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. Bad-faith nomination, WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 13:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahir Bajramoski[edit]

Mahir Bajramoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NMODEL current sources are unreliable and churned press releases. Portuportu2 (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Portuportu2 (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG are met in many of the sources used. For eg. kohanews, express.mk. and others. They appear to be Albanian news-related sources.Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE JavaHurricane 04:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:SOCKSTRIKE also applies to the PAID Nominator since he's been blocked. He was obviously paid to delete the page. Janeiert202 (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator and all other viewpoints expressed are for Keep. (non-admin closure) - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yajaw Teʼ Kʼinich I[edit]

Yajaw Teʼ Kʼinich I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It has one reference to a 2004 book and I found no other references beyond Wikipedia reprints. I don't see historical notability with only one source. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Pretty sure king = WP:NPOL pass. Curbon7 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curbon7 That appears to be a wrong reading. A Mayan king does not count as an elected official. The closest thing we have is the failed proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (royalty). SL93 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It actually is WP:NPOL, as you should note that it doesn't distinct elected office in crit#1. As this king held a national office (as a national leader), it thus passes NPOL. The concept is that, like other WP:NPOL passers, a ruling monarch is inherently encyclopedic and necessary for a completed encyclopedia. (Side note: but it seems like Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) was meant for royal family members and nobles than for monarchs). Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SL93 What the hell? are you kidding me? the ruler or king of a kingdom is automatically notable for all time. If you don't believed me you can ask everyone. VocalIndia (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• VocalIndia Actually, what the hell is wrong with you? There was no reason to be uncivil. I came back to withdraw the nomination only to see this shit. SL93 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 "shit" is very rude to me. Pls be careful your tone. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VocalIndia You didn't. Shit, shit, shit. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WP:STAYCOOL, he's just trolling. Curbon7 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No! It is not a trolling. This is my opinion for all monarchy AfD . You can check my comments on every royalty AfDs. VocalIndia (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this comment because I've noted the king and queen are automatically notable on Wikipedia. I saved many royalty articles from over 100 AfDs. For example case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Seonjeong. Sorry for my sensitive. Btw I'm not a royal fan. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority. per WP:MONARCH . VocalIndia (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep King or ruler is automatically passes WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Datenschlag[edit]

Datenschlag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:WEB. References go back to own website. Imcdc (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article reads like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find significant coverage by Google searching. Fails WP:WEB.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Welch[edit]

Vince Welch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable motorsports pit reporter. No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Fails NBASIC. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not been able to find enough to support the WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST criteria for notability, e.g. NASCAR commentators: NBC and Fox commentary teams for 2021 (Motorsport.com, 2021, 2 sentences), Vince Welch’s Son Following in His Broadcasting Footsteps (FOXSports, press release, 2015), NASCAR on Fox’s Vince Welch Talks at the Track on Trucks and MORE! (WGN Radio, interview, 2018). Beccaynr (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hesitantly leaning delete - In a very basic WP:BEFORE search I was unable to find any significant coverage of this broadcaster. While I do get the impression that Vince Welch is a public figure who could potentially warrant an article, a lack of verifiable information about them leads me to believe that a WP:BLP about them is probably unwarranted, lest it wind up being in some way libellous. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I couldn't find sufficient independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hogarth[edit]

Ryan Hogarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG (darts lacks an SNG), only coverage found was either drawings/results or local papers credited to "The Newsroom". Darts player who has never won a tournament CiphriusKane (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable darts player based on low level competition participation. Insufficient references to establish notability. Possible notability in a few years time if his career developed but not notable for an article at present. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does the fact that he was seeded at the 2020 BDO World Darts Championship not suggest notability (though given the BDO is generally seen as the lesser Darts World Championship I can see why there might be doubt about this)? Also, and this may be a more general issue that needs to be looked at, but as far as I can see everyone who played at the the two BDO World Championships he is down as competing at has an article. Dunarc (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is no longer unreferenced as I've added sources, and I feel the subject is notable for competing in a world championship. Nothing wrong with a local paper, WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as he competed at the World Darts Championship, and there is some sourcingJackattack1597 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cohn[edit]

Mike Cohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails N, most if not all of the sources that mention the topic are Primary sources AINH (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - passes WP:ANYBIO #2, probably WP:NAUTHOR, and probably WP:GNG. Steve Denning, Senior Contributor to Forbes Magazine wrote in 2011, "If there was a Nobel Prize for management, and if there was any justice in the world, I believe that the prize would be awarded, among others, to Jeff Sutherland, Ken Schwaber and Mike Cohn for their contributions to the invention of Scrum". In almost the exact form of words we would use to describe what notability means here at Wikipedia, Denning is saying that Cohn has made a significant contribution to his field and is part of the enduring historical record. Further, Denning's book The Age of Agile was published in 2018 and was selected by the Financial Times as one of the best business books of 2018. It focuses, at least in part, on Cohn and his co-creator colleagues. As a result of his contribution, Cohn is cited as an expert by publications like CIO. Emergn included Cohn on their list of, "The top 20 most influential Agile people". Not at #20. Not at #10, or #5. Mike Cohn is considered the most influential Agile person in the world by his peers. This one's easy I reckon. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Stalwart111.Brayan ocaner (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is usually hard to find sources for significant people in the software development area. But in this case there are many publications (articles and books) about Agile development, and Cohn has three books with over a thousand citations each. There are reviews of his books here and here. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others, appears to be enough coverage of Cohn and his work. NemesisAT (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Snider[edit]

Marty Snider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable motorsports pit reporter. No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources. Article is mostly just a directory of jobs he has had and makes no real claim to notability. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article was created by Gmsnider (talk · contribs) who I can only assume is the subject. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Based on my research, there does not appear to be sufficient support for the WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST notability criteria. The limited biographical information I could find is related to his son, Myatt Snider, e.g. AP/ESPN, NASCAR. Beccaynr (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable; the article is likely promotional anyway.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I have accepted the draft Let's go, Brandon, as many commenters here have advocated. I see no consensus between whether this meets WP:BLP1E or if Stavast met WP:GNG due to coverage unrelated to that event. As so many of the comments are now-offtopic, I am closing this: no prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Stavast[edit]

Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable motorsports pit reporter. No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources. There has been some RECENTISM in the press, but even that has consisted of trivial mentions of her doing her job, which one is not notable simply for doing. Fails NBASIC GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC). Also see Beccaynr's delete !vote below. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete as per nominator. Non-notable. It takes more than just being a reporter to warrant having a Wikipedia article. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create a "Let's Go Brandon" article Non-notable. It takes more than just being a reporter to warrant having a Wikipedia article. Although she is non-notable, the "Let's Go Brandon" thing has become a meme and is notable as per the most recent sourcing. I support covering "Let's Go Brandon" the way we do other memes such as Pepe the Frog or Distracted boyfriend... we recognize that simply being responsible for a meme does not warrant an article for the creator. Rather, we refer to the person responsible for the meme in the meme's article. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as her interview with Brandon, and the popularity she gained as a result, should receive some coverage on Wikipedia. The "Let's Go Brandon" catch phrase continues to be popular, with media outlets covering this week and in the past 24 hours. Stub articles are allowed on Wikipedia. She also has a career of almost 20 years. Are any of her other interviews or news reports notable? If so, they should be listed on her Wikipedia article. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:10YT, and as I said in the nom, there has been no significant coverage about her at all, at least when doing my BEFORE checks. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description of the "Let's Go Brandon" episode was in her article, but was removed for not having strong enough sourcing. Using that episode as justification for retaining her article, when it is not even strong enough to remain in her article, is illogical. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SaltySaltyTears, Bad take because all we need are sources to exist, they don't necessarily need to be in the article to justify a WP:GNG pass. That said, just the one incident fails WP:BLP1E. Curbon7 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several Wikipedia articles include sections on "Controversy". Keep as cross-reference on a controversy section to pedia's other articles (e.g. 2021_Sparks_300)

