The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metagaming (disambiguation)[edit]

Metagaming (disambiguation) (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)

After the merge of the page specifically about roleplaying, this disambiguation page is now pointless. At best it is WP:ONEOTHER and can be dealt with by a hatnote, but I question if it even rises to that level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disambiguations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The page is under the wrong name as it stands, so it would need to be moved to Metagame (disambiguation), but as nom says WP:ONEOTHER applies at the moment. A month ago some of us started looking at this set of pages in regards to another deletion discussion, and found a lot to clean up. The discussion got...sidetracked. Let's let the cleanup continue first before trying to salvage an unneeded disambig. —siroχo 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Serves zero purpose. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. As a several-times contributor to this page, I agree it is no longer necessary. Llew Mawr (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While !vote count is close, there has been no policy-based rebuttal regarding the lack of significant coverage. Arguments pointing to the content of Wikipedia articles or internal Wikipedia searches are of zero merit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EMY Africa Awards[edit]

EMY Africa 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)

This isn't going to be easy, but I do have the feeling it will be essential to avoid a flood of Ghanaian COI/UPE BLPs. This 'award' is a self-fueling entity, a business venture that publishes a magazine on the back of the award. On top of this core Awards article, we now have new articles being created about 2021 awards winners, 2022 awards winners etc etc. There is no evidence of notability to the awards, no independent oversight or committee and no entity backing them other than the commercial company that runs them for profit. It all has to go. The complete lack of SIGCOV from RS helps make that case. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Ghana. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I created this particular article. I have come to realization that there has been creation of 2021, 2022 awards lists etc. There needs to be a clean up and not a complete overhaul of the whole awards. Over the years, the awards has grown to one the Ghanaian top and notable awards. It has awarded and honoured several notable people in Ghana. It has been covered by all the top news outlets in Ghana also. I would repeat again that it is not about taking the whole award scheme away, I believe it is needs to be cleaned-up. Ampimd (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep a very notable scheme with significant coverage in reliable media Siagoddess (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment It's come up in AfD where individuals have won this "award". Does appear to be self-promotional. I couldn't find much discussing it. I'd ask the Wiki Africa taskforce for assistance perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment A quick search results on Wikipedia as shown here shows the notability of the award scheme as referenced by several notable Africans. Siagoddess (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• weak delete as we have all these pages I really don't know whether we should delete o keep them all: 2019 EMY Africa Awards, 2021 EMY Africa Awards, List of winners of EMY Africa Awards, 2016 EMY Africa Awards, 2017 EMY Africa Awards, 2018 EMY Africa Awards, 2019 EMY Africa Awards, 2020 EMY Africa Awards. If this page is deleted, the remaining ones may lose their relevance. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This looks like clear self-promotion to me. Rhombus (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhombus, can you explain why you tag this article as "self-promotion" ? Siagoddess (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Américo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Así Es (Américo album)[edit]

Así Es (Américo album) (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)

Seems Non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Charsaddian (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Américo: Found no additional coverage. Sources on es:Así es (álbum de Américo) are no good (one's just a discography list and the other's an artist bio with only a passing mention of this album). Note that I don't have access to any Chile/Latin America-specific archives, assuming they exist, so there could be plenty of coverage that just isn't archived where I can see it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Potential keep I am fairly sure this album did receive press coverage to make it worthy enough of an article, but the problem is that these sources are offline and may only be available at Chile's National Library. This album contains probably Americo's most famous song "El embrujo" (the cover of a Peruvian song), and although it was released in 2008, I remember it received some heavy airplay still by 2012. This article on La Tercera only makes a passing mention of "Asi es". "Sus fans suelen seguirlo a todo el país y se saben de memoria su primer disco como solista Américo, Así Es, donde destaca "El Embrujo", su gran éxito" (His fans often track him down all over the country and have memorized his first solo album, Así es, which features his greatest hit "El embrujo"). Another potential source is El Mercurio, but for some time even its search function is behind a paywall I can no longer access it (I used to be a subscriber). This 2016 article also by La Tercera [1] says: "mpartirTras aquel exitoso tándem de discos de Américo, Así es (2008) y A morir (2008), que incluyen los mayores hit del ariqueño -El embrujo, Te vas, o Que levante la mano-, vino el premio mayor: un aplaudido show en Festival de Viña 2010." (After the successful albums of Americo, Así es (2008) and A morir (2008), which include the greatest hits of the Arica man -"El embrujo", "Te vas" or "Que levante la mano"- came his greatest award: a show at Viña del Mar Song Festival 2010). This bio of Americo at Música Popular reads: "En 2007 grabó Así es, donde figuran los singles “El embrujo” (del autor peruano Estanis Mogollón, una de las más escuchadas de ese año) y “Traicionera”, ambos con gran rotación en radios tropicales. [...] Fue en 2008, tras ese éxito reciente de Así es, cuando pasó de ser de una figura a un fenómeno tropical" (In 2007 he recorded Así es, featuring singles "El embrujo" (by Peruvian songwriter Estanis Mogollón, one of the most listened-to songs that year) and "Traicionera", both on heavy rotation at tropical radio stations. [...] It was in 2008, after that recent success of Así es, when [Americo] went from becoming a tropical figure to a phenomenon). --Bedivere (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Américo. I don't necessarily disagree that offline/foreign-language sources may be out there, but even if this album is notable, we have the editorial discretion to cover it "as part of a larger page about a broader topic", as WP:NOPAGE puts it. That's what makes the most sense in this case: we can easily redirect to the singer's article without a substantive loss of information, and the alternative – what NOPAGE describes as "a permanent stub" – isn't desirable for editors or readers. Obviously this calculus would change if someone were actually able to dig up the offline/foreign-language sources discussed above, so if that happens (unlikely but possible), the editor shouldn't hesitate to un-redirect the article and add the additional content. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ross Lazaroo-Hood[edit]

Ross Lazaroo-Hood (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 businessman. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste (diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect Promo. Most coverage of the dapper-looking fellow is about the Clear Water group, I'd perhaps redirect there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oaktree b:, FYI, looks like Clear Water is heading the way of deletion as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Per nom, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. My own WP:BEFORE has returned only a small number of ROTM pieces in which the subject is mentioned in articles/coverage which are substantively about something else. The same thing is evident in the sources within the article (effectively all of which are news/press-releases about the subject's company or the events that company sponsors). While a redirect might sometimes be appropriate, I personally question whether the company is notable either. That all of these related articles (the subject here, his company, and the event his company sponsors) were created by the same (SPA/PAID/COI?) contributor does very little to help... Guliolopez (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Standard professional profile. If sources are found, delete per TNT. I do not think redirect is appropriate for such blatant NPOV violation, as even WP:ATD suggests NPOV is a valid reason for deletion at AFD. —siroχo 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Some passing mentions exists, but I don't see full articles about him.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zubin Dowlaty[edit]

Zubin Dowlaty (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. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste (diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as there's no WP:GNG coverage of him, and it's written promotionally. No problems if anyone wants to move it back to draftspace if they think they can do better. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. I don't see full articles about him. Some of the citations are books that he wrote and others primary.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Mord[edit]

Lord Mord (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:NBOOK, as the 5+ years old note also says. Cswiki has no sources, just a brief plot summary. FromCzech (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The article already seems to have a review from a museum website. Here's another review [2] Here's something from the Czeck literary center [3] There's a bit of coverage in an article in Spanish language from Notimex [4]. This should readily pass WP:NBOOK. —siroχo 10:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't have much experience with book pages and maybe I was too hasty with the deletion nomination, but as it stands the page is in a desperate state and useless. It currently contains less information than the author's page and replacing it with a redirect would be more appropriate; or if it is to remain, it should be draftified. FromCzech (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Miloš Urban. I'm pretty certain someone who knew where to look could write a properly sourced article about this book itself, but as it's so short, probably better to redirect to the author's page until that day comes. Jdcooper (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Miloš Urban. Mccapra (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per the sources demonstrating notability. Additionally, Deletion is not cleanup. It can also be draftified or tagged for improvement. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If not change to redirect, draftify would be reasonable compromise. FromCzech (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felix Omobude[edit]

