comprised of a number of official Toho publications, the same book being cited as different sources multiple times, and even a piece or two of fiction. Additionally, the sources are not really being used to support any claim of notability for the creature, but simply providing verification for the plot and production details for the movies that it appeared in. Searching for English sources turns up much of the same kind of sources - reviews, plot summaries, and production details for the films, but nothing showing that Ebirah could be considered notable on its own merits, and not simply covered as part of the articles for the handful of films it appeared in. Rorshacma (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, largely unsourced original research page. Even if it is notable, it would require a full rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep per above. There are no in-depth coverage except usual reviews and plot summary listings. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Channel (British TV channel)

[edit]
The Movie Channel (British TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. I googled it, and found no reliable sources. Avishai11 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you, I definitely had a feeling sources were out there, and the 'redirection=deletion' line certainly fits; just letting the nom know that this isn't getting redlinked anytime soon. Nate • (chatter) 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kell (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Geoff | Who, me? 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Larrea

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

Does not appear to be notable. Avishai11 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonard García

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

The subject made a single appearance for the Dominican Republic national football team a decade ago. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; all I found were passing mentions in both English- and Spanish-language media. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derick Sequeira

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

The subject made a single appearance for the Nicaragua national football team a decade ago. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; all I found were passing mentions in both English- and Spanish-language media. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 note that merely assuming that offline sources exist is not enough; to make a topic verifiable they must be cited (WP:V). A renomination is therefore possible. Sandstein 08:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party of Barbados

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

Party contested one election and received 40 (!) votes, or 0.03%. Needless to say, it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm seeing lots of mentions of the party in a range of different publications, from regional reports to a mention about the boycott of the games, in spite of the low turnout on election day. Think the sourcing is there to keep this one even though they didn't make much of an impact, though reasonable arguments for merging somewhere else might exist. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Rock Entertainment

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

Kept at previous AfD based in part due to conduct of nom, this company does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Zero secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Article has no proper references. Google yielded no additional news. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominated previously at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The "delete" opinions are both more numerous and more convincing. The "keep" opinions make the point that the topic is interesting, but that is not a criterium für inclusion in Wikipedia. Rather, we care about notability, as reflected in substantial coverage (more than passing mentions) in reliable sources, and the "keep" side fails to cite such coverage. Sandstein 08:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pizza Meter

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

This article attempts to show that this is a real, coherent concept, when in fact it's just a single Domino's pizza store owner's post hoc observations synthesized into something supposedly substantial. Citation 2 (available here from 1991) is his very brief (unverified) claim of delivering more pizzas to the White House, CIA, and Pentagon, including ahead of the invasion. Then at cite 1 (here from 1991) the same Domino's owner briefly makes the same claim that late-night deliveries to government offices increased. That's it! Cite 3 is from the unreliable "rec.humor.funny" about the same claim from the same year, cite 4 very briefly mentions the same 1991 reports, and cite 5 is a brief, unreliable anecdote from someone who heard the same factoid on the radio. This is one person's anecdata that got some very brief attention, not a verified or meaningful phenomenon as the article puffs it up to be, and not something notable deserving of a standalone article. People order delivery when they work late, so what? Reywas92Talk 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really need to stand up to robust analysis in order to be notable enough for an article? e.g. Waffle House Index, Big Mac Index, etc. Whether a concept is epistemologically sound is not related to its notability. Or, put another way, we have articles for things like Divination and Fortune Telling. We don't delete them just because those things have no supporting evidence for their efficacy. Fredo699 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and verifiability are separate criteria. The nominator isn't basing their deletion rationale on the lack of robust evidence but rather the fact that it's an insignificant "concept" based solely on unverified observations from a single Domino's pizza store owner. Mooonswimmer 00:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I actually saw a video on youtube that referenced the 'pizza index' and came here to get more information. Seems like the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide that exact service. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRohz9VO1YY Tkircher (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's stupid, incorrect videos like this why the article should deleted. It's insane that people are making shit up like "It turns out there's a method to find out [the exact date of an operation]...discovered by Frank Meeks. He knows that Operation Desert Storm is going to commence tomorrow on January 17 due to the spike in late night pizza orders from government offices." Except that's total bullshit, Meeks didn't know anything, he claimed this connection to ordering his pizza retroactively. The original 1991 quote in the Tribune observed there was an increase in deliveries "since the war broke out", not that he predicted it beforehand! Then this amateur youtuber says "This correlation was coined 'The Pizza Index' which also successfully predicted military action ahead of time in many other cases." Wrong! There were no predictions (how could you predict anything beyond a vague 'they must be busy with something'), Meeks only made these claims about the Gulf War after the fact! I am very disappointed how the article presents this as an actual predictive phenomenon rather than a single company owner's anecdotal cherry-picked data and even more disappointed that Depths of Wikipedia posted it, resulting in other people like this running with it as more legitimate than it actually is. Unfortunately it doesn't really work to have an article just to debunk or clarify an urban legend; I'm surprised how poor the article Operations security is, but this deserves no more than a single sentence like "In 1991, an owner of pizza franchises observed that pizza delivery orders to the Pentagon and White House increased at night during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; such relationships can be used in traffic analysis", cited to [52]. Reywas92Talk 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't dismissing "stupid, incorrect" claims like this part of the reason Wikipedia exists? Rewrite the article to tell the true story of how this was mostly a singular event or an urban legend of sorts in the 90s. It's relevant enough to have been covered in the Washington Post too (I found this article with a total of 15 seconds of googling), so I don't think the /relevancy/ of this is in question. The article's presentation of it could be misleading, but clearly this was an actual "thing" in the 90s. —turdastalk - contribs 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not have a stand-alone article on something that has little substance or sourcing beyond a few sentences at a time. With the WaPo article, are you suggesting expanding it into something saying that even government staffers get delivery when they have to work late? Why would that be an encyclopedia article? That has just a brief mention of Domino's having a Pentagon delivery record set during the Gulf War, nothing predictive, nothing substantive – we don't need an article to say a couple hundred people (1-2% of the Pentagon's workforce) had pizza delivered and someone realized later why they were working late. Maybe there should be a bullet in List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States! Reywas92Talk 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it's just about government staffers getting delivery when working late is a reductivist argument. If it really was as uninteresting and mundane of a fact as you claim, then it would never have made news in the first place. Also, this wasn't just a retrospective, it actually was predictive in at least one instance: this Chicago Tribune is dated January 16 1991 and mentions the Dominos guy's prediction from "Tuesday" (January 15, presumably), and the Gulf War's main air campaign began on January 17. —turdastalk - contribs 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something being interesting enough for a newspaper article does not mean it needs a stand-alone article. They're decent fun facts as a sort of Human-interest story but not everything above the mundane is to be included here this way. But seriously, was this pizza index predictive, or did everyone know military action was imminent? January 15 was the UN-imposed deadline for Iraq to withdraw before force was authorized. Just a couple days earlier Congress passed a resolution approving use of force! Troops knew we were on the verge of war! The Pentagon was working late every night that week, but maybe the night before they had ordered from Pizza Hut instead of from the guy who was happy to talk to the media! I admit my comment above was incorrectly dismissive of the timeline, but just because you can draw a connection between things doesn't mean it has encyclopedic significance or should have its own article. Reywas92Talk 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethernet Exchange