• Comment: @RayUPRM1998: please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:BLP1E. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @RayUPRM1998: welcome to Wikipedia, and please sign your comments with "~~~~" SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as "Let's go Brandon" information is allowed in the article. Her page has been up for over a year. The only reason it is nominated for deletion is because the leftist Wikipedia gatekeepers do not want articles unflattering to Joe Biden and other Democrats. It's the same old story, it's all over the place on Wikipedia, as pointed out by the inventor of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Sourcing for anything unflattering to Democrats is never good enough. First of all, only left-wing sources are allowed. Then, if the left-wing sources do include something unflattering to Democrats, it is still not good enough for some other BS reasons. JimmyPiersall (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ASPERSIONS. Also see the fact that I also nominated three other pit reporters who had nothing to do with the political crap for the same rationale as this article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knock it off with the partisanship, please... you might consider actually practicing some of that "assume good faith" you claim you practice on your user page. I am a Trump voter, I think Biden is a disaster for the country, and I fully support the removal of this and other articles about non-notable people... it is not just a "leftist" thing. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The inclusion of the recently-popular meme in this BLP does not appear supported by policy, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not a tabloid, particularly for a WP:MINORASPECT of a subject's career. Based on my research, there also appears to be insufficient sourcing available to support the WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST notability criteria for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are four RSes cited for the article topic here, so this passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG - multiple, independent sources with significant depth. Any reading otherwise strikes me as highly suspect. She isn't just mentioned in the articles, they all include her as a topic in the headline. This is basically just checking the sources and counting. Is it more than one? Yes, there's four. Are they reliable? Yes. So it passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. WP:JOURNALIST is additional criteria mentioned in the notability of people: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The "Let's Go Brandon" discussion is a red herring. This is just verifying and counting sources, all of which existed prior to the meme. - Scarpy (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe Beccaynr's source assessment is fair and sans other RS appearing not related to the Brandon event, it should be deleted. - Scarpy (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  [1] - This basically just explains that she's married. Where's the SIGCOV in that? [2] - This is a press release from her employer (not independent of the subject) briefly stating that she will be working NASCAR races. [3] - This is from her Alma Mater, also not independent. That leaves this [4] ; which, sure, you can use to pull information on jobs she's worked, but how does that make her notable? The article would end up looking like Marty Snider's; that is, a directory.

GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Comment - I developed a source assessment table for the sources in the article, with my interpretation of their support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
NASCAR Pit Reporter Kelli Stavast Shares Sunset Proposal Story, “Timeless” Ring Details (The Knot, 2016)	~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding.	Terms of use includes "THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR ENTERTAINMENT, EDUCATIONAL, AND PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY." This is not a journalistic or academic source.	~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding.	✘ No
Marty Snider, Kelli Stavast added to NBC's NASCAR on-air team (NBCSports, 2014)	This is a press release from the employer of the subject		~ 2 sentences about her past career in addition to the announcement.	✘ No
The Life of a Racing Pit Reporter: Kelli Stavast (Frontstretch, 2019)	A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context	About Us section of the website indicates a news structure exists.	~ A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context, with commentary that appears related to pit reporting generally, not the subject.	~ Partial
Kelli Stavast ’02 Takes on Olympic Assignment for NBC (Chapman University, 2018)	Alumni magazine interview with alumni		~ Mostly based on quotes from the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I mostly agree with Beccaynr here. - Scarpy (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One person posted here that a reason to delete it that supposedly the sources of the news stories are considered unreliable by Wikipedia. There’s enough evidence of the story to convince a jury that it happened if such could be necessary. And so I would suggest that if all the sources that are publishing this story and it’s increasing aftermath are considered unreliable, then we have a problem on Wikipedia. Perhaps instead of claiming that we should locate reliable sources? This incident is gaining Notoriety by the day. Perhaps at a minimum we should pause any decision on this and see what transpires over the next several months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC) — Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) has made few (about 10 as of this date) or no other edits outside this topic, which could be simply due to this user being new. (bagofscrews); [reply]

  My rationale for deletion has nothing to do with any recent incidents. Please see this this and this, all nominated by myself on the same day for the same rationale. Also, please do not add your own commentary to the templates that other editors are placing. All of us should be assuming good faith here; you do not need to explain yourself. Anyone is able to look at your edit history. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per LABcrabs. That meme alone is her claim to fame, it's being widely reported about.

If it's newsworthy for the BBC, The Independent, Newsweek, The Spectator, and others, it's notable here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58878473

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/maga-lets-go-brandon-meme-biden-b1938322.html

https://www.newsweek.com/lets-go-brandon-meme-explained-1637434

https://spectator.org/lets-go-brandon

https://www.businessinsider.com/lets-go-brandon-chant-origin-video-what-does-it-mean-2021-10

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3849893/what-does-lets-go-brandon-meme-mean

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article255093152.html

https://tennesseestar.com/2021/10/18/joke-anti-biden-song-lets-go-brandon-goes-viral-tops-itunes-hip-hop-chart