Felix Omobude (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 religious person. No sourcing in the article, none found in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  All coverage is either interviews or PR pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep -- Per GNG as there are plenty of sources. E.g. [5], [6], [7]. Central and Adams (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note - there appears to be a AFC submission that Whinyharedy arbitrarily redirected to this page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Sources are press releases, what PFN states, interviews with Omobude or what he states so are not independent. I also note the draft was declined four times prior to it being copied into mainspace. S0091 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Per creator and notability. Dannyjade (talk) 7:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC) sock strike Girth Summit _(blether) 10:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]

• Note this is the article's creator. S0091 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete this is among the several non-notable articles created by Dannyjide. Every article is either paid for or an interview. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable independent coverage. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Notifications made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Former President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, a big deal. This doesn't mean he's some sort of Pope of Nigerian Pentecostalism - instead, he was the head of the council of most of the Pentecostal denominations and megachurches.^[1][2]

As a prominent Pentecostal voice, his name comes up in multiple journals on either new African Pentecostal movements or Nigerian politics - Google Scholar results (note: he's not an academic and these aren't his papers; he's in the papers)

Over 100 Google News articles returned.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A. B. the sources you cited are only brief mentions and/or statements by him or PFN. I took a look at the first page of the Google News results and a handful of the Google Scholar results but seeing the same. I also searched ProQuest which had 370+ hits and checked dozens. It's clear he is influential but I haven't found independent secondary in-depth coverage about him. I am happy to reconsider if I am missing something or other sources are presented (ping me). S0091 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as according to the above sources he has scholarly journals coverage including 10 pages in one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per G5. The article's author is a sock of David Eribe, an LTA spammer. If this discussion were not already underway I would have implemented a speedy deletion myself, but since others have taken time to review the content and sources I will merely contribute this !vote. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ordinarily, I'd relist this discussion in hopes of getting more opinions but no editor has participated here since the last relisting so I'll close it now as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Skallas[edit]

Paul Skallas (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 per WP:NAUTHOUR - books are self published and coverage is minimal, and not independent. Page was created following coverage of the subject and his lifestyle teaching in several notable papers including New York Times, The independent and The Spectator. However, reading the articles shows the same text. For instance "Paul Skallas, a 36-year-old technology lawyer and writer, has today picked up antiquity’s torch. He’s an evangelist for wisdom derived from the distant past: like, say, skip the mouthwash." is in both New York Times and Independent. Possibly also in the Spectator but it is paywalled. The coverage is therefore clearly written off a press release, and as such fails in the Independent test and cannot be used for GNG. Thus there is no significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources and subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NAUTHOR Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I have access to the Spectator. Only two sentences are about Skallas, not SIGCOV. The NYT and Independent pieces with identical text were written by the same guy (self-plagiarism). Splice is non-RS, and Protocol (which I'm familiar with) can be so-so. Several writers have shown screenshot evidence of repeated plagiarism by Skallas. Given that these pieces all focus on his online writings, you'd think that a piece of in-depth, neutral coverage would mention that. But none of them do, except Protocol, which does so in passing (and frames it as an "accusation" without evaluating its merits, despite the evidence being public). Regardless of what we think of the general reliability of the sources, these specific sources aren't sufficient to write a proper, neutral, non-puff piece article (WP:RSCONTEXT). We shouldn't apply WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV too mechanistically. Sometimes, coverage can be superficial (non-SIGCOV) regardless of word count. DFlhb (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep (note: changed to Speedy Keep below) - Skallas received a full article profile in The New York Times, the paper of record. He's also heavily featured in an article on Protocol, the tech-focused imprint of Politico, which is listed on Wikipedia as a a generally reliable perennial source. These two citations alone clearly meet the bar of WP:GNG. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The New York Times article is addressed in the nom. statement. Both are addressed by DFIhb. WP:GNG requires multiple significant independent reliable secondary sources, so these two alone would not be enough to meet the bar. That is a misunderstanding of GNG. Also noting, for the record, that you are the page creator. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nomination statement that the "coverage is therefore clearly written off a press release" fails to notice that the New York Times article and article in The Independent were written by the same author. Any shared text between the two says nothing about the WP:INDEPENDENCE of the source. I did not list both of those articles in my keep support, as GNG states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", but the full profile article published in the New York Times must be considered for the subject's notability. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protocol isn't POLITICO [...] We're a standalone company, with our own editorial and business teams (link); they don't inherit Politico's reliability.

The NYT piece is a mere lightly-editorialized interview; it's primary (see footnote (d) of WP:NOR) and not independent, and doesn't count towards GNG. The Protocol piece intersperses an interview with editorial commentary; editorial commentary is independent, but is a primary source for the author's views (see WP:NEWSORG, part of WP:RS), not secondary.

Your reasoning (outlet is generally reliable --> GNG is met) only addresses presumed notability, not the other criteria. I don't think we have any source that meets GNG.

Reasoning from first principles: we shouldn't base an article exclusively on magazine-style profiles, because they share many traits with human interest stories (like focusing primarily on a single aspect, and packaging it into a storytelling narrative, as both the NYT and Protocol pieces do). NPOV can't be met if such sources are the sole basis for an article's notability. DFlhb (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing my vote to Speedy Keep per clause 3 "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."

This AFD nomination is based entirely upon the similarities between the New York Times piece and the article in The Independent. Because of this similarity, the nominator states "The coverage is therefore clearly written off a press release, and as such fails in the Independent test and cannot be used for GNG."

The nomination fails to notice that the two pieces were written by the same author and that the Independent article ends with the words "This article originally appeared in The New York Times". The articles were clearly not written off a press release (which would be quite a claim against The New York Times...).

The nomination provides no other deletion rationale. The nomination is completely erroneous and the article should be speedily kept. The nuanced discussion of the sources in replies here should be brought to a different AFD, if desired.

PK-WIKI (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But a deletion rationale is given. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Additional deletion rationale has also been added by another editor. This is clearly not eligible under speedy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A completely erroneous deletion rationale is given in the nomination. Additional deletion rationale subsequently added in comment threads is irrelevant to the AFD nomination being erroneous. PK-WIKI (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete Mostly because the article right now reads like a short promotional blurb instead of an encyclopedic article. Not entirely sure it meets GNG, but I would consider the NYT and Protocol articles independent coverage. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep came across this when closing AfDs and decided to vote: the nomination is essentially claiming that the New York Times, arguably the most credible journalistic source in the world, is republishing marketing material? That is the single most ridiculous deletion rationale I have ever read, and I'm usually the first to call it out. The reason The Independent and NYT piece are similar is because they were written by the same author. Yes, that probably means they aren't independent sources given that the author was the same and they are published in the same time period, but it also means that two major international papers have found it acceptable to publish said article. That gives it strength not weakens it.
  Was able to view The Spectator bit. Combined with the Protocol one there is sufficient independent coverage in addition to the NYT source, which is of the highest quality and quite obviously not based on a press release. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - not sure the NYT is "the most credible journalistic source" but certainly the refs provided on the article seem to support notability. The duplicate coverage is because those refs share the same author as mentioned above. - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laroi[edit]