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

Outdated, was future-looking when initially written, into a market that failed to materialize. Not a thing in 2024. No inline references, general references are decade+ old marketing materials. WP:PROD nomination of article was contested by Kvng on the basis of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but the article was never notable to begin with (fails WP:SIGCOV, "press releases [...] are not considered independent", WP:SPIP "press releases [...] are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article", WP:SBST "routine news coverage such as press releases [...] is not significant coverage", WP:PRSOURCE "A press release is clearly not an independent source"), so bringing it here for a full AfD. DefaultFree (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Warren

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Articls is just basic resume information.

Of the 4 sources: Two just list him as one of hundreds nominated or finalists for two awards. The third ref does not even mention him. The fourth was two short paragraphs as recipient of the Clinton Grybas Emerging Talent Award. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 2. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Held

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. Of the 4 sources cited on the page, 1 is Ballotpedia, 1 is IMDb, 1 is a NYT article about his daughter that doesn't even mention him, and the other is a press release he sent out. Doesn't seem to have gotten significant news coverage and I don't see any reason to think he's notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this person is a current congressional candidate, this page is all the more important as a source of public information. Lnbknrd1 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" -- WP:NPOL. Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's an encyclopedia of articles about notable people, events, and concepts. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I would also support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 2. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure SAG board membership confers notability. Looking at the current national board, there are plenty of members who have Wikipedia pages, but there are also plenty who don't, including Samantha MacIvor, Eric Wydra, Avis Boone, Diana Boylston, Rik Deskin, Shaan Sharma, and Ilyssa Fradin. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also only had some minor roles, and this article was clearly created in support of his candidacy. If there are sources demonstrating he's a notable actor, I'm willing to review them on those grounds, but I'm not optimistic. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there independent third party mentions about their membership? Cannot find one so why should it matter. But agree with possible recreation after election. Killarnee (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual injuries or survived experiences

[edit]
List of unusual injuries or survived experiences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subjective list with unclear and potentially indiscriminate inclusion criteria.
Firstly, it's not clearly defined what constitutes "unusual" in this context. For example, there's an entry here for a person who survived a leopard attack by fighting off the leopard, which falls rather short of being unique or unprecedented — and while the person in question does have a Wikipedia article, "survived a leopard attack" isn't the reason why he has a Wikipedia article: he has a Wikipedia article because of his work as a biologist and conservationist and taxidermist, while surviving a leopard attack is just one sentence of trivia within it rather than his core notability claim, and is not important enough in the context of his overall biography to warrant being immortalized in a list of "unusual" incidents.
There are also many people listed here who don't have Wikipedia articles at all, many of whom would never get a Wikipedia article on the basis of what's described here in and of itself, as well as several people who are included without any description whatsoever of what even happened, and many who are listed without sourcing.
And without a clear and objective definition of what constitutes "unusual", this could potentially attract an infinite number of unencylopedic entries for anybody who ever gets a hit or two of human-interest coverage in the context of surviving almost any potentially dangerous incident whatsoever — for example, bridges don't collapse every day, so technically the two survivors of the Baltimore bridge collapse just the other day survived an experience "unusual" enough to merit listing here too — which just renders it effectively open-ended and unmaintainable.
This just isn't the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godtube