tickle me 07:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• None of those address the subject of this article directly and in great detail (I refuse to give The Sun a click since it is a deprecated source.). They all cover a political meme, at least some of which do so with a great amount of bias, and some of which don't even include this subject's name. @Tickle me: try again, and next time don't use obviously biased sources like The American Spectator. Seriously, get that bullshit out of here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." From looking at the reliable sources noticeboard, it does not seem anyone has ever raised an objection to American Spectator. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources noted above may be relevant to a Deletion review of the Fuck Joe Biden AfD that closed as a snowball delete on September 27, 2021, but the sources that clear WP:RSP (or would need attribution due to apparent bias) also help demonstrate the risk of a WP:COATRACK here, and WP:BLP policy concerns. It looks a bit like WP:ATTACK to keep an otherwise unsupported BLP, based only on this incident, e.g. Why are MAGA supporters chanting ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ to mock Democrats? (The Independent, October 14, 2021, "the blip is being used as an example by Trump supporters of how certain outlets bend the truth. “The reporter just lies,” said one user under the viral video."), How 'Let's go Brandon' became an anti-Biden conservative heckle (BBC, October 12, 2021, "Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity."). I think a four-sentence article about "a hip-hop mash-up of the chanting crowd" (Tennessee Star, October 18, 2021) also helps show the WP:COATRACK, and the lyrics of the recent song appear to support the concern noted above about WP:ATTACK, e.g. "Tried to cover up, but tell the people, go Brandon" (Miami Herald, October 18, 2021, also reporting "The reporter misheard the chants as “Let's Go Brandon,”). I think the WP:COATRACK essay offers a helpful overview of several challenges related to using this BLP as a hook for tangential subjects. Beccaynr (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If a journalist only needs notability to get an article, this applies. I tried to have an article deleted (Tom Langmyer) for non-notability and the result was keep because obscure journalists meet some obscure notability guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Langmyer and some guidelines called WP:JOURNALIST. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG per significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a lot of links I could give, but I'd like to highlight this Heavy.com profile as well as this article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The speedwaydigest.com source is labeled "NBC Sports PR" and appears to be a press release. Heavy.com recycles the Frontstretch source already in the Wikipedia article, adds a non-independent link and information from her employer, her Instagram, various references to past "Fuck Joe Biden" chants, and a link and information from her alumni magazine - this is churnalism, and the reliance on the same and similar sources that do not sufficiently support WP:BASIC as outlined above, similarly does not add further support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "Let's go Brandon!" phrase has gone viral. You can go on Amazon and buy gear with it. You are not going to put that toothpaste back into the tube. Yes, this is a keeper now. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please comment on the reason you'd like to keep this specific article; creating an unrelated article isn't a part of the AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My input here is for keeping Stavast's article. Trust me, this bio will continue to expand over time. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and create Let's go Brandon! It's obvious that "Let's Go Brandon!" deserves to have an independent article. I will make it since it clearly satisfies the encyclopedia's main guidelines. Best regards! The Stray Dog Talk Page 03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please comment on the reason you'd like to keep this specific article; creating an unrelated article isn't a part of the AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment above two keep !votes fail to mention subject at all. If that's not evidence that WP:COATRACK applies, I'm baffled. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me guess, you are implying we don't know what we are doing here? And you are baffled. Interesting. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Real classy. Keep your ASPERSIONS to yourself and don't put words in my mouth. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll let others see your comments and judge for themselves. I'm good. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is two redirects from this article which prevent users from creating the original "Let's Go Brandon" article. Please delete the redirects via Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, then we can create the article. I made Draft:Let's Go Brandon!, then everyone can contribute to build the actual article. Best Regards. The Stray Dog Talk Page 04:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect to Let's Go, Brandon or Fuck Joe Biden. The latter was deleted with at least one editor mentioning putting the info in the Presidency of Joe Biden article. I thought this was a solution and created a single paragraph summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Joe_Biden&oldid=1050268314#Approval_ratings_and_image) that was first removed for a single invalid source, then again for UNDUE. The information was added at the beginning of the month, and in the weeks since we have seen even more sources (even the BBC) and I Tunes hit for "Let's Go, Brandon". I believe there is precedence for this type of article, regardless of people asserting it is "only a meme"; see Maggie Out. Although I stand by my original comment for the most part, I realized while researching it more that I was focused too much on Let's go, Brandon. She meets "WP:ENTERTAINER": Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions with NASCAR, Summer Olympics, and Winter Olympics. I believe the chant should be at least mentioned (it is worthy of note), with full details going in to a separate article if/when deemed fit. Globgenie (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — Globgenie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Redirect I agree with Globgenie, it should be a redirect to Fuck Joe Biden or Lets Go Brandon. The Fuck Joe Biden page was deleted because at the time it was created, it was not notable enough. Now however, post "lets go Brandon," it is definitely notable, because there is now a rap song with that title that is at this point in time, the second most popular American song, and the first most popular rap/hip hop song. Fuck Joe Biden/Lets Go Brandon deserves to be its own article, like the meme article "Epstein didn't kill himself." SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment Based on the sources, including as discussed above re: WP:ATTACK concerns, WP:R#DELETE#3 may apply to attempts to redirect Stavast to either of the articles suggested above, and possibly WP:G10. Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning really gets to the heart of the issue. Nobody suggested any article needs to be an "attack" on a BLP. We have sources deriding the chant. Unfortunately,some editors are more concerned with the subject than they are willing to incubate a suitable neutral article. Any mention of Fuck Joe Biden or Let's Go Brandon are too easily dismissed (AFDs, redirects, and removal of mentions on sight) when there appears to be notability based on commentary by Business Insider, Forbes, and the BBC. Yes, it is a difficult subject, but the hesitancy to give it a go is astonishing. I'll keep on working in my sandbox, but I don't even know where to begin bringing it for review.Globgenie (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glogenie That is my point, which I should have clarified better. An article with the title "Lets Go Brandon" or "Fuck Joe Biden" does not in any way need to be an attack page, because the article is specifically about the meme and chant, and can be sourced, and proven to be a real phenomenon. That does not meet the definition of WP:Attack. By definition, it would only be an attack page would be if the article said something down the line of "Fuck Joe Biden, he is the worst president ever." That would be a personal attack, and completely unsourced and not actually about any specific entity. This [proposed] article on the other hand is about a chant/meme, which as someone else said below, has reached critical mass and now meats WP:Notability standards. After all, there is even a "Lets Go Brandon" song that is number one oh hip hop charts and number two on all songs right now in the United States. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion above about how WP:ATTACK applies here is related to Stavast, based on how the sources and the song appear to include disparagement of her. Beccaynr (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to NASCAR on NBC. Kelli Stavast is not notable. The sources just aren't there. At the time of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden discussion, the sources weren't there, but there very well appear to be sources to make that article subject notable now. That, however, is a separate discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have absolutely no issue with the content of the article; it's right on par for a sports reporter 'in the trenches' and she's done many other assignments for NBC outside of NASCAR/IndyCar. The sourcing works fine for me (but as always, can be improved). But there shouldn't be any deletion consideration, and as I've raised on the Brandon Brown article, the issue broached about the phrase doesn't really involve her outside of trying to save an interview going downhill because of the crowd yelling something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the race, nor any of her actions; they were going to do that no matter who was holding the mic or in victory lane, and should it be broached in the article, should be carefully and appropriately sourced (which is why I asked for protection so this could be navigated carefully). To anyone here without AfD experience; redirecting to a meme title is not going to end up being the result here, because it's a WP:BLP article, and the subject does have an employer that this can be redirected to (specifically, List of NASCAR on NBC broadcasters#Current staff). Nor do we create a new article based on a deletion discussion. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those who advocate the creation of a new article as part of our !vote here, I am completely aware that new articles are not created as a result of deletion discussion. I, and others, are simply outlining our thinking and preferred course of action, realizing that not all of it will or can be done here. Such things are very common in AfDs. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a simple clarification; as we have the 'not a ballot' template on this nom, it's likely accounts unfamiliar with the AfD process will ask if this can happen, thus a reminder of common past outcomes is required. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets a level of notability that passes my muster. We should also un-Delete the Fuck Joe Biden or add Let's Go Brandon as a stand alone article. The meme or chant has reached critical mass. In order for the English Wikipedia to be taken seriously, we should not become a place where you don't get a full and balanced view on a topic. Many left-leaning gatekeepers are making our little experiment of creating and maintaining a free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. As my Mom used to say, "It's a mighty thin pancake that doesn't have two sides." Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Whoisjohngalt (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Thank you anonymous editor who claims I've been canvassed into this discussion. You are correct, but I've been monitoring the discussion and deciding if I should add my thoughts. The canvas nudged me into the conversation that I was going to join anyway.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kelli Stavast may not have been notable but is now. Spontaneous quick thinking remark has made her famous with flags, tee shirts, bumper stickers and coffee mugs on sale everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:8201:6AB0:AD63:BC03:F5EC:4394 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC) — 2601:701:8201:6AB0:AD63:BC03:F5EC:4394 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment You do know she'll never earn any proceeds from the sale of this "unofficial merchandise", right? And the merchandise will likely never have her name attributing the words to her. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as regardless of the brandon thing, she is notable as a sports reporter.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable sports reporter. ₪ Encyclopædius 11:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the consensus of comments above, restoring the Let's Go Brandon! section, and also concur with TheStrayDog to create a Let's Go Brandon! page, and undelete the Fuck Joe Biden page as per Whoisjohngalt. - JGabbard (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is determined by the closer, not by anyone casting a !vote. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Creating an unrelated article isn't a part of the AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the "Let's Go Brandon" content is no longer in the article, I see no argument for keeping this article. There are lots of sayings you can find emblazoned on a coffee cup or t-shirt that are not considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The shelf life for a meme is about two weeks so no one will be talking about this by Thanksgiving. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see how well this comment ages. Can't wait for Thanksgiving! Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD pages are not Reddit. Please don't use it as such. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was implying that I disagreed with the user that coverage would not be enduring. Have you quit your job as a puppet master for good to join the AfD Police Force? Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for citing a guideline and clarifying your objection. And yes, I have been reformed and have returned, and do spend most of my time here dealing with vandalism and other assorted jackassery such as yours. A man needs a hobby. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but don't add a "Let's go, Brandon!" section or create a "Let's go, Brandon!" article. Stavast is, in my opinion, a significant individual. If she were a lowly local personality, it would be different. I think this article is just in need of some TLC. Maybe an expansion on the time she asked that athlete about their dead parent in a "Controversies" sub-heading. Some people comparable to Kelli Stavast are Dave Burns and Mike Massaro. Based on precedence, I do not believe this article should be deleted. Furthermore, I believe the claims of non-notability may be misplaced. Non-notable people are usually absolute nobodies, like you and me. Stavast is an accomplished sports-news personality. In closing, I think that the "Let's go, Brandon!" phenomena should be disregarded in this article, as it was one line she said to save the parents at home from having to explain to the kids what the crowd was chanting. The phrase is completely unrelated to her except that she was the first person to say it; the meanings and usage are completely different now. Likewise, I don't think that a "Let's go, Brandon!" article should be created, but if you want to, there is little stopping you. Js22003 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone possibly know what her intent was when she hasn’t made a statement about the incident yet? 2600:1700:1111:5940:5092:677C:8E13:A31D (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Beccaynr who has made the only convincing policy based argument in this discussion. None of the keep votes have provided evidence that the subject passes WP:JOURNALIST or WP:SIGCOV, and that is all that matters at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looking at the various sources provided, no independent sources appear to provide in-depth reporting - or even information - about Stavast. Even if them (allegedly) mishearing something in an interview wouldn't make THEM notable, though that doesn't preclude a mention of them in an article like Brandon Brown. Ironically though, it doesn't even seem notable enough to be mentioned in THIS article! Even if this was notable - how does it not violate [WP:ONEEVENT]]? The notability of other, barely related, pages has no relevance to this debate. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Quoting NBC Sports: “Kelli Stavast currently serves as a pit reporter for NBC Sports Group’s NASCAR Cup and Xfinity Series coverage, and reporter for NBCSN’s weekday show NASCAR America.” [5] – This is notable enough for an article for Stavast here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is an employee of NBCUniversal therefore this is not an independent source. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did NBC Sports lie about what she does for a living in the public spotlight? I’m not following you here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the WP:INDEPENDENT explanatory supplement, which is linked from the WP:BASIC notability criteria, an example of a non-independent source is the employer of the person being written about. Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page was created a year ago, so the charge of RECENTISM is invalid. If the subject warranted an article in October 2020 she certainly warrants one in October 2021. The charge of being an obscure pit/sideline reporter is also invalid, as other individuals with no notoriety other than being sideline reporters such as Kathryn Tappen and Holly Rowe have articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmax (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Beccaynr. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets GNG Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 00:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Burns (sportscaster)[edit]