Laroi (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 went ahead and PRODed it a while back, and the tag was removed without explanation after a few days. The page of the user who did so would suggest that they may not be entirely neutral about article deletion, especially when it comes to topics that have received little coverage in English media (they were recently blocked for their polemical comments about deletion discussions). This village is only mentioned (that I can find) in a few user generated sources. Its name in Punjabi is not given in any of them, which leaves me unable to attempt to find non-English sources (Wikipedia also does not have a non-English article on it). As much as I dislike further lessening our coverage of the world outside of the Anglosphere, this article is too much of a mess to simply leave in the encyclopedia. Deletion is, of course, not cleanup, but without any reliable sources whatsoever, there is no cleanup that can be done. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Punjab. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and pin down the exact location. A Google satellite image clearly indicates a town. Actually, 2 towns 850m apart. Either town is big enough to be notable. The bigger one is Laroi (ਲਾਰੋਈ), the other is Laroya (ਲਾਰੋਆ). The coordinates (31°34′N 75°38′E) given in our article locate to Laroya, not Laroi. Is Google Maps wrong or our article? I'd say 50-50 either way. This is especially true given transliteration issues between the English and Punjabi languages and between the Latin and Gurmukhi (ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ) scripts. This issue arises sometimes in Indian geography AfDs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Indian Census handbook for Punjab lists two villages named Laroya on the huge village data spreadsheet.[8] The Laroya, Punjab we have an article for is in another part of Punjab. The one at our Laroi article's coordinates is in the town of Bhogpur in the Jalandhar district. The population was 996 in 2011. There's no Laroi listed in the Punjab census data.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Delete, and start looking for a merger target (right now I'm thinking Nadaun, Himachal Pradesh). Completely unreferenced in the article page itself, and if this isn't in Indian language Wikipedias, do we even include it? That being said, this article could be improved, and it could fulfill GNG, but so far, based on it only existing in Maps apps and the Weather Channel outside of Wikipedia, it should be deleted and/or merged. Based on the popularity of The Kid Laroi, it's best to create a disambiguation page for Laroi if the page is kept, with a second entry saying "Laroi, a suburb of Nadaun, Himachal Pradesh". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion here is divided. Is there some sentiment to Merge some content or at least Redirect this page to another target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be open to a merger of article contents, but with it being COMPLETELY unreferenced, and AB's comment from above showing that there is no Laroi which exists at all in Indian Census Data, I have doubts. Since this hasn't met WP:HEY, I'm still going to lean towards Delete. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not this should be Redirected to Arena Rock Recording Company can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Is Next Year: A Brooklyn-Based Compilation[edit]

This Is Next Year: A Brooklyn-Based Compilation (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:NALBUM says : "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." which this one is lacking. The article was created and populated by Mcmeatm which appears to be a public relations effort accouont of Arena Rock Recording Co. based on edit history.

Existance is not a valid reason on its own to have a product (such as an album). An album is not inherently notable Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I corrected the link to the AllMusic review and found this interview piece from Time Out New York, but that's not enough to convince me. Redirect to Arena Rock Recording Company; there might be enough between the two sources to make a small section on that page if anyone wants to, but there's nothing here to merge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source assessment as requested by Liz in relist: interview with those involved in the article subject don't count towards notability. Graywalls (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The target you're suggesting is of highly questionable notability that may not meet WP:NCORP which is being considered for deletion also Graywalls (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, given the AllMusic review and some more stuff I think we can meet WP:GNG:
  1. 216 word review in NYT via proquest: [9],
  2. Pitchfork has about 80 words of sigcov in this article [10], published a few years after the album, which contextualizes the album a bit. A key bit of verifiable info It was bloated with 42 tracks of NYC's finest-- including Interpol, the Walkmen, and French Kicks... Their debuts would all come within a year of the compilation's release.
  3. ~80 word review in Entertainment Weekly: [11].
  4. There's also a couple capsule-style reviews that only have a sentence or two of SIGCOV but could aid in the article. A few words of coverage here [12], a bit from [13]

—siroχo 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment just for all's review: NYT piece they mentioned above is at: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/arts/critic-s-choice-pop-cd-s-sounds-that-affirm-new-york-s-strength.html Graywalls (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to see some assessment of the sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The references noted above, along with AMG's review, are enough to pass muster. This product is notable. (An amusing way to put it; I admit that The Messiah and Sgt. Pepper are products, too, but I never once thought of them in so cynical a fashion.) Chubbles (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I can compromise as a Redirect if that'll avoid a "no consensus" closure. Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Note to closer, the redirect target is itself up for AfD, so a redirect here may and perhaps is likely to result in a delete in practice. Chubbles (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Unfortunately, that AfD failed and closed as no-consensus due to minimal participation :( Graywalls (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assasination of a Hamas member in the West Bank[edit]

Assasination of a Hamas member in the West Bank (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 news item from this past February that lacks an indication of enduring notability. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Article was WP:PRODed (by me) and endorsed, but was dePRODed by the currently-blocked creator. - Eureka Lott 23:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: as the person who endorsed the PROD. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED User:Let'srun 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.★Trekker (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, just like any other article where the only sources are news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT and as an extreme stub. DO NOT REDIRECT, now or in the future, as assassination was misspelled. gidonb (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. The so-called 2nd nomination has more commentary.‎. Courcelles (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Majid Sajadi[edit]

Majid Sajadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO including WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Also violates WP:NOTWEBHOST —siroχo 22:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment there’s also second nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majid Sajadi (2nd nomination) Wikipedian (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kylan Darnell[edit]

Kylan Darnell (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 pageant titleholder, much of the sources used are just gossip sites or mentions in passing. Fails WP:GNG. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Her notability comes more so from her role as a TikTok creator/social media influencer and less from here time as the 2022 Miss Ohio Teen USA. She is the subject of this E! News article Miss Teen USA Here's Where Alabama Rush Queen Kylan Darnell Placed and was intereviewed here by The Teen Magazine [14] but in news that came out today, she has been in Elite Daily [15], that starts off with "Kylan Darnell became known as the “Queen of Bama Rush” after her daily OOTDs went viral on TikTok in August 2022, garnering her tens of millions of views and 500,000 new followers." Also today, she was featured in this story by Tubefilter ([16]) and in USA Today ([17]). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment The sources I have listed above are not yet in the article but can, and should, be included. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing is horrible for a BLP article, but she has notability if the articles that Willthacheerleader18 listed were to be included. Longhornsg (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment here are some more sources I've come across: The New York Observer mentioned here in their article The Ratings are in and Season 2 of TikTok's Alabama Rush Was A Huge Hit, featured in this Yahoo! Sports article Alabama Rush Tok Is Back — Here’s What the Girlies Are Wearing This Year, mentioned in this The US Sun article What is Alabama Rush on TikTok?, profiled in this TickerTV News article The Queen Of Bama Rush: A Year Later, and profiled in this What's Trending article TikTok Creator Kylan Darnell Attracts Criticism For Negative Barbie Review. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, Internet, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, has significant reliable source coverage on the Tik Tiok rush angle. --Mvqr (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG per the sources already provided. User:Let'srun 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per above comments Elttaruuu (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sniper Special Ops[edit]

Sniper Special Ops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Film Link review is the only one there is, Rotten Tomatoes only has it, nothing else (same review used as the one source here). Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep see also for example:

1. https://www.looper.com/279844/the-best-and-worst-steven-seagal-movies/
2. https://theactionelite.com/sniper-special-ops-2016-review/
3. https://tvmag.lefigaro.fr/programme-tv/programme/sniper-special-ops-f152915200
4. https://wizzley.com/the-seagal-report-sniper-special-ops-2016/
5. or in this book

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looper is a trivial few lines, Figaro is a synopsis for a tv guide, the other two don't seem RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looper has.... 3 paragraphs on the film. Le Figaro contains a one-line critical assessment. Etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, so we have one goodish source with Looper. The rest aren't useful. I can't open that Gbook preview from my location due to copyright reasons, so I can't comment. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add the following for example, and even with your count (with which I obviously do not fully agree) you have 2.