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

Has been six years since WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous what was the result of your WP:BEFORE searches? If they weren't done, I invite you to withdraw the nomination. Oblivy (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussions and relistings. Merges, if required, can be discussed in the talk page, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TruckersFM

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

Insufficient notability, perhaps merge into a Truck Simulator community section? Apart from unreliable Metro, sources appear to be about a community around the game as a whole. IgelRM (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock (troupe)

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP who made a request at WT:AFD which says: This article needs to be nominated for deletion. It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right. They were known only by association. They released two singles, neither of which charted. Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was This is the only consensus I can discern from this discussion as few editors commented on the other articles. No penalty for future AFDs on this other articles.‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same issues below:

List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EFL Cup broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eredivisie broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EuroLeague broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ligue 1 broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are announcments and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There was no way in which this article was going to survive. I have copied and pasted its content into the main article which means there is now no need for this to be retained. I am only commenting on, and advocating for deletion of, the FIFA CWC broadcast list. Rillington (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte García

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

WP:1E/WP:NOTMEMORIAL, only known because of her murder. As such, this biographical article should not exist, because she wasn't notable enough as a mayor of a small town. Clear WP:GNG fail with attempt at claiming notability based on post-death sources that are all about her death rather than significant coverage about her as a whole. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against, I sure the youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable, though it would be difficult for me to go through spainish media to retrieve it. Here is at least one article before here death.
There are also articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, so not being super notable alive isn't necessarily a cause for deletion.
https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230215/281801403134246 A reasonable voice (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To make my above opinion absolutely clear, I am against deleting the article not retaining the article. A reasonable voice (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure those articles about murder victims dive into the murder itself, not the person.
Also, those articles are just notable because of the murder and/or a celebrity who got murdered or did the murder. This is neither of those things as the page only exists because she died. Also, the "youngest mayor in Ecuador" part is trivia, and not actually something that means much. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable. There is significant coverage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68655323
The One Event rule is not applicable, because there are at least two notable events in in her life — election as mayor and death.
Notmemorial is for persons trying to write about their deceased relatives, not about people who are written about in BBC, Spiegel, Sky news, Reuters, Fox News.
We do not require sources to be published before death. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If her election as mayor was notable, then provide some sources for it.
I think you'd have a hard time doing that as she was a mayor of a small town (her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia). 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000. This is part of a wider spread of assassinations that should be covered on Wikipedia.
The assassination wasn't even the most notable part about her. She was the youngest mayor in Ecuador, a country of 9,000,000 people. Lukt64 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And?
So what if she was the youngest mayor in Ecuador? Are there any reliable sources of her before her death? Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000." - No it's not. The significance and size of towns isn't measured proportional to the size of their parent country, or we'd report every time someone stubbed their toe in the Vatican. I'm definitely ready to be persuaded that Ms Garcia was notable, and I hope to see some sources for that. But the size of her town relative to the country is completely irrelevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lukt64 and BilboBeggins youngest mayor of Ecuador is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Crime. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage (worldwide) with “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention” like here and here. Note it’s not only coverage after her death but also from 2023. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely sure what to do here. We've never held that someone is notable simply because they were a young mayor before - it's nowhere in NPOL and those arguments aren't valid in this discussion. For a small town mayor to be notable, they have to be notable above and beyond just being a mayor. WP:CRIME applies here instead, not WP:NPOL, which I don't usually apply at AfD - that reads The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. I don't think we're quite there yet, but the amount of coverage that was received here means we could get there if this continues to be well-documented. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. If she was so notable from that, then there should be good sourcing for that, but nobody voting keep here has actually provided any sources that are significant coverage from prior to her death about this aledged remarkable achievement. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or move per @LaborHorizontal. No one has yet provided significant coverage of García before her death. Her being the youngest mayor of Ecuador is still purely trivia and should not be treated as an actual encyclopedic fact. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a 2023 Ecuavisa article about García. toweli (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally keep, otherwise move to something like "Assassination of Brigitte García". I understand concerns about most sources being about her assassination rather than other parts of her career. Two things about that: (1) That itself is notable in my opinion, and justifies at least an article about the assassination if not the person herself, and (2) the sources note that she was notable in being the youngest mayor in Ecuador and a leftist challenger. Additional articles about her prior to her assassination:
The Primicias article only has passing mentions of García. Same for the El Diario article (not from Pressreader). The Ecuavisa and El Diario (on Pressreader) articles base her notability solely on the fact that she's the youngest mayor in Ecuador. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if sources note that she was notable for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, that is still trivia. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite clearly passes the WP:GNG threshold and sure could be majorly expanded. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree that Garcia is 1E because her age and assassination would seem to both be of some note, but the former is trivia (do we have an article for the youngest mayor in every country), and the latter could probably use some expansion. Either way, we really could use more information on her actual career. If we agree to keep but expansion does not occur, this article SHOULD be reverted to a draft. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable mayor. I don't see a reason to delete this article, considering that there's an ongoing political crisis. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What arguments do you have to show she is notable and that you "don't see a reason to delete this article"? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It may not be notable for a mayor that no one knew besides the occupants of her city, but according to most sources linked here, she was notable for being a young 27 year old being a mayor in Ecuador where the politicians are usually born in the 1950's and 60's and in some cases 1940's, it isn't surprising that most news articles focus on her. But her murder definitely gave a lot of spotlight since some people may have liked her and was in shock to hear that she was killed likely to an organization or a lone wolf. 70.167.194.163 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is purely trivia, not actually encyclopedic. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Murder of Brigitte García" I agree with others who have pointed out that she is mostly notable for the manner of her death (murdered mayor). She would never have otherwise had a wikipedia article solely for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador. However, the media coverage of the murder itself is clearly significant in the context of the country's political crisis - enough so to merit an article (for examples of other articles about a notable murder itself and not about the murder victim, see Murder of Travis Alexander or Murder of Anita Cobby). Because the murder is far more notable than the murder victim, the existing content should be moved to an article focused on the killing itself. FlipandFlopped ツ 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this result. SportingFlyer T·C 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely an option as well. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this? The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article, only 2 editors seem to oppose this move while another supports a move Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't clear consensus and there's WP:NODEADLINE on Wikipedia, so no need to speedy close this. There's multiple options including moving to "Murder of Brigitte García" on the table, which need to be properly discussed. 3 more days of discussion to achieve a better consensus is sensible right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article! the suggestion to move to "Murder of Brigitte Garcia" is also reasonable. This impressive young woman should be remembered. 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66e has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No. See @Joseph2302's response. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ITN nomination that has been closed because of this AfD and won't be re-opened until this AfD is closed. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The nom is already gone. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion is most certainly not needed. I'd be less surprised to see her nominated at WP:ITN/C than I would at AFD. It's quite clear that consensus exists here - it's no longer necessary to be campaigning. Also pointing out that a nomination is very poor, is by no definition a personal attack! It's clearly a poor nomination, given the very clear consensus, and high participation.Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreeing is fine, calling this AFD the worst nomination I've seen in a long time is not civil, and overly aggressive towards me. Given multiple editors have not voted keep, this is not a ridiculous nomination like you claim. Moving to a "Murder of" article is more sensible than a biography article too, and that warrants discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely civil, and not personal - it's encouragement to withdraw the nomination. Moving the article - which isn't something I've suggested - would be at ATD, and then BEFORE comes into question; but is suggesting BEFORE personal - because surely if what I said is personal - so is that. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greatest reasoning to keep: "should not be deleted at all". 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current Tally:
15 Keep
3 Delete
2 Move
I feel this is sufficient to keep the article, a wide majority of editors are in favor of keeping this article Microplastic Consumer (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure consensus doesn't just work by counting up the number of votes, but also by the quality of the arguments (WP:DCON). A large number of Keep voters don't seem to have an actual argument (besides her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, which is trivia) for keeping that challenges the nominator's concerns. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just counting the voters - but over 5:1 without some kind of off-wiki campaign or something, is hard to dispute. But hang on - the primary argument appears to be significant coverage, not youngest mayor - the youngest mayor argument appears secondary in response to the ONEEVENT claims. Nfitz (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E was the original argument.
Also, even if the argument is SIGCOV, then it's SIGCOV before her death, as it's already obvious that there is SIGCOV at her death. But if SIGCOV cannot be found before her death then I support moving this article to Murder of Brigitte García. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. An admin will make the closure. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not sure why it was even nominated. there is a significance coverage for reliable and independent sources, and I am talking about English sources without mentioning the plethora of non-English sources. whether you want to discuss a move or not, that should be done separately. But as far as Wikipedia notability, she is notable and deserve to be included. Can someone include her picture in the infobox, as she is dead it can be used under fair use.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What arguments do you have to consider her notable? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jalapeño, you've responded to practically every individual !vote here, some of them several times. This is excessive and approaching WP:BLUDGEON. It's not actually required that sources demonstrating someone's notability be published before their death, or we'd have a great deal of trouble with a lot of historical figures. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Grimaldi

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

This person is clearly a very prolific mastering engineer, but notability is not inherited. I don't think its unreasonable to state that "winning" awards by preforming audio work on albums released by other people doesn't count towards WP:MUSICBIO, unless the awards are specifically for audio technicians. This Pro Sound News piece is the only good profile of this guy I could find, and it alone isn't enough to show notability. Mach61 15:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George E. Walker

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

Not independently notable per WP:BIO. Only thing is that he was related to the Bush's which does not qualify. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wright (writer)