Dave Burns (sportscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable motorsports reporter. No evidence of any independent SIGCOV outside of the already-cited MLive.com article. Fails NBASIC. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails the GNG.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - In addition to the Mlive source in the article (originally published in 2014) there is also one originally published in 2011, and both offer biographical and career context; together they seem to create one source that also expresses interest over time in Burns. A bylined 2021 Motorsport.com article offers some commentary and context about him and other reporters, as does a bylined 2017 Fox Sports article titled Top Five NASCAR TV Pit Reporters of All-Time. There is also an article mostly based on an interview but has some WP:SECONDARY context from The Buffalo News in 2015: NBC pit reporter Burns cutting to the Chase. I think the variety of sources over time, as well as the depth of context and commentary available, favors keeping and improving the article per WP:BASIC, which includes If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm somewhat convinced by this argument, so striking my !vote.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. Beccaynr, you're awesome. Thank you for finding these. With 5225C's delete !vote stricken, I can withdraw this now. Being named in a list with Dick Berggren and Chris Economaki, even as an honourable mention, is certainly notable. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procept[edit]

Procept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable neologism. No secondary sources. Minimal use in scholarly literature. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although this may seem a vague neologism to those of us who (like me) are not scholars of mathematics education, there appear to be enough sources beyond the original Gray & Tall work (examples: "Abstraction and consolidation of the limit procept by means of instrumented schemes: the complementary role of three different frameworks", Kidron, 2008, [7]; "Mathematical Proof as Formal Procept in Advanced Mathematical Thinking", Chin, 2003, [8]; "A secondary school student's understanding of the concept of function-A case study", Sajka, 2003, [9]; "Constructing inferential concepts through bootstrap and randomization-test simulations: A case study", Pfannkuch & Budgett, 2014, [10]; "Developing versatility in mathematical thinking", Thomas, [11]). So I think this passes the low bar (for scholarly concepts) of having multiple in-depth independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as David Eppstein argued, I think we have enough to pass the wiki-notability line. (It looks like Gray and Tall actually introduced the term in 1992, not 1994 [12].) XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic skills[edit]

Basic skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:TNT - a bunch of dubious and unsourced content about a two-word phrase in common use but with no common definition. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator that its uses appear to be as a common phrase with the colloquial English meaning of its words, interpreted in different ways by different authors, rather than as a technical term of art, and as such it fails WP:NOTDICT. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too vague of a concept to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Danstronger (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concurr that it is too vague of a subject matter to be encyclopedic. Knox490 (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pure WP:OR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abishur Prakash[edit]

Abishur Prakash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the book seem to have received any critical reception. Most of the sources are his quotes and statements in WP:RS but they aren't significant or even basic coverages (or discussions) about him. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is this book review that was already in the article. I also found this review, this review, and this review. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SL93 , thanks for bringing these to notice. I am uncertain if these could be considered WP:RS. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadicghumakkad The first review is from Politique étrangère, the second review is from Mandiner, the third review is from the second largest political weekly newspaper in Hungary (the URL listed on the page redirects to the URL hang.hu), and the fourth review is from Hetek (magazine). SL93 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will check these! Appreciate your patience, SL93 and efforts. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as there are enough book reviews for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archer (1975 TV series)[edit]