1. https://www.mymovies.it/film/2016/sniperforzespeciali/

My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Noonan, John (2016-11-10). "Sniper: Special Ops". FilmInk. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

     The review notes: "Already narratively weak to say the least, with Mosby’s men forced to deal with another mission before they tackle the case of a missing team member, the film really drags when Seagal is on screen. Trapped in a room with a fellow fallen soldier, the Under Siege star appears utterly disinterested with his part in this whole thing; staring off into the middle distance whilst mumbling all his lines. If you have a stockpile of irony stashed away, you may be able to sit through this with enough good favour, but that’s not an admission of approval."

  2. Hayes, David C. (2022). Hard to Watch: The Films of Steven Seagal. Orlando, Florida: BearManor Media. ISBN 978-8-88771-012-0. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "So with a title like Sniper Special Ops, it feels like we can sit down with Steven Seagal and friends and we know what we're getting into. And Sniper Special Ops starts out strong! The very first scene gives us everything we want in an exciting film about a sniper. We've got a special ops team moving into a war-torn village in the desert. There's witty banter and snappy repartee from the troops. We've got large men in desert camo weaving through a village, while Chandler (Seagal) and his spotter watch from 550 - 650 meters away to cover their advance. And twelve-point-five minutes into this film, he abandons that sweet, silenced, long-range dealer of death and as far as I could tell he didn't pick it up again for the entire movie. He stands up, grabs an assault rifle, and proceeds to spray bullets from the rooftop. From 550 - 650 meters away."

  3. Zappoli, Giancarlo (2016-08-05). "In Zona B Movie, Dove la Retorica Non Manca Ma è Accettabile, Si Riconosce Al Film Una Certa Dose Di Coraggio" [In Zona B Movie, Where Rhetoric Is Not Lacking But It Is Acceptable, A Certain Dose Of Courage Is Recognized In The Film] (in Italian). Mymovies.it. Archived from the original on 2016-12-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

     The article notes: "Questa decisione consente di costruire un clima di tensione notevole e di dare allo spettatore, comodamente seduto in poltrona, la sensazione di stare assistendo a un vero scontro. Anche la scelta di procedere successivamente con un montaggio parallelo contribuisce a tenere desta l'attenzione sui due versanti della narrazione. Ovviamente la retorica non manca ma, grazie forse anche alla presenza di due personaggi femminili, viene proposta a livelli accettabili."

     From Google Translate: "This decision makes it possible to build a climate of considerable tension and to give the viewer, comfortably seated in an armchair, the feeling of being witnessing a real battle. Even the choice to proceed later with a parallel editing helps to keep the attention on the two sides of the narrative. Obviously the rhetoric is not lacking but, thanks perhaps also to the presence of two female characters, it is proposed at acceptable levels."

  4. O'Shei, Tim (2016-05-10). ""It Feels Like I Was Part of Something That Was Really Cool." - Amoia's Biggest Role Was on 'How I Met Your Mother'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "And unpredictability. Last week, Amoia’s latest movie, “Sniper: Special Ops,” was released on video. When the film’s producers cast her as the female lead opposite Steven Seagal and Rob Van Dam, they were impressed with the clips from Amoia’s video reel that showed her dropping by rope and firing guns. Except Amoia never had a role where she was swinging on a rope. Nor had she fired a gun. The producers had accidentally received the wrong reel with Amoia’s name attached, so hired her thinking they were getting someone with a different skill set. But Amoia was there, and willing, and shooting was about to begin. So she stayed, learned the lines (and how to shoot a weapon) and kept the job."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sniper: Special Ops to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Houston Scott[edit]

Houston Scott (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 biography article lacks in-depth sources to establish notability. Of the two references here, both are dead links. After searching, I found several sources, but for other people with this same name. The article was created by a new user on 10 April 2011 (their only contribution to Wikipedia), and previously PROD on the same day. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Business, and Virginia. — Karnataka ^talk 19:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - since posting here, a bot rescued the first reference Okay, however the second reference Failed verification. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete only links found are for a Travis Scott, nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete WP:MUSICBIO He is one of 541 million people who have a Twitter account. This article was the only edit by the editor, most likely himself. No real mentions on a Google search. At best, harmonica playing is his hobby, not anything that makes him notable. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FK Partizan Momišići[edit]

FK Partizan Momišići (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable - a one sentence article about a 1996 defunct sports club (mentioned in Tološi Stadium article). After searching, unable to find sources to establish notability. Created on 1 March 2007; was Proposed deletion 25 May 2023 and Deprod on the same day JoeNMLC (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: I sent notifications to: Created by - User talk:Sideshow Bob; Prod - User talk:Chidgk1; Deprod - User talk:Ortizesp. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Did not find any coverage of the subject in either English or Montenegrin. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - no evidence club meets club notability , also unable to find any sources to expand article. Demt1298 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Tredway (Canadian politician)[edit]

William Tredway (Canadian politician) (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)

Local city councillor who does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unremarkable person in an unremarkable office. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable in the absence of sufficient WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about his work to satisfy WP:NPOL #2 — no, "had a school named after him" is not an instant GNG exemption either — but the article isn't showing anything even close to what's required, and I'm just not finding anything close to enough to salvage it on a WP:BEFORE search. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I agree that perhaps this article should have been draftified rather than brought to AFD as, even if it was deleted, it would have been recreated in the near future once the release date occurred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NHL 24[edit]

NHL 24 (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:NGAME and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Ice hockey. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep (or Draft) It's certainly early, but articles are coming out today about the cover athlete and a "full reveal" is scheduled for 2 days from now. It will release in a couple months and will certainly be notable. Every other NHL game has an article. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. This article can come out the same time as the others. It could be a couple of days or up to the start of the NHL season. Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Draftify: Obvious TOOSOON. Articles are coming out about Makar being on the cover, but that doesn't provide substantive coverage to the subject: "Cale Makar will be on the cover of NHL24" says nothing about the subject beyond those nine words, and that isn't even sub-stub material. Ravenswing 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The subject is apparently due to be announced in 2 days, might be worth just sitting on and seeing how the article develops. - Indefensible (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Draftify. Nominated for AfD two hours after creation and one hour after initial media coverage of the cover athlete selection (ESPN, Hockey News, among others). WP:ATD is policy; WP:ATD-I both allows and suggests that new page reviewers can unilaterally draftify before nominating for deletion. The nominator was this page's reviewer, and this AfD just wasted people's time instead. -Socccc (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Draftify per Socccc. - Indefensible (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The game is set to be revealed on August 16th. For some comparison, the reveal trailer for NHL 23 came out on August 25, 2022 and the article was created one day earlier. I don't believe any harm is done in keeping this article for two days. IncompA 00:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It sort of allows to keep a precedence to avoid breaking WP:TOOSOON, even if it's by a day. Drafting with better sources is better than having an article where none exist yet. Conyo14 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Except that that this AfD can't close until several days after the scheduled full reveal date. Rlendog (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There is something called WP:SNOW. It can be applied to drafting something clearly to WP:TOOSOON. Conyo14 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Yes, it might be TOOSOON, but if the game is revealed in a few days, which will be days before this discussion is closed, this article could have plenty of time to establish itself. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would have boldly redirected or sent it to draft space rather than use AFD, as there will almost certainly be enough sourcing for an article by the time this AFD closes after 7 days. Highly doubt this closes anything other than keep. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per IncompA. Despite being TOOSOON when created, there's a good chance the game's official reveal happens before this discussion is even closed. The Kip (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Normally an appropriate WP:TOOSOON, but since the game has now since been announced, there is no practical reason to delete. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Keep Striking my original vote now that the trailer is out. To the nominator, if this happens again, just boldly send it to draft. WP:TOOSOON can allow for a speedy draft if it's necessary. Conyo14 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment; I have now added four sources from reliable sources listed at Wikipedia:VG/S that prove this subjects notability. I haven't expanded the article beyond stub with them, nor do I plan to, but they should be enough to prove that there is in-fact notability to be found here. NegativeMP1 17:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drew Barrymore (SZA Song)[edit]