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

Autobiography of a poet with no viable claims of notability other than having had poems published. (Note, his one book of poetry, Riverwalkers, was published by the company he founded.) The one link to a review of one his works is a permanently dead link to a Blogspot page. Google searches turn up nothing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61
https://books.google.com/books/about/Riverwalkers.html?id=F02HoAEACAAJ Google Books
Emmy Nomination: The Orphan Mother - Emmy-Nominated Book Promo on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/261493975
Pulse of the Alt-Net: A Conversation with Steve Roggenbuck - The Murfreesboro Pulse
How do I site self-published sales figures that don't qualify for any of the best selling lists but which are so high for a poetry collection that it made my book Riverwalkers probably in the top 5 Best Selling self-published Poetry Books of the 21st Century so far? Over 15,000 copies sold since 2013. I have the sales ledgers from Ingram, WalMart, Barnes & Noble, and Target Online to Prove it. In an open-market capitalist society, sales are the definition of noteworthy. Sorry I didn't buy off the free press like all the Major Publishers do for their "noteworthy" writers. Sorry I don't have "news" stories to cite in Wikipedia.
This article has been active for 9 years with all the same cited information as it has today. That a qualitative an true narrative has bee added about the writers life today hasn't changed the nature of the references that have been active since June 2015. Can you help me understand how this could have gone overlooked for almost 9 years? Geraldine85 (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Yall Dont Remove this Article, yall will be complicit in the spreading of real news. Geraldine85 (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldine85: Your comments raise a few issue:
  1. A link to the vimeo page for a book trailer, claiming that it was "Emmy-nominated" is not sufficient to verify that this film was actually ever nominated for an Emmy. (A link to the actual Emmy's website, listing the nomination, would be better. Note that a Google search for "Orphan Mother" +Emmy comes up empty.)
  2. Even if we can verify that this film was nominated for an Emmy, there is no indication of what Wright's role was in this film, other than "appearing" in it. The article does not claim that Wright was the one who was nominated for the Emmy.
  3. You don't self-cite sales figures. Unless they have been published in a reliable source, they are not useful at Wikipedia. Also, selling a lot of books is not part of the criteria for notable authors at Wikipedia. Significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is.
  4. You write your arguments in the first person. Are you, Geraldine, actually David Wright? This would constitute a significant conflict of interest.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDan! Is Dave Wright even a real person at all? I can't find a birth certificate to verify the bio claims. I have put in a request to the Office of vital Records in Davidson County, TN to see if we can even vet the existence of a Dave Wright.
I'm not convinced. Geraldine85 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDan! Wikipedia has been a primary target for hostile, fake "news" for about 10 years now. It is perhaps the most targeted website on the net. Subsequently, the number of completely fake articles that have made creative and effective use of aggregation techniques, et al, have made Wikipedia the unwitting foe of vetted, historical facts.
Those massive donation campaigns if years past seem to have been used elsewhere than infosec concerns.
So back to my... Dave's... this poet's Page. Created by Dlwright21 9 years ago... Should Can I help you vet?
Where should I begin? Geraldine85 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as keep since sources indicating notability are present, which can be incorporated into the article and can be used for further expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inshorts

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

Re-created article, twice deleted previously for not meeting WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Five references are used to cite the names of three personnel. Five more refer only to to VC funding rounds, leaving three for the actual company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and still doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1977 WFA Cup final. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Staley (English footballer)

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

She fails GNG. Sources in the article do not cover Staley in depth. An archive search only found mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarack Developments Corporation

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

The previous AfD was closed without consensus, and without any improvements since then, still fails notability guidelines, especially NCORP. BEFORE search turned no reliable search at least. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, which would repeat the past result, it would be nice to establish one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final

[edit]
Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The men's Olympic football tournament is an under-23s tournament rather than proper full international. As such, there is no need to have separate articles for every final, unless that much is extraordinary and therefore has exceptional, WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020 men's finals do not achieve sustained coverage, and therefore are just an unnecessary WP:CFORK from the main articles about football at these Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment: What part of WP:CFORK policy indicates these articles are unnecessary? Looking at WP:BADFORK, it seems like only two types of content forks ("Pages of the same type on the same subject" and "Point of view (POV) forks") are considered unacceptable, and this article doesn't fit into either of those categories. On the other hand, it does seem to fit into the WP:GOODFORK criteria of Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections, so that seems like it would be an argument for keeping the article. --Habst (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A selective merge can be done if that's the consensus of this AFD. But creating separate articles for the finals of an under-23s tournament where the main article has almost no text about its matches isn't the correct article setup. the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well. That article is long because it's filled with tables and WP:NOTSTATS violations, whereas prose is what that main article needs, as per MOS:PROSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302, WP:NOTSTATS says that the solution to too many stats is actually to split them out into a separate article, which I believe is contradictory to the premise of this AfD wanting to remove content forks: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Prose can and should certainly be added, and there is definitely enough WP:GNG coverage to summarize, e.g. at [59] and [60]. But adding prose would only make the article longer, which would further necessitate a content fork. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main article needs prose as per MOS:PROSE. Splitting the prose out into the final article instead of in the main article is not correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302, thanks, I do agree with that. Because the main article needs prose and is already quite long, that would necessitate splitting out some sections into content fork articles, so I'll !vote to Keep this article on that merit combined with the above WP:GNG sourcing. --Habst (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - inappropriate bundling, but in any event there appears to be coverage out there. GiantSnowman 19:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets the standards of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. The Olympics, and its football tournament, are also clearly notable events. Anwegmann (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It is exactly the finals from 2008 to now that have received enough attention from the media. In the 70s/80s there is indeed a lack of coverage, but these last four finals have extensive sources in different languages ​​available online. Svartner (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPINOFF. I think the 2008 article needs further fleshing out, but otherwise I think the Olympic finals for the men probably stand on their own as valid spinoffs. Jay eyem (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, it's not a strict U-23 tournament. It does allow for some players of any age or salary to participate on each team. Secondly, deletion was never an option here, as it would be a redirect - so it's a WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD failure. And how does one think there wouldn't be significant coverage? Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Shimer