Archer (1975 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks SIGCOV. Could only find a single interview with the lead actor and some trivial mentions in news articles about Ross Macdonald's passing. Other mentions are either TV guides or the already-cited articles about its cancellation. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Generally per WP:TVSHOW a nationally-broadcast series, especially in the network era, is notable because of its wide reach, even if short-lived. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw, with apologies, per Mrschimpf. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting the BLP concerns. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joana D'Arc Félix de Souza[edit]

Joana D'Arc Félix de Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

not notable as a chemist. 4 papers on organic synthesis of alkaloids with her thesis advisor, Google Scholar citations from 20 to 40. The later work on reusing wastes is trivial, and uncited. I don't think it's enough of a scandal to meet WP:CRIME, and I'd remove on BLP grounds. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof totally. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I had some concerns about this article, which I brought to DGG as the expert on all things academic. I was unable to find coverage of her work outside the degree scandal and we appear to be firmly in BLP1E territory. No viable merge target. Star Mississippi 23:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Negative BLP fails WP:PERP because there is insufficient notability independent of her alleged wrongdoing. In particular, her citation record is not good enough for WP:PROF#C1. It also doesn't help that we only have newspaper allegations of wrongdoing without any determination of the matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale by DGG, David Eppstein, Xxanthippe & Star Mississippi, I too do not see any criterion from WP:PROF met. Celestina007 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the BLP issues as well as the clear failure to meet NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Professional Science Master's Degree. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Professional Science Master's Association[edit]

National Professional Science Master's Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable organization; no secondary references and nothing independent found; all the content is trivial, like membership rosters. Not entirely sure whether Professional Science Master's Degree is a valid redirect target. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Professional Science Master's Degree, where it's at least mentioned. (I don't feel strongly about whether a redirect is appropriate myself, but per WP:CHEAP I tend to err on the side of favoring it.) The best I can find is a few sentences here and here, but that falls pretty far short of WP:ORGDEPTH. The only other sources are just single-sentence trivial mentions. Barring something more, the organization is not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Professional Science Master's Degree per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Progress Mathematics[edit]

Continuous Progress Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable educational system. Only primary sources. Most Google Scholar hits are from the 1970s and obviously cannot refer to a product from the 1990s. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossgain[edit]

Crossgain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Don't feel like this passes WP:ORG. The references are all just talking about Microsoft buying out Crossgain with just a surface level mention of the company. Not in depth enough. Imcdc (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting the COI. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oriented Point Relation Algebra[edit]

Oriented Point Relation Algebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Inscrutible mathematics sub-stub; a quick glance shows almost no coverage apart from Moratz in the literature. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Danstronger (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yes, it might be a real thing, at least for one person. But not notable enough for an article. After nine years one might expect a second published source on it. W Nowicki (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are numerous articles using OPRA. A particularly nice application is sailing, see Diedrich Wolter, Frank Dylla, Stefan Wölfl, Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Lutz Frommberger, Bernhard Nebel, Christian Freksa: SailAway: Spatial Cognition in Sea Navigation. Künstliche Intell. 22(1): 28-30 (2008), available here Tillmo (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No comment on whether other sources exist in principle, but (1) the present article (which is in essentially the same state as when it was created in 2012) has no meaningful content, so it's not like deleting it is an impediment to someone who wants to write an article on this topic; and (2) the article creator Tillmo is one of the authors on the lone reference in the article, so this was an unseemly case of self-promotion that should have been deleted right away in 2012. --JBL (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with the most optimistic possible reading of the literature search results, I can't find enough to say this merits a stand-alone page, and the existing stub is both difficult to understand and a blatant COI, so it shouldn't be preserved by merging anywhere. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, couldn't find evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Wrong venue. Already under discussion at RfD. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belfairs Methodist Church[edit]

Belfairs Methodist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, and I don't think redirecting to the article about someone who was killed there meets and of WP:POFR JeffUK (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. JeffUK (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be at redirects for discussion, it’s not an article you want to delete. I think this needs auto close and remove proposal, because the automatic processes from this proposal having been created currently seem to want to delete the article the redirect points to. Jeff can always ask for help making the proposal correctly next time. Kingsif (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep this is not an article, it's a redirect, so WP:RFD is correct venue. Also, valid search term, and it's the only place on-wiki where this is mentioned. And the place is not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul V Raj[edit]

Rahul V Raj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a WP:FPL and, in my opinion, WP:GNG while there are a lot of references in the article it is (approaching WP:REFBOMB), they are trivial mentions, team news and match reports JW 1961 ^Talk 19:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Note sources have been trimmed down significantly since nomination JW 1961 ^Talk 13:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and I agree with nom about trivial mentions re GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nominator fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER. Onmyway22 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While @0"cleopatra"0: has provided a lot of mentions of the subject, in my opinion the subject fails WP:SIGCOV. As such, WP:NFOOTY status is irrelevant. My own search similarly turned up a number of passing references, but none that "...addresses the topic directly and in detail." Happy to change my vote if someone is able to provide something I wasn't able to find. GauchoDude (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER.Advait (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. There is consensus that, at present, the sourcing falls short of the requirements of WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timberview High School shooting[edit]

Timberview High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This article was clearly created too quickly. No deaths or substantial amount of injuries, an incident contained to a personal squabble, and an instant drop in national media coverage after a day or two equal no WP:LASTING qualifications for an article. A similar incident occurred at Heritage High School no more than a couple of months ago, and an article wasn't even created on it because it turned out to be nothing in the end despite the initially strong attention that the story got. Ultimately, the article for that school has this to cover the shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. No indication that this will have persistent coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. KidAd • SPEAK 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States per nom. Low casualty count and little current media coverage. Kellis7 • talk 01:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article includes sources from October 13th, October 14th, October 6th, October 7th, etc. The sources are both national and local, and include: CNN, NBC10 Philadelphia, NBC 5 Dallas, Fox News, etc. As of now there are 16 sources. Wide, ongoing coverage. We go by the sources, don't we? XavierItzm (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sources that you added, all of which are local. A Google search turns up no national media sources in the past week or so. Love of Corey (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its the sources that exist that are relevant, not just the sources cited in the article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article, as this preserves the existing work expended to create the article. The argument that another similar high school shooting did not have its own Wikipedia article is not the standard for an article to exist. Notability is. I believe this article already meets the general notability guideline because of the worldwide coverage and the sources cited being just a few of many available. An event not having a lasting effect is not a conclusive reason to delete it. Having a lasting effect only increases the probability an event is notable and is only one of the event criteria that should be considered. Coverage, depth, persistence and diversity of sources are additional factors that need to be taken into account. One also needs to consider this article's potential, not just its current state. As this is a criminal act, an investigation is currently in progress and we do not know its outcome or decision that investigators might make. So the way the alleged perpetrator is dealt with and whether or not the victims might suffer any lasting effects are both currently unknown. Wikipedia should not speculate about what we do not know, and deletion at this time would do that. Currently we do not know that this shooting will have a lasting effect or not. Wikipedia can wait until the future becomes the past so we can make a better assessment once we know what is going to happen. Please also consider what is likely to happen if this article is not going to be kept. It could be Merged into the Mansfield Timberview High School article, where it is already mentioned in the history section. Although, I think a separate sub-section is warranted, so that the article can be redirected directly to the section concerned and the sources can be preserved. However, there is a substantial risk that its addition to the High School article will overwhelm that article and the shooting will be split back out as a sub-article, defeating the point of the merger and any deletion process. The shooting is already mentioned in the List of school shootings in the United States article, but that is in a table in a summary style. Writing a more substantial summary would likely overwhelm that article, too, so redirecting the article there would require restructuring the list to accept anchored redirects or a total restructuring of that article in order to preserve what has already been written. That is an undesirable option for a list article, in my opinion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States...couldn't have said it better than Love of Corey. Yodabyte (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Love of Corey (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States as this event just received routine coverage. If this event is a catalyst for a larger event then have it be mentioned in that article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States per several of the !voters above. At the moment, the only coverage is routine. The assertion that there could be "lasting effects" falls under WP:CRYSTAL. If such "lasting effects" do happen, the redirect could be undone and the article expanded, but for now WP:NOTNEWS appears to apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Clerics Committee[edit]