Drew Barrymore (SZA Song) (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:NSONG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep Coverage here [18], lesser quality sourcing here [19] and [20] Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a good bit of coverage in Ctrl (SZA album) which could be added. And regardless, if this gets kept then it needs to be moved to Drew Barrymore (SZA song) with that lowercase S. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. I am seeing enough music video, live performance, etc. coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that look to warrant a separate article from the album. Heartfox (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Heartfox. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 10:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Heartfox. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My only comment is that a future AFD might be considered in a few months' time to see if coverage is sustained or whether this could be considered a case for WP:BLP1E. But do not immediately renominate this article for AFD2 if you don't care for this closure, please, we don't need an automatic repeat of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oliver Anthony[edit]

Oliver Anthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of sustained notability (WP:SUSTAINED) and lack of evidence of wide public acclaim, even within his subfield of country music, other than that a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.") and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper". Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chai T. Rex (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (Redacted)

  or maybe it's just an unneeded article as of now. Surprisingly that your only other contribution is removing the hate crime part of the Ahmaud Aubrey, which was found true in a court of law. Mighty Midas (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep it to yourself 12. You'll get banned here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The individual in question has the #1 country song on iTunes, almost half a million Instagram followers, and almost 725k TikTok followers, so this artist is past the point of being “gamed by a few buying many copies each”. This page would be a relevant add, as any chart-topping artist should have a Wikipedia page for reference. I doubt anyone could generate this much buzz, gain this many new followers, and have a #1 hit on iTunes erroneously. What a coincidence that all would have to be. AlexJMPR (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

iTunes ranking does not matter. See WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Neither do any of those others, which are also gameable. Do you have something that isn't gameable like concert attendance figures? He's had a concert. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO -

Meets #1:

https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daily Mail is not a reliable source (WP:DAILYMAIL) and shouldn't be used here or in the article.

#1 isn't met as the Billboard article is the only one that has him as half of the topic of the article rather than just background information about the sole stated topic of the other articles, which is one of his songs. That might support the notability of the Rich Men North of Richmond article. They don't support his being notable enough to have his own article separate from the song article, if that's the only thing they've seen fit to write articles about.

It should also be noted that the reason for not redirecting the article to Rich Men North of Richmond was the invalid criteria proposed by the person who closed that discussion of "Right now Oliver Anthony has the top 3 on iTunes all genres, half of the top 10, half of the top 14 and 15 of the top 50. Clearly he’s much more than the song itself, although that also deserves an article. These stats also mean that it’s absurd to suggest, even for a moment, that he’s not notable enough for an article, so I deleted that hatnote." and "There is a separate article for the song, and it’s fairly obvious that this man is not just going to be famous, he is already. It’s time this discussion was closed."

That's invalid because of WP:SUSTAINED as all these events have happened within the past half-week and his fame will last a very short time for all anyone knows (which isn't sufficient to support an article about the artist), use of iTunes as a WP:SINGLEVENDOR, irrelevant psychic predictions of his future fame, and the actual evidence of his notability that doesn't quite meet WP:MUSICBIO being one article by Billboard. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. You are obviously not aligned with his political ideology and this is the sole purpose of you're attempt to have the page removed. You have nothing better to do with your time. 211.170.54.36 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is correct, we don't use political ideology when deciding if a source is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your biases could not be more obvious if you wore them on a t-shirt. Keep. 2601:3C2:8281:9DD0:9C72:D7C4:C8C3:74E3 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Size Large please. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Is nominating this as an AFD a joke? The last time I looked, the subject was absolutely dominating the iTunes all genres chart: #1, #2, #3, 5 in the top 10, 7 in the top 14, 15 in the top 50. And he’s not notable? FFS! Whether this all happened out of nowhere is irrelevant. He is a phenomenon and totally deserves his own article. Please close this discussion now. Boscaswell talk 20:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  iTunes ranking does not matter. See WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No joke, Itunes streams don't matter for notability. You can pay streaming farms to stream your song over and over and the numbers aren't audited, so don't count. Oaktree b (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's the download chart, not streaming. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Same idea, they don't count for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment What matters is if Anthony meets WP:MUSICBIO, not subjective notability measured by popularity on social media or iTunes. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Absolutely ridiculous AFD submission and an even more unbelievably irrational comment from Chai T Rex. It is beyond sad Wikipedia has turned into inflamed individuals hijacking articles with their unfounded bias. Oliver Anthony is all the talk of county music and his notability has already been well established; any true county fan could verify that. Joemama46 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Which criterion or criteria from WP:MUSICBIO are you referring to? If it isn't the WP:SINGLEVENDOR iTunes ranking that explicitly doesn't count but which is the only thing listed in the article, what is it? Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO -

Meets #1:

https://www.billboard.com/lists/oliver-anthony-rich-men-from-north-of-richmond-facts/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-conservative-country-song-1234805701/amp/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna99698

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12405739/amp/Oliver-Anthony-BIBLE-VERSE-Rich-Men-North-Richmond.html AlexJMPR (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be a bit of a waste to have to have to point out that I responded to a comment that seems to be quite similar to this above. Chai T. Rex (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reply on this thread was to CJ-Moki. AlexJMPR (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: Notability seems well supported by a variety of reliable secondary sources (Rolling Stone, Daily News, NBC News, Colorado Springs Gazette) in the article and here (some sources here don't appear in the article, and should be added. Not it!). _signed, Willondon (talk)

Those sources are about one of his songs, which already has an article at Rich Men North of Richmond. While I agree that these may support the notability for that article, they aren't about the artist, mentioning him solely in service of talking about the song.