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

I apologize if this is not a good nomination I don't normally deal with biographies. He doesn't seem that notable based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria , having only published one book and that book does not seem to be that impactful to me. EvilxFish (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thaai Kelavi

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

Non-notable song. Can easily be merged with Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack). Charliehdb (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sivaneswaran

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

Fails GNG and NPOL Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data is correct only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneswarapandian (talk • contribs) 09:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data is correct and accurate. All information are true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F4:102B:A92B:6591:BAC2:2B96:3244 (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that the article is "correct and accurate" is not sufficient. The article doesn't just have to be accurate, it also has to be (a) supported by WP:GNG-worthy referencing that verifies its accuracy, and (b) meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 French-Russian Aerial incident

[edit]
2024 French-Russian Aerial incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects, no sustained coverage – and indeed the very existence of the incident is denied by one of the parties. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:GNG and fails WP:LASTING. The Russian victory stated is very dubious as one party even denies an incident happened. Not particularly noteworthy of an article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "victory" earned by Russia isn't even a victory, the French planes didn't want to be involved in conflict. I would presume the Russians didn't want to do the same because of NATO's Article 5, so a removal of the article probably is best. 70.167.194.163 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ali Busuguma

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

Article about a non-notable politician and lawyer. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO as lawyer. Sources are basically passing mentions of the subject. Per WP:NPOL being a private secretary to a governor does not confer notability. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sutlej

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

Apart from Surjit Singh Gandhi and the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, all the sources are unreliable and have been thoroughly and repeatedly deprecated such as the Suraj Granth (a primary source written in the 1700s) and Macauliffe (a RAJ era source). Harish Dhillon is a self published source; the author was a headmaster/principal of schools which enrolled middle school children-[65] according to his book's acknowledgements. The coverage in both aforementioned sources fails Wikipedia's guidelines for significant coverage by a long shot-[66] as they only include a small paragraph about the battle. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the battle happened, there are not enough reliable sources for it to merit its own article. We can acknowledge the battle by including a sentence in Mughal-Sikh Wars. Ixudi (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical fascism

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

Something of a pro forma nomination: Svejk74 has made a few comments on the talk page going back several years to the effect that this article ought to be deleted, but said that they weren't really sure how to file an AfD. Honestly, it would probably give a better impression of what they've said to just go there and read it, but I will also transcribe it here for convenience.

(April 2020): So, looking closely at this article (which I only noticed as people kept linking it from the Khmer Rouge article): 

   Started by a banned user
   Most references didn't actually support the text
   I'm still not sure that the whole thing isn't just based on a few occurences of the phrase "tropical fascism" in a couple of books; it's certainly not a concept in "African political science" as the article originally tried to make out.

(December 2021): To reiterate my previous points:

- No evidence of this existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective

- None of the references originally cited supported the article

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept.

[in response to a couple of references]

I would be cautious of citing anything published after the creation of this article; academics aren't above picking up phrases from Wikipedia!

I would be interested to see what the two older, Brazilian references say but again I suspect they are more likely discussing the Fascist characteristics of the Brazilian military government; also note the original Wikipedia article referred to Tropical Fascism" as a concept in "African political science" specifically.

- There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR.

(February 2022): - There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR, and dubious, slightly racist OR at that. Are we supposed to believe that there is a distinct variety of Fascism practiced by people living in "tropical" latitudes?

A user appears to be using this article as a soapbox to add various opinions about the Brazilian regime. They might be better addressed at the Brazil page than here.


Personally, I am inclined to agree with Svejk's analysis in this case: it really doesn't seem like this is a distinct concept. It seems like a "very large cake" thing: you can find lots of instances where people use the phrase "very large cake" in newspapers/books, but this doesn't mean that Very large cake should be a Wikipedia article, since it is not a coherent concept. jp×g🗯️ 07:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • JPxG, I look at hundreds of AFDs every week and I don't understand this one. Could you condense all of this into a 2-3 sentence deletion rationale that is posted at the top of the page? I doubt many editors will wade into this wall of text to discern the nuances of your argument. Please be concise if you want to invite editors to participate in this discussion. Just my advice. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, what the fellow said on the talk page: there's not really any evidence that people are using this as a term, rather than as an adjective to describe a noun. jp×g🗯️ 08:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Dias