Islamic Clerics Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Coverage is surface level. Imcdc (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to have only received coverage over a brief period in 2004, with nothing before or after. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In 2004, it was called the "highest Sunni organization in Iraq".^[1] jp×g 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "Islamic Clerics Committee" connected to, or perhaps even the same organization as Association of Muslim Scholars? I ask because seem to have Abdel-Salam al-Qubaisi as a notable member.VR _talk 16:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza TV[edit]

Esperanza TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is unsourced, and simply relates to the Spanish version of the Hope Channel - itself a currently unsourced article. There is no viewership information, and no other particular reason to suggest that this channel needs its own encyclopedic entry. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aish Divine[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Aish Divine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fail to see how this artist meets NMUSIC or anything else. Nothing has charted AFAICT and the idea that he was apart of California is silly considering he was non-existent when it was released. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi Praxidicae - Thank you for your suggestion, however here are a specific clarifications to your comment to contest proposal for deletion:
  • 1. Joni Mitchell's own website lists Aish's recorded version of California released 2017 Joni Mitchell's own website lists Aish's recorded version of "California" : In response to your comment "he was apart of California is silly"
  • 2. SF Weekly (an independent publication established in 1970s) wrote a review for Aish's cover for Joni Mitchell's "California" released 2017 [13] : In response to your comment "he was apart of California is silly"
  • 3. Aish Divine changed his name, because his previous name Aish was being confused in internet searches with a well established Jewish religious group [14]. I can empathize with how you may have thought Aish Divine did not exist in 2017, because he existed as Aish. I'm happy to document that name change on Wiki - please advise. : In response to your comment "he was non-existent when it was released"
  • 4. Aish Divine is a respected, established, award winning artist (Webby nominated [15], Telly Award Winning [16]). Even mass market chain Walmart is selling his Vinyl [17]
  • 5. Independent, established press eg VICE, Rolling Stone, Them (Conde Nast) regularly reports on him as you can see in the references on the original Wiki article [18]. He's an active performing artist with a loyal following. Not all artists chart for e.g. Billboard charts have a 100 spots, but there are 10s of thousands of artists across the globe: In response to your comment "Nothing has charted AFAICT"
  • 6. Aish Divine has been added on several Spotify editorial playlists including Chani Nicholas editorial playslists, Spotify's own Out and Loud playlist, racking him 100s of thousands of streams: In response to your comment "Nothing has charted AFAICT"

I hope this helps dispel any confusion. I'm happy to answer any questions. And please know, I do appreciate your diligence keeping Wiki a legit space for legit work.

Thanks - Tiffany --Teagleman (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because Aish Divine is a respected, established, award winning artist, see Joni Mitchel credit, notability and clarification based on citations below:

I hope this helps dispel any confusion. I'm happy to answer any questions. And please know, I do appreciate your diligence keeping Wiki a legit space for legit work. Thanks - Tiffany --Teagleman (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: Teagleman (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

• Delete as citations above do not focus on WP:NMUSIC guidelines and per nomination. – The Grid (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi The Grid (talk · contribs), per WP:NMUSIC guidelines, "the artist has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Aish Divine qualifies that criteria as he's been reported on by Rolling Stone, Vice Media, multipleCondé Nast outlets including Them (website) and more, including being nominated for globally recognized Webby Awards Teagleman (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per apt rationale by Praxidicae, I do not see GNG met nor any criterion from MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Celestina007, Praxidicae rationale doesn't hold up because Joni Mitchell's own website lists Aish's publishing of California https://jonimitchell.com/music/covers-song.cfm?id=California — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.147.72 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I think it doesn't seems notability.Barrettmagic ^Talk 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His press coverage and awards meet GNG notoriety criteria including independent reporting, reviews by well established press like Rolling Stone, Vice etc. There's also a twitter petition by his fans and wikimedia LGBT to keep this article. Barrettmagic is he being targeted because he's a queer artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.147.72 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)— 74.101.147.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep- Aish Divine is a well known artist in the Bay Area and has since moved to NYC to continue on with his incredible career. Not sure why this issue is even on the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandarcy78 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC) — Dandarcy78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Given the high volume of SPA and sock voting at this AFD, I strongly urge an admin to close it out.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Questprobe. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Examiner[edit]

Chief Examiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Comics character. Fails WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT. The articles cites no in-depth third party coverage, and the article ist almost only plot summary, except for an anecdote about game designer Scott Adams, which can't be the basis for an article. Sandstein 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obscure fictional character that has virtually no significant coverage in reliable sources. I might be fine with a very light merge and Redirect to Questprobe, mainly to add that one sentence of possibly reliably sourced information on the character being modeled after Scott Adams, but that's about the extent of any WP:ATD I would recommend. And even if that occurs, the title of the redirect should be changed to something like Chief Examiner (fictional character), as the term "Chief Examiner" is used for many other things than this non-notable character. Even here on Wikipedia, the current title would be more useful as a Redirect to Office of Chief Examiner, for example. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Questprobe as suggested above, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails WP:NPLOT and WP:IN-U, and the topic lacks enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Seems like too broad a search term for time to be spent discussing its usefulness as a redirect here, though it can be recreated afterwards and discussed at RfD. Avilich (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's easy to find coverage in sources such as The Avengers in Videogames and Guinness World Records. The worst case would be merger to Questprobe per policies including WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting also the CSD G5 request. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy Boys[edit]

Rowdy Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The film is unreleased and its production does not meet the notability guidelines for future films. May be draftified until its release. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails to meet WP:NFF on two fronts: (1) No citation was given to satisfy "Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun", and (2) there is no indication that the production itself is notable ("Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."). I would discourage draftifying, because someone else will submit it to AfC and some other editor will accept it, and we'll be back to this square one again. Platonk (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL, as the film's notability hasn't even happened yet. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G5. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61 –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Platonk (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maaran (2022 film)[edit]

Maaran (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.  ||  Orbit Wharf  ^💬 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf  ^💬 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no indication that this film has been released, nor that its production was notable. Doesn't pass WP:NFF: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Platonk (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indication that the production meets WP:NFF guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to meet WP:NFF.Barrettmagic ^Talk 13:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nom. Fails to meet WP:NFF. Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yoav Sarig[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nableezy - 16:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav Sarig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO, lack of secondary sources about the person, only indication of notability is a non-notable prize that I cannot even find actually exists (Namir Prize). Additionaly, COI issues possible with the creator and largest contributor having uploaded the picture used with the claim that he or she took the picture themselves, indicating a personal connection with the subject. Nableezy 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav Sarig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO, lack of secondary sources about the person, only indication of notability is a non-notable prize that I cannot even find actually exists (Namir Prize). Additionaly, COI issues possible with the creator and largest contributor having uploaded the picture used with the claim that he or she took the picture themselves, indicating a personal connection with the subject. Nableezy 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has numerous secondary sources (ASABE,Manila Bulletin, Washington times and more). The Namir prize is referenced here- https://www.agri.gov.il/he/pages/655.aspx?fbclid=IwAR2UkQrLF2NgjGMTHsRJYw-2lFgLvZd4EraDHobvqzO6OJnt1pBp-MUnK1s