The exception is that the Colorado Springs Gazette's republishing of a Washington Examiner article also "simply report[s] performance dates" and stats that fail WP:SINGLEVENDOR in addition to talking about the song, which don't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The news articles mentioned on this discussion page and the wiki article discuss the artist and his background, hence why the claims made in the wiki article are justly backed up and cited. You do not get to gatekeep what qualifies as relevant information as it relates to notability within an article. These articles all attest to his notability, with millions of views across many popular streaming platforms; his notability is real and you will loose on denying it. Joemama46 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Clearly meets GNG and SIGCOV per examples above, just because he is new does not mean he is not notable. At this rate, he will continue to gain more notability soon enough as well and likely remain relevant for long enough to meet WP:SUSTAINED, so at most I would say to at least move to a draft for the time being until the article is expanded more with the soufces listed above. Deletion is pointless this early on when he will almost inevitably clearly meet notability standards soon enough. Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak delete Rolling Stone [21] is an ok-ish source, and Billboard [22] is about half a source. We'd need one more solid ref to keep this, but I can't find one. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Draftify It's reasonable to expect he will meet WP:SUSTAINED, but he's not there yet. There is no shortage of outlets covering him at the moment, including The A.V. Club, NBC News, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, so shortage of reliable sources is not the issue. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have no objection to the article existing once notability (of the artist, not just the one song) is met. Chai T. Rex (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. No evidence to suggest he won't remain notable. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - seems to have sufficient notability supported by references such as https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/rich-men-north-richmond-viral-conservative-anthem-rcna99698 which just published today and others within the last week. - Indefensible (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agree, read several articles on him and this song today in NBC, FOX and Axois. Also saw him as a headline on Fox News probably 3 times today, each dedicating several minutes of commentary. 184.14.104.254 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please KEEP this article, as there is a lot of information and interest available about this singer. Julieprus (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Draftify This fellow has been newsworthy for the past couple of weeks, the article needs more time and attention out of the spotlight to craft a well-sourced, balanced article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• You better not delete this man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.3.53 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - His "notability" is heavily astroturfed. Which is sort of a weird paradox as far as Wikipedia goes - Wikipedia shouldn't be used as part of an astroturfing campaign, but if that astroturfing campaign is successful, well, they're actually notable now and should get an article. I am not convinced that this one will stick. Delete for now, but it can come back if it is actually notable later. Right now it just reads like a promotional blurb. HeroofTime55 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  At this point the evidence overwhelmingly shows his going viral was fueled by millions of individuals viewing his content causing social algorithms to show his song to more and more. But even if it was an astroturf job paid for by someone wouldn’t you just make his page with that context ? 2600:1700:78BC:10:C5A5:9945:DC7F:D537 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It would be original research to put that in the article without it being in a reliable external source, so no, it wouldn't just be put in the article. People have done deep dives on this guy, who literally came out of nowhere overnight, and it has every appearance of an (in this case, far right) astroturf job - people manipulating algorithms to exploit certain technology platforms to trick them into thinking it's going viral, until it finally does. For example, the "#1 on iTunes" thing that keeps getting repeated. But there's no real reach on any other platforms to that degree (such as Spotify). Strongly indicative of astroturfing targeting a platform with low standards for weeding out fake usage.

  There's a lot more to the picture, buried a little bit under the surface but not painting a pretty picture, that leads me to hypothesize that this is going to be a "flash in the pan" that people move on from rather quickly. If that turns out true, then there isn't any notability, same as now, when we don't have great sources. If it goes beyond that, then it attains actual notability, and we can go ahead and create the article again, that isn't a problem. But I think leaving it up in the meantime even as a draft is problematic in the context of astroturfing. HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Funny you should mention Spotify, Hero, since Variety have just reported "Anthony’s breakout tune has cracked the top 10 on a much more indicative one, Spotify’s daily USA Top 50." [23] Boscaswell talk 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Do you have anything to actually back up the claim that his viral fame is astroturfed? You cant just give vague reasonings like this, while ironically calling on others to rely on reliable external sources. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, that's PROMO if we support astroturfing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's not a matter of whether or not the astroturfing is successful, but whether or not that astroturfing makes him notable. Even if he is an industry plant, the considerable controversy around Oliver Anthony and his music has made knowledge about him part of the public interest. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge and that includes knowledge of people we find objectionable. Therefore we must keep this article. Flameoguy (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep I was the one who originally tagged the article over concerns of the subject's notability, but I chose not to take to it to an AfD discussion, because as I see it, it will be a waste of time and effort for everyone because the issue is likely to be only temporary. It's true he is now only known for a single song, but iTunes charts show 3 of his songs occupies the top 3 positions, 9 in the top 20, 17 in the top 50. There is also an EP in the album chart. When the Billboard charts come out next week, the situation will likely be different. We see that a tour has been announced, and an album is also likely with notable artists willing to help him on that. While WP:SUSTAINED says that if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual, the indications are that he is likely NOT to stay low-profile. I therefore don't see WP:SUSTAINED as a likely problem. I think the nominator is also wrong in suggesting that the song rose in the chart because it somehow has been "gamed" (or the suggestions of astroturfing by someone else), I've been an observer of the charts (iTunes, Billboard, etc.) for a long time, and the pattern of his charting songs we are seeing now is typical of when someone suddenly comes into focus in the news (e.g. when an artist dies), but also appears to be longer-lasting as far as iTunes is concerned. I do think this is part of something unusual that is happening in right-wing socio-cultural sphere, a sequence of events including the Bud Light boycott, the Sound of Freedom film, Jason Aldean's "Try That in a Small Town", and as such he will likely be the subject of commentary in the future. Hzh (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well, that didn't take long, the commentary on the significance of Oliver Anthony's song together with the Sound of Freedom film and "Try That in a Small Town" from The Washington Post. Hzh (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Draftify: Given the majority of reliable sources and significant coverage is about his song rather than him, and that there is basically no coverage prior to August 13, 2023, this seems to me like a clear case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:TOOSOON. If he's going to be notable in about a week, as some here are arguing, then create the article on him in about a week (or whenever it's clear the topic is notable). ––FormalDude (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It would just be a pointless exercise, since this discussion may not close for at least a week, by which time the situation may be different. I would not have created the article, but, once it's been created, leave it, then just wait and see. The coverage of the song has now spread outside of right-wing press internationally, it's almost guaranteed that there there will be further coverage of the person himself. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - I'm not a fan of his schtick or the morons who started worshipping him last week, but as an attempted ethical voter, my conclusion is that the article is viable. He has been profiled by Rolling Stone and Billboard among others, so he absolutely has reliable coverage as a musician. And if he returns to obscurity next week (cross your fingers), the article will still be viable under WP:NTEMP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - If there was a genuine concern about long term notability this could have been nominated for deletion next week, but given how much coverage this person has received, this is an easy keep decision. Nemov (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: There is significant coverage of Anthony himself, as well as the song, and of course his other songs are now receiving attention. Even if he ends up being a one-hit wonder, he will still be notable. StAnselm (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect to Rich Men North of Richmond. This is the sort of flash-in-the-pan temporary notability that WP:BLP1E was written to cover, especially as it's painfully obvious how much Anthony's notability has been astroturfed. Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Per WP:BLP1E, the required conditions are clearly not all met in this scenario. It has already been well established, both in references shared to this discussion page and the main article page, that Oliver Anthony is actively being covered as a separate and specific individual alongside his viral artistic work in the mainstream media, disqualifying any rationale supporting a merge or redirect under this clause. This coverage is not just for one the release of a single song but also for his many other songs currently on multiple streaming platform's charts. Additionally, his impromptu performance with multi-grammy award winner Jamey Johnson this past weekend in NC also received widespread attention in the media. Your insinuations really show your bias, consider opening your eyes; this is what real engagement looks like and time will prove you wrong on the subject of his notability. I am sorry you disagree with his work and newfound popularity, but attempting to suppress this article due to your evident bias' will not be tolerated. Joemama46 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep. Solid analysis, thank you. I came across this artist through an economics blog - I’ll add the reference :) Joseph stewart (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There's just as much coverage of that guy who did that eurodance parody song that's gone viral this month too. Doesn't mean he's independently notable of the song. The song is notable, but Anthony is not independent of the song. And like Planet of the Bass, people are going to forget about Industry Plant #4380 in two weeks. Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Please spare us of this utter ridiculousness and factually fallacy; the example has nowhere near the broad scope of media coverage or quality thereof that Oliver Anthony has and is continuing to received both as an orgin story and for the numerous examples of viral work topping the music charts. Your doubling down of unjust insinuations further indicates your bias as someone else already stated, it saddens me to see this is what Wikipedia has turned into. 173.219.88.194 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You really don't want people to hear about Oliver Anthony huh? 78.80.44.84 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. If there aren't enough news sources to let people know about him, he's not notable enough to have an article. If there are enough news sources, the article will be kept. Either way, letting people hear about him in the sense of publicizing him isn't the job of Wikipedia. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• KEEP: Absolutly no reason to remove the article as far as I see it. Sure he is a minor figure with relatively small fame from exposure on the internet, but I dont see how this would at all warrant a deletion due to some rule wikipedia has. The criticism laid out in the original. The point about "a few talking heads" from conservative news trying to advertise for him is 100% not true. His music video on youtube blew up and became a viral hit, THEN news outlets (left leaning, right leaning, and moderate) from Fox News to NBC covered the story.