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

No claim that means WP:GNG. Lecturer status doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; a search doesn't reveal coverage in reliable sources; Google Scholar shows at H-factor of 3, suggesting that there is little output (so far in his academic career) and/or that it has had little impact. Being a partner in a hedge manager with AUM of circa £1 million seems insufficient. Klbrain (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Computing, England, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that he does not satisfy the notability requirements. He satisfies point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. How many academics out there have become managing partners of hedge funds and stayed as academics leading their universities towards industry specific training with distinguished institutions such as Bloomberg L.P.? Giving industry talks at international professional summits while teaching their students simultaneously? As an example, Nick Anstead is also “only” a lecturer and yet there is a page for him because of contributions that he made to the outside world. Similarly Ashley Hickson-Lovence, Sanjay Jain, Paul Melo e Castro and Jeremy Munday. I see Dr Dias even more notable than these given the reach and influence of the hedge fund industry. We need to value our teachers that spend more time transferring knowledge and less time making publications just because they are doing more practical things for the students. He has contributed significantly outside of academia (academia meaning publications, which is what the H index is about) in his academic capacity, which is what the notability requirement is about. The H index is just one of many different ways of reaching notability. I disclose that I do not have a personal relationship with Dr Dias, but I was his student last year. We don’t have any professional or personal relationship since. I consulted with other students and we agreed that a Wikipedia page was warranted in his case. Several parents wanted to know more about Dr Fabio Dias during university talks and the right place for them to find this information is exactly an encyclopedia. Contributor892z 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Assistant professors (or equivalently in the UK, lecturers) usually do not pass WP:PROF and he seems no exception. Weak citation record [67] definitely fails WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. PROF#C7, as argued above, is only for people so famous as being academic experts in some specialty that they are frequently sought after by the media for quotes on stories relating to that specialty, for which we also lack evidence. Keeping one foot in academia and the other in finance is not a notability criterion. Giving talks as an academic is routine and expected, not a notability criterion. The rest of contributor's arguments above reduce to WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t want to leave the impression that I have a conflict of interest on this particular article being published; you can see in my history that I have made other articles too about other academics. Having said that, looks like the only issue with WP:PROF#C7 is that I haven’t presented evidence of him being sought after by national UK media for quotes and opinion as an expert, but I am aware that these exist. I believe WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTIFY apply as the article is still quite new and I may have rushed moving this article to the main space. With enough time, I can find between 5-10 independent and significant examples of national media coverage about the subject, and then send the article back for review. Contributor892z (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If as you claimed earlier you were his student, then you are a student at the same institution and you have an institutional COI, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not anymore, I graduated already. I gain nothing promoting the place I graduated from and, frankly, they don’t need me for that. Contributor892z (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. For certain he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and the current article does not prove other notability -- please not the word prove. We cannot bend the rules for him as this would open floodgates, notability has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in many respects it is Guilty until proven innocent in WP:BLP. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He satisfies points 5 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. In UK-based systems, that have no tenure-track, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is totally different than what it means in US-based systems. Responsabilities matter more titles.Econbrazil (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Econbrazil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
    In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is an entry-level academic position, roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in US-based systems. It is very far from #C5, which is supposed to mean a step beyond ordinary full professors. The UK has full professors. Lecturers are two or three steps below them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on C#5 but that may have just been a career choice. But I am sure that there is material out there that proves C#7 or GNG, I just need time to search. As I said, I don’t gain anything with getting this article published, but I want to have the chance to set things right by moving this article to draft and adding extra evidence when I have time to find it. Contributor892z (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Common_claims_of_significance_or_importance#ACADEMIC states that a non-professor teacher at an institute of higher learning with a reputation in excellence is enough argument to keep the page as those institutions are not known for employing sub-par academics. University of Surrey is a top 90 university in the world for business and economics, higher rank than [[Pennsylvania State University]], in the US. A top 90 world university don’t hire bad academics. So I call here the WP:PTEST. I saw in the article history that Sanjay Jain was proposed for deletion and kept because he was a non-professor at a top university. Same rules should apply here.Econbrazil (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Neither GNG or PROF notability have been established. nf utvol (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found it! I have now added to the article evidence of significant coverage at national level in Brazil. I hope that will settle the case. Contributor892z (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC to be considered sufficiently notable at this time.WmLawson (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, as suggested, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Jacob

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

Founder of a non-notable company. Article has been tagged for improvements since 2019 and is largely unsourced. Subject has appeared on Forbes' "30 under 30" list, but I'm not sure if this is enough for establishing notability. CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tamil films of 1999#October — December. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mudhal Etcharikkai

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Can't find in this source. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scion (comics)