And a simple search attests to its existance and notability: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1+%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94+%D7%A2%22%D7%A9+%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A8&oq=%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1+%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94+%D7%A2%22%D7%A9+%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A8&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 That prize alone is sufficient, but it is not the only notable attribute. Sarig was elected ASABE fellow, which is "a member of unusual professional distinction with outstanding and extraordinary qualifications", and he has several other awards for inventions in agricultural machinery, also in the bio link above. Yes, I knew Ihim IRL,and took that photo, but knowing someone is not a conflict of interest, nor a reason for deletion. AgEng (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know he was dead? Since you write I know in the present tense. A bit curious this is your first edit in 9 years though. nableezy - 15:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

typo corrected, yes I know this. I don't edit wikipedia anymore, but read it often, and you pinged me that you are about to delete something I worked on for quite a bit back in the day. What does any of this have to do with this discussion? AgEng (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable academic for many reasons, not least being the highly selective and prestigious ASABE fellow. Free1Soul (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meet WP:GNG as sources in article show. Also meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion 2 as he won Namir and Asabe prizes --Shrike (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by sources of article, passes WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt find anything on Namir's significance previously, with that withdraw the nom. nableezy - 16:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mask Trilogy[edit]

Mask Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Each game already has their own wiki page. No need to create a separate page just to say there are 3 of them. Imcdc (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as disambiguation. While it doesn't seem there is any coverage of the "trilogy" themselves, it would aid in navigation to the elements of the trilogy, and thus meets the requirements of being a disambiguation page. BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am not objecting to making this into a standard disambig, but I think first we need a more reliable source that this is even called that; right now all we have is a board game fan wiki. Otherwise, this is ORish. Sadly there is no good redirect target... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point; I think I found one here. I am a little surprised that a website dedicated solely to board games can be a reliable source, but looking at its "about us" page it appears to be so. It's not enough for an article, but in addition to the non-reliable sources, I think it's enough to demonstrate that a disambiguation page would be a useful navigation aid. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sujay Datta Ray[edit]

Sujay Datta Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. lacks of references. Trakinwiki (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Trakinwiki (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Since this article has only one relaibale source i.e timesofindia. So, I suggest to delete. Fade258 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was moved to the draft namespace by User:Advait.kansal. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which was not appropriate mid-AFD. I have moved it back pending consensus and administrative action. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After a week no new reliable sources was found. Clearly non-notable 007sak (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Openlab[edit]

Openlab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. References do not work. Imcdc (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Yet another attempt at marketing, with own website as the source. Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: not much to phone home about in terms of independent coverage, but it seems to be mentioned in quite a few papers (when specifying microscopy as a search term, since "OpenLab" by itself is, predictably, the name of many unrelated things). I don't know whether this really works, as far as notability goes, but I think it is worth mentioning. jp×g 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article history shows the content was added back in 2003. Most of the other modern-day Google search hits seem to apply to the many other products that used a similar name, some of which as mentioned above use CamelCase and spell it as OpenLab. Hard to tell which are the same. W Nowicki (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter (camera seat)[edit]

Orbiter (camera seat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Since creation in 2008, article has suffered from two problems: its similarity to a product brochure (see this early version from 2008), and its utter lack of sourcing. Even after I found a cite today to replace a ((cn)) tag, there are still only two refs, both from the maker's website.

Page is about a product (or product line): swivel seats for video camera operators. Seems quite non-notable, as I can not find that anyone has written about the product(s) or even the company. My WP:BEFORE has lasted many days, and I haven't found even a single review. All I have found about the Orbiter seat is from either the Orbiter.tv site (manufacturer) or a company called Finepoint, which rents out camera equipment including these babies.

I would have given up earlier, but my searches are confounded by the multitude of space vehicles (many camera-equipped), lighting equipment and actual cameras with the name (be it brand or common term) "orbiter". Ultimately, it appears that this is just some product, you know? Fails WP:N as far as I can see. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Callo-Theater[edit]

Callo-Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of notability. Was not considered notable in German Wikipedia, see [25]. Icodense (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No information here that would indicate notability; no WP:SIGCOV of the theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiable but no evidence of notability. --Lockley (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. There's severe disagrement here between those that find the presented sources to constitute substantive coverage, and those that do not. Given the evidence presented here, both arguments are based in policy, in that the coverage provided is in the gray area between obviously insufficent and obviously sufficient. I could relist this, but the discussion has received a lot of input, and has failed to reach consensus; as such a fresh start may be preferable. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lorsheijd[edit]