Aside from the political angle, hes a musician and he has gained a lot of notability from that. Hes been covered by Billboard and Rolling Stones in articles and has gotten notable recognition from people within the country music world. Both John Rich and Jamey Johnson have spoken about collaborating with him since his video came out.

"and that a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music, which can be gamed by a few buying many copies each, and so evidence of a large number of actual fans would be necessary to establish notability as far as being an iTunes "chart topper"."

And this is just you making up a scenario without even bothering to attempt to back it up. No reason to take this article down. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's not how this works. It needs to be proven that he is notable, not that he isn't notable. The articles I've seen so far, except for one, have been primarily about his song, not about him, because it's his song that's notable, not him. That definitely supports keeping the article about the song, but not the article about him personally. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You made several points in your original post that hold no real water to them but are pure speculation. Either way its been 10 days still and articles are still being written about him and his song in major publication. Even across the pond his song is topping the charts and there is a BBC article about him. Almost all the articles are about both Oliver Anthony and "Rich Men North of Richmond"Friedbyrd (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. His biographical record is sourced to The Oklahoman, Variety, Taste of Country, the Los Angeles Times, KFDI-FM in Kansas (of all places), American Songwriter, and Billboard, among others. We go by the sources, don’t we? When the media from the East to the West Coast is interested in the biography of the singer at the top of both Spotify and iTunes, per here, he clearly meets WP:NBLP. XavierItzm (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• KEEP. He clearly meets the criteria of having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Evans1982 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Do not delete this seems accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8901:53F0:B801:2E15:7694:5509 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Honestly, Merge to Rich Men North of Richmond, as this is the only coverage in relation to him for the most part. If he gets more viral singles later on, I might change my mind, but I am not a crystal ball and cannot predict that. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I wanted to learn more about Oliver Anthony after hearing his song, "Rich Men North of Richmond." The first place I looked was Wikipedia. Shocked to see they were considering deleting the entry. I understand you all may have rules about what stays and what goes. But for him to have the number one song on iTunes, it seems relevant that he would have an entry on here. If his info wasn't on Wikipedia, I'd just go to another source which I'm fine to do. No skin off my nose. 170.190.198.106 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow iTunes sales counts as evidence of notability (see WP:SINGLEVENDOR). They can be gamed by a few people buying a bunch of copies. Instead, Wikipedia looks for more reliable indicators of notability. His song has received some coverage by some reputable news organizations, so the song is probably notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but the man might not be. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, pretty clearly has sufficient coverage to establish notability at this point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• DELETE. As mentioned above (and as should be understandable) the only real noteworthiness of the article revolves around Rich Men North of Richmond which -- though popular *now* -- is not guaranteed to *always* be popular, nor is Oliver Anthony *guaranteed* to release further music that resonates with an audience on a similar scale. IF (not WHEN, as some have suggested) the man behind the song becomes noteworthy enough to warrant something more in-depth that requires more scouring than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry can manage with a quick Google search (which would then require compiling into an article here about the man), THEN is the time to be discussing another article for the man behind the song rather than simply having an article to cover the song itself.176.10.146.192 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Worth observing that 'seven’ of Anthony’s songs sat at the top of iTunes and one, “Ain’t Gotta Dollar” reached No. 1 on Spotify’s Viral 50 chart, as documented in the article. Therefore any arguments about just one song are pretty ignorant at this point.XavierItzm (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Seven of Anthony's songs are sitting at the top of iTunes now having ridden in on the virality of "Rich Men North of Richmond". Have they been in the charts for very long prior to the success of "Rich Men North of Richmond"? Did they chart at all prior to the viral hit? And will they stay relevant or popular once the hype for "Rich Men North of Richmond" dies down? I apologize if I struck a nerve with anyone about my perspective, but -- last I checked -- this was still an open forum where users could voice their opinions. And seeing users stumbling over themselves to both point at the current popularity of "Rich Men North of Richmond" as evidence that he will stay relevant (something that Anthony has seemingly stated that he had no interest in, nor desire for, in releasing "Rich Men North of Richmond") while simultaneously swarming to defend the popularity of someone whose existence was completely unknown to them a month ago seems -- to me -- a little suspect. 176.10.146.192 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Please do explain how the massive amount of coverage about him not just the song and other successful songs of his don't warrant notability already. Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Kindly view the reply to the comment above this one. Thank you very much and have a good day. 176.10.146.192 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per above and per the number of sources documenting him X-Editor (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Woah! It says in Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process under Competence that someone nominating an article for deletion is expected to have a reasonable degree of competence. But in this case, the nominator has made a total of 144 edits. That doesn’t strike me as being anything near to approaching the level of experience required to show competence.
  

Yet all of the above discussion has resulted from this one inexperienced editor taking it upon his or herself to nominate the article for deletion. Which resulted in the article itself being hit with a massive hatnote about being nominated for deletion.

Conclusion: this discussion merits nothing less than a very Speedy closure. The current situation is an absurdity. Must it be strung out any further? Boscaswell talk 02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations done in good faith with a valid rationale should not be speedily closed because the nominator is new or "inexperienced". If it's clear the discussion is headed nowhere productive (as it kinda seems here), it may be a WP:SNOW close. (See also WP:SK.) SWinxy (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This discussion has been all over the place from the very beginning, even the original user who marked the article for nomination of deletion under the rationale of WP:SUSTAINED recanted their claims about deletion while expressing regret over wishing they had not marked the article to begin with. Open and shut, Speedy Keep. 173.219.88.194 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, I definitely have not expressed regret about that, and I'm quite fine with my having marked the article for a discussion about deletion. The only thing I've said in line with that is that I'm fine with keeping the article if, over the next few weeks, he meets Wikipedia's notability standards. If that happens, that's fine. Chai T. Rex (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is asinine to consider this article for deletion. If nothing else, this is a one-hit wonder, worthy of trivia status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawfus (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unlike you who is a zero hit wonder. Are you mad no one gives a crap about you?? You’re 64.85.217.35 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep. When phenomena such as this happen, there can be valid NOTNEWS concerns to be considered. After all, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to cover everything that is at least vaguely memetic for a brief period. However, I believe that the articles for both Oliver Anthony himself and his "Rich Men North of Richmond" song are quality articles worthy of staying here. Anthony and his songs have enough coverage, notability, and cultural influence to not be deleted, and the Anthony page has a wide selection of sources, 30 citations in total, both local and national. The citations even supply the quotes of what is being cited, which is admirably more detail than I give when I usually cite. Meanwhile, the song's page has 19 citations that skew toward the national press, and even has a passage that dissects and analyzes the specific lyrics. These articles are beyond adequate and are very promising. The articles should be kept because, regardless of if his fame ends tomorrow or is sustained for decades, fact is that his chart success and the coverage about him and his music is prolific, diverse, and stratospheric enough for there to be, in my mind, no viable reason to delete the two articles related to him. The fact that he is not yet signed to any label noteworthy or otherwise, in reference to conventional notability standards for music, does not deter from my previous points.