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

Comic series, short-lived (4-years), unreferenced since 2007, my BEFORE failed to find anything useful. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V. If nobody can rescue this, potential redirects targets per WP:ATD-R: [[ Mark Alessi]] (co-creator), CrossGen (publisher). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's the same issue I was running into looking for sources - there are a number of sources discussing CrossGen as a whole, but the only coverage in them on Scion, in specific, was usually only very brief mentions. If not a whole article on the Sigilverse, perhaps expanding CrossGen#Sigilverse to be more than just a list of the titles included in it could work as well? Rorshacma (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominted this on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:03:11:Dziedzic (komiks)). One editor there found a source: [69]/[70] which has a passing mention of this, which I'l quote fully - it is just two sentences, but it has a bit of analysis/reception: One of the most intriguing epic fantasies was CrossGen’s Scion , which began in 2000 and ended abruptly in 2004 with the demise of the publisher. Th e story combines romance and politics, as a prince and princess from opposing dynasties fall in love but also fi ght for the freedom of the “lesser races.”. Perhaps we can save this? Nomnation, passing assessment in SIGCOV but relible source? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe the secondary sources listed here and in the article in total allow to write a reasoable article and therefore fulfill the notability requirements. The Publishers Weekly reviews can complement the relatively brief referenced reception section we already have. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if those editors commenting in this discussion offered their opinion on what should happen to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In order to help build a consensus, I am going to go ahead and recommend a Keep for this current discussion, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion for any potential Mergers. While the sources are still pretty scarce, there is enough that outright Deletion is out of the question, and simply redirecting without some kind of Merge would not really be appropriate. The series might still warrant being merged to a broader topic about CrossGen or the Silverse, as discussed, but that possibility can be decided outside of the current AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Oceania Youth Olympic Games Qualifier (girls' field hockey)

[edit]
2018 Oceania Youth Olympic Games Qualifier (girls' field hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT, no third party coverage and is basically a results listing. Also nominating similar article:

LibStar (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Traditional Chinese marriage. If another target article is preferred, editors can either BE BOLD or start a discussion on the Redirect talk page or WP:RFD Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Chinese wedding

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

The topic might be notable, although my BEFORE fails to find anything. I would not be surprised if sources existed in Chinese, but the linked zh article is even worse than ours, and what we have is an unreferenced WP:OR with a single EL to a defunct website that does not look reliable. There is something a bit better at Chinese pre-wedding customs, where a talk discussion suggests a merge of this was proposed a while back. Lack of references prevents us from doing any merge, so redirecting is the least destructive option if anyone thinks this should be preserved. Anyway, to summarize, notability is not proven and the article fails OR and WP:V. PS. Another valid redirect target would be Traditional Chinese marriage where Chinese wedding redirects currently. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Regent Plaza hotel fire

[edit]
2016 Regent Plaza hotel fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

12 of the 13 sources are all from December 2016. The other source merely confirms the hotel exists. No evidence of lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tamil films of 2008#July–September. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azhaipithazh

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

Cannot find reliable secondary which are needed for articles to exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources#Not reliable -- Filmibeat is unreliable. 2 sources about director dying. Needs 2 reliable reviews -- bharatstudent.com is likely unreliable (no link on Wikipedia). DareshMohan (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Scythe Horror Awards

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

completely and utterly non notable award, created by an LTA (see Caillou Pettis and associated SPI cases, etc...) with no significant or meaningful coverage in actual RS. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's a hoax in the strictest sense, and more likely a thing Caillou Pettis invented by himself and announces "winners" of by himself. The dude's been such a relentlessly self-promoting and self-Wikipedia-inserting wannabe in the past that this is probably just his latest "get myself into Wikipedia by any means possible" scheme. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Christmas crackers, not this Caillou Pettis dude again. As always, awards are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in real media, not self-promotion on social networking or blogs. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Solano, Nueva Vizcaya#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldersgate College

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

Unreferenced since 2008. No notable references from GNews, GSearch and Google News Archives. Alternatively, redirect to Solano,_Nueva_Vizcaya#Education--Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lázaro Reyes

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Several searches, using different keywords, brought up nothing but database pages. Anwegmann (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bryansk drone strikes

[edit]
2024 Bryansk drone strikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely not notable. Randomly one of the many [71] Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil facilities got an article. Merge to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorky Arriagada

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Chilean women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this transactional announcement from a hometown publication and this story on some community service work she did. JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kandala

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Chikomba

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoun Handirisi

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was a pair of sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baxon Gopito

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The Keep arguments aren't strongly policy-based but then neither is the deletion rationale which, to summarize, basically states that Wikipedia doesn't need this article. That's not a strong reason to delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Tendra Spit

[edit]
Battle of the Tendra Spit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I actually didn't know this had happened despite following news on the war. It's definitively interesting. However it's just one of the many Ukrainian landing incursions that have happened in the occupied southern territories. So far these have been covered at Dnieper campaign (2022–present). As you can see by looking at the article there have been many such operations, with some being of a longer and larger extent than this one, and yet they don't have their own article. I think this should be merged there. We can't give an article to every single individual operation of this war. Super Ψ Dro 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Just because there have been many such operations and most do not have their own articles, some of which may be more deserving of one, does not mean that there is anything wrong with an editor singling one out and expanding it into an article. (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) The separate article provides information for the reader at a level of detail not available in the main article, and merging it into the main article would be WP:UNDUE.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthe battle was a separate landing from the Deniper campaign. Also the tendra split is located in the Black Sea. Not the Deniper river Salfanto (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I spelt Dnieper wrong. My bad Salfanto (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move I agree with those above who say that this cannot be adequately covered in any other article. But the current title, "Battle of the Tendra Spit," does not seem to be sourced. While many sources refer to the event taking place as a battle (such as this one), it doesn't seem like any of them are refering to it as "the Battle of the Tendra Spit." Gödel2200 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_25&oldid=1216841240"