Barbara Lorsheijd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was kept on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds along with the other 15 players. Lorsheijd fails WP:FOOTBALL having never played or managed in a WP:FPL or played for a senior national team. Her being an unused substitute for the Netherlands doesn't count. WP:GNG is also failed due to a lack of independent significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep All in all Keep: Some articles about her Keepster Barbara Lorsheijd terug op ‘oude nest’ ADO Den Haag (16 May 2017); FC Twente-keepster Barbara Lorsheyd vervangt Sari van Veenendaal bij Oranje; Oranje-debuut lonkt voor ADO-keepster Barbara Lorsheyd (5 September 2017) and ADO Den Haag-keepster Barbara Lorsheijd in voorlopige selectie Oranje-vrouwenteam (6 September 2017). National news articles are writing about her. Three examples (more available) NOS: here NU.nl: here and Eindhovens Dagblad: here. Such examples are not about Lorsheijd but only some sections or senteces. That helps per WP:BASICS of GNG: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". SportsOlympic (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same sentence from WP:BASIC then goes on to say trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability; this is equally as important as the part that you have quoted. Have you found any non-trivial coverage of this living person? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see all the links I started with. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles, including the four that mention Lorsheijd in the title, are examples of trivial coverage as they only contain, at best, one or two sentences on her and we must also consider the fact that these are transfer announcements on her in local sports press. WP:SIGCOV in the context of a sportsperson is required to "addresses the topic directly and in detail". We do have this interview, which contains some non-routine coverage, but it's from the club that she plays for so cannot be considered as an independent source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These article are about her, so that are not Trivial mentions. Just cite the full citation please you started, including “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” So that is already enough, but stil you can add on top of that: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"SportsOlympic (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivial coverage. Footnote #7 at the bottom of WP:BASIC makes this clear and gives "Mary Jones was hired by My University" as an example of a trivial piece of coverage. In the same way, "Lorsheijd signs for ADO Den Haag" here is trivial coverage unless the article expands upon that in any way, which it does not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, both the title and news item isn't that someone was merely hired to their next team. It is that a player returned after several years to a team. This constitutes of a dramatic twist in a career, as players leave to stronger (higher pay) or weaker (lower pay) teams but are not very likely to return to exactly the same team where they already played. It's a mistranslation and a trivialization of something that is not trivial whatsoever. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the note made by Spiderone. Footnote #7 is about a "simple directory entry or a mention in passing". The above example he gives is a whole article about her contract with ADO Den Haag and background information. That can't be named a trivial mention. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contract information and background as mere context are WP:ROUTINE coverage and don't confer notability in any way. Avilich (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out before, the issue at hand is not some contract information but a major twist in a career, as written in the article. You chose to disregard that text – your right – but it doesn't change any facts. gidonb (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm happy for this to be kept thanks to the sources provided by SportsOlympic above. Women are under represented on Wikipedia and thus I think it would be beneficial to the project to keep this article. NemesisAT (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under what notability guideline? As far as I am aware, female footballers are still required to meet WP:GNG at a minimum. If we wish to pursue equality then we should be applying the same standards of GNG to both males and females. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on "Topper tussen de doelpalen: Barbara Lorsheyd tikt 200 wedstrijden aan voor ADO"[26] by Klaas-Jan Droppert in Algemeen Dagblad/Haagsche Courant and "Keepster Barbara Lorsheijd terug op 'oude nest' ADO Den Haag"[27] in Haaglanden Voetbal. She passes the lower bar of the WP:GNG (vs. the higher bar of WP:NFOOTY). Her personal record in football is impressive. In short: Lorsheijd is a keeper! ;-) gidonb (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A bit disingenuous to nominate this article for deletion on the basis of WP:FPL considering there is a massive discussion about the policy itself. The article currently has enough depth and sourced information and the subject is notable enough ~ Zirguezi 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated because it survived a WP:TRAINWRECK, fails WP:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clearly that this passes the WP:GNG. Since all Women Eredivsie players seem to pass the WP:GNG, it's time to adjust which leagues are recognized for WP:NFOOTY. A problem with WP:FPL is that the Netherlands and other countries fake paid football leagues to be amateur leagues. gidonb (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has yet to be reached about passing GNG. It may be 9-1 in favour of keeping but there is still 4 days left. It's up to the closer anyway. Claiming all players in the league seem to pass GNG is a sweeping generalisation that shouldn't be made. Dougal18 (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will receive further scrutiny but, given the broad consensus in multiple discussions, this could be the direction. I now see one person who agrees with you. Seems to have a problem with the fact that women projects have an impact at Wikipedia. Personally, I believe it is best to judge each article on its merits. That's why I support keep. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote. All people asserting "meets GNG" without actually showing how this meets GNG look rather foolish now that I've taken the time to go through the sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus (not a vote) was reached across several discussions. No coincidence. There are much stronger arguments to keep than to delete across multiple discussions. Also the idea to delete this article is a WP:BEFORE failure. People look for sources in the article, disregarding WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't a consensus and the arguments to delete are led by existing policy and guidelines. The arguments for keep are little more than a pile on asserting notability and meeting WP:GNG when plainly this individual does not. What is behind this is a wiki project obsessing over it's statistics and repeatedly having drives to create articles driven by those stats. What often results is a series of poor articles on non-notable individuals. When these are proposed for deletion instead of a reasonable discussion there is a series of allegations of misogyny and various other ad hominem followed by this tactic of a mass pile and making life very unpleasant for anyone concerned with creating quality articles in their usual domain area. I pity anyone who closes this, it should be a straight delete but I'm willing to bet that any such decision will be met with even more howls of protest. The answer of course should be to write quality articles on notable individuals and this wouldn't be an issue. WCM_email 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG. GiantSnowman 20:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportsOlympic above. Meets GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Per Above.---✨LazyManiik✨ 08:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above for GNG. Seany91 (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did transfer news, international call ups and making saves (a goalie's job) combine to pass GNG? Dougal18 (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about tagging a user who you ask a long question, Dougal18? Same applies to NemesisAT elsewhere; he was never tagged. It's a small courtesy that really takes no time! gidonb (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. I note keep votes appear to be acting as a co-ordinated lobby from WP:WIR, which is something I've seen from that project before. WCM_email 11:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...which is precisely the point of such discussions, that WP editors involved in related projects to participate. So consider it noted. Seany91 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except all them are pile-on pure votes, with no commentary on the sources themselves, which is a mark of canvassing. Avilich (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage amounts to passing mentions, trivial happenings (eg. injuries, saves and milestones) and transfer announcements, and thus insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Also appears to fail other relevant guidelines as noted by the nominator. Avilich (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich, it's a unique and extreme achievement, NOT a routine milestone! If you had read on to the next phrase it says explicitly: "Geen speelster is vaker voor ADO Den Haag Vrouwen uitgekomen dan Barbara Lorsheyd." This translates to "No player has appeared for ADO Den Haag Vrouwen more often than Barbara Lorsheyd." First ever achievements contribute to the notability of a person and definitely do not undermine it! The professional standard is irrelevant once the WP:GNG is met. As pointed out above, sooner or later it will be reviewed to include women. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reaching a number of matches for a specific club is more a milestone than achievement, and doesn't confer notability. Avilich (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out before, the issue at hand is not some personal milestone but an extreme, record-setting achievement in a prime league club, as written in the article. You chose to disregard – your right – but it doesn't change any facts. gidonb (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Pretending all the coverage is 'trivial' isn't a compelling case when there's so much of it and they're articles directly about her. It must also be said that this nominator has a very poor grasp of the relevant issues, to put it politely: see for example here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ADO Den Haag (women)/other suitable ATD if there is one/Delete if there is none or potentially Draftify given there is a possibility this player could eventually represent their national team. Source analysis:
  1. soccerway: database profile, not significant coverage per SIGCOV
  2. teamnl.org: database profile, again
  3. adovrouwen.nl: trivial name-check as part of a listing of all players of a team
  4. haaglandenvoetbal.nl: trivial coverage of routine transfer, basically not much more than a name-check
  5. adodenhaag.nl: an interview, not an acceptable source for showing notability, as per long-standing practice
  6. omroepwest.nl: the sum-total of the coverage is basically THE HAGUE - ADO Den Haag goalkeeper Barbara Lorsheyd can hope for her debut in the Dutch national team. She has been selected by the Hague national coach Sarina Wiegman for the friendly against Denmark.. The rest is simply similarly short paragraphs or name-checks of other players on the team.
  7. rtvoost.nl: this might be the nearest to SIGCOV, but it is basically only "player has been selected for training camp, in replacement of injured player". Rather routine.
  8. nu.nl/voetbal: simply a name-check as part of a list of all players of the team

In short, you have basically only one source which even looks like it could be meeting GNG (it does not). A lot of trivial coverage does not confer notability; nor does meeting some arbitrary milestone number of matches or the like. Additional sources linked by others here are similarly not WP:SIGCOV. All keep votes which are asserting that this meets GNG should really have spent their time actually looking at the sources, or finding better ones. Other keep arguments are dubious at best, like the ad hominem of "this nominator has a very poor grasp of the relevant issues". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse this analysis of the sources as being thorough and objective. Avilich (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Every full article (in secondary reliable source) about one single player counts towards GNG, no matter the amount of content is. Besides of that it’s still per WP:BASICS of GNG: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". SportsOlympic (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's not much, if any, "full article". Routine coverage, or trivial mentions, don't count. The only kind of coverage that could be construed as even remotely significant is about only one event (her being called up for a training camp), which would also fail WP:BLP1E. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It’s just a matter of time before she played her first match with the national team. See the news article 2 days ago here. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]