I believe the nominator Chai T. Rex has brought in an unfortunate bias to his/her request, political and otherwise, and that "a few talking heads and conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public" is a laughable and simplistic understatement beaming with a grumbling those dang conservatives type of hubris; while "a large number of copies of his music were bought without evidence that a large number of actual people bought his music" is a baseless accusation that makes Anthony appear as an inorganic industry plant, which... goes completely against his ethos and why he rose to sudden stardom. How can someone be an industry plant if they are not even a part of the music industry, and even still might not yet be? How can such an explanation accommodate the fact that Anthony had never intended for himself as a musician to reach this level of fame, especially so quickly? Also, why does Rex use so much generalization and even, dare I say, conspiracy theorizing here?

Also, 64.85.217.35: your comment toward Lawfus is a personal attack and is unacceptable here. #64, please see your user talk page if you have not already. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per current news coverage. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 16:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: A little over two hours ago, Anthony entered the UK Singles Chart, thereby satisfying WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Launchballer 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep What in the world. --193.121.16.254 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• There are plenty of articles like this one on Wikipedia. The only reason this one is up for deletion is because of its "controversy." Let it stay, there's worse things out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.134.242 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I think the song is terrible and the guy himself seems unremarkable - but, objectively, he's a present figure now and probably will be for a while, so there's no reason to get rid of the article, especially because it would make the article on the song much more cluttered to include all this info. Also, if it did turn out he was an 'industry plant' (which I doubt even though his political fanbase is annoying), that wouldn't suddenly mean he shouldn't have an article RapescoStapler (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep There are enough sources covering him already for the article to meet the necessary requirements. These come from a wide spectrum of media outlets, casting into doubt the nominator's claim that his notability is being artificially pushed by a small segment. Additionally, many of these sources include a personal focus on him, and not just on the song "Rich Men North of Richmond," serving as the basis for information included in this article that fits better here than in the article for the song. MojaveSummit (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, don’t understand why it should be deleted at all. He is an artist with multiple songs. There are far more esoteric articles on this platform. I believe that those wanting deletion are politically motivated and I’m a left leaner however I strongly believe in the first amendment. Stop trying to silence truth please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.127.18.45 (talk) 01:53, August 20, 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rich Men North of Richmond. All sources talking about him are from a one-week long stretch of time, a clear and present example of WP:BIO1E: he's known for his song, Rich Men North of Richmond, and nothing else. BIO1E is an important exemption to GNG. SWinxy (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the discussion in the media has now moved on to Oliver Anthony's role in right-wing popular culture, e.g. New York Magazine, The Washington Post, so per WP:BIO1E if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. In any case, WP:BIO1E is not appropriate for someone like him, since he is likely not to become known for only one song, because a number of his songs may chart on Billboard (we will know in a few days), and he also has an EP, and there will likely be an album and a tour. It is almost certain that coverage of him will expand to other events. Even if he remains a one-hit wonder, articles for of one-hit wonder artists are common because of their significance in popular culture, especially if he can reach No. 1 in the charts. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Even if the ends up being a one-hit wonder like the Macarana or the Harlem Shake, it definitely has that zeitgeisty important feel to it. Jjazz76 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep There is a lot of sourcing to back up this page. PickleG13 (talk)
• Keep. He is now getting proper WP:SIGCOV pieces on him as a subject (and not just his song), in WP:RS/P type quality sources including: Rolling Stone, Variety, and NME as exmaples. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, he is clearly notable.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of guest characters in video games[edit]

List of guest characters in video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I think this would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's really no practical reason for this list to exist. There is nothing to gain by listing together the cameos in NBA Jam, Lego: The Incredibles, and Dead or Alive 4. There are so many different types of cameos. For example, Sora appearing in a Final Fantasy game is not too unusual given both games are owned by Square Enix. Compare to Freddy Krueger appearing in Mortal Kombat, or Benjamin Franklin in Tony Hawk. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I agree that this is definitely an indiscriminate list, listing guest characters regardless of the game or its notoriety goes against WP:NOTDATABASE - this is more of a job for a directory than Wikipedia. The page violates WP:NOT. Perhaps List of crossovers in video games should also be looked at. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  (Note: I've started a discussion at Talk:List of crossovers in video games#Scope about that article) TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Far too many guest characters, a list that will surely continue to grow over time, to be a practical list. Same with the crossover list. Note that discussion of crossovers and guest characters at the crossover article is reasonable with a few well known examples (Super Smash Bros as a crossover fighter, or guest fighters in the new MK) but not an extensive list.

Masem (t) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Per nom and WP:NOTDATABASE. Conyo14 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t quite understand why this list of guest characters has less reason to exist than the articles listing guest characters from different television shows. There is a whole category (Category:Lists of guest appearances in television) dedicated only to „List of guest characters in [x] series“ articles, which is why I split off this list from the „Guest appearance“ article in the first place. RayanWP (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although a guest appearance by an IRL actor isn't necessarily the same as a video game where it usually boils down to just making a character model and plopping it in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, I see. Then the best course of action might be just to just reverse the split by merging the list back into the video games section of Guest appearance. RayanWP (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can try and argue that case, but if this is closed as delete, that means the list should not exist anywhere within Wikipedia. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:IINFO. Too many entries to maintain, with most of them unverifiable and arbitrary. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keepor merge to Cameo appearance. That article is very bad too, and both need 95% TNT but that cameo article could benefit from a section on video games, with refs to [24], [25] or [26]. The three cited listicles suggest this may meet WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Most of these appearances are beyond a simple cameo, but rather fully playable to the same degree as a non-guest character. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Don't they get media attention for such things? Or is it just passing mention? Any major game series is going to get coverage that includes mention of their cameos. Dream Focus 07:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  They do but it's on a game-by-game basis. There's no reason to list them all together. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per Piotr. We definitely don't need a list like this, but video games warrant a mention in the article on cameos. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maybe the article with make more sense with a narrower scope (e.g. list of guest characters in fighting games). I am unsure about merging content to cameo appearance because guest characters are legitimate playable characters. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom here. Is a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. User:Let'srun 19:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a selective Merge to either Guest appearance#Video games or Cameo appearance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. While I like the idea of the list, as other commenters have said, it's way too broad as a topic. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I just wanted to add that cameo vs. guest appearances can also be varied through Easter egg (media) and the criteria for giving them a proper list appearance in the articles listed by Liz can be boiled down simply to WP:LISTN. My !vote remains the same though and honestly guest appearances in video games should be maintained in their respective "guest" or "game" articles. Conyo14 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete; this list has such an arbitrary and nearly-infinitely-expandable criteria so as to render it virtually unencyclopedic. 2601:204:C901:B740:5068:3FA3:FFAE:B187 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 19:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jamie Lim[edit]

Jamie Lim (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)

Past mayor of Timmins, a town in Ontario with a population of ~41,000. The article is not written neutrally and the only source on the article (not counting the dead link) is just a passing mention. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. At the time this was first created (2005), the notability standard for mayors was "any city of regional prominence gets an automatic inclusion freebie for its mayors regardless of the state of sourcing" — but that's long since been kiboshed, and replaced with having to get the mayor over WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis of her mayoralty. But that's lacking, and this more or less elides any real substance about her mayoralty itself and instead slides into advertorializing ("Where Timmins may have lost out on a very astute, forward-thinking leader, the OFIA benefitted greatly from Ms. Lim's transformational leadership") her later work as CEO of a regional industry organization — but CEOs of organizations also aren't "inherently" notable just for existing either, and still have to show a lot more RS coverage and analysis of their work than has been brought to the table here. This just isn't cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Notability thresholds regarding mayors have changed in the meantime, resulting in this article no longer meeting WP:NPOL. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dakshayani Velayudhan Award[edit]