< August 08	August 10 >

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

The result was Speedy delete. This article was deleted by Liz on August 11 under WP:G5. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Todd (businessman)[edit]

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

i'm pretty sure we've discussed this before but here we are anyway. Non-notable "celebrity" who is known only for marrying a barely notable reality TV star. There is nothing in the way of significant coverage for Todd (or his children which have been deleted numerous times.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dapat Alam Mo![edit]

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

Most notable thing about show is it was replaced by Family Feud after 4 months. Sources are press release and 2 YouTube videos. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Slywriter (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, very short-lived show that had some publicity for a very short period of time around its broadcast, but not significant enough to assert notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the subsequent !votes that assert the show is still running, i'll withdraw my delete, however I remain unconvinced of it's notability to change to a keep. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines. Cortesy ping: @Slywriter, Bungle, and Liz: —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founded sources that may add to the article (http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/publicaffairs/content/821759/high-rating-news-magazine-show-dapat-alam-mo-airs-on-gma-starting-february-14/story ; https://www.lionheartv.net/2021/10/review-gtvs-dapat-alam-mo-shares-relevant-news-and-information/ ; https://www.lionheartv.net/2022/02/dapat-alam-mo-a-top-rater-during-its-pilot-week-in-gma-network/). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First one is a press release. Second is an interview and third is I don't know what. Lionheartv.net doesn't exactly inspire confidence as a reliable source. Slywriter (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slywriter: I think we need to mention other Filipino Wikipedians to give their opinion regarding this. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if Lionheart.TV passes WP:RS. This needs WP:THIRDPARTY RS that gives it WP:GNG coverage. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lionheart.TV, I think it's good enough as a supporting reference but otherwise I would prefer Philippine mainstream media sources if those were available. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SeanJ 2007, LionHearTV is reliable. However, I wouldn't consider the source from GMA Network. Any show from a certain network which receives coverage from its website is considered a primary source. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List_of_programs_previously_broadcast_by_GMA_Network#Informative_2 where it is mentioned. There are several news articles about the program BUT they are mostly generated by its parent company, GMA Network. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator seems to have misinterpreted the article. The show is still ongoing on GTV, where it premiered October last year. It was simulcast on its sister/main channel GMA for a few weeks early this year before being replaced by a game show.

I found some reliable sources which talk about the show: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. It even received coverage for months since it was launched. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:TVSHOW. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I made some minor improvements and added a couple of non-paywalled sources. Most of the sources identified above seem to be from the same syndicated feed and use similar cast photos, but if the show is indeed still on, it's a weak keep. Anyone who currently watches the show is welcome to chime in. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Delete or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTV with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2022 (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. Consensus was for deletion and I'll note that there is already a mention of this museum at South Kingstown, Rhode Island#Museums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dale Museum of Art and Culture[edit]

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

Non-notable museum. The only sources that seem to exist are the museum's own website (which is cited in the article) and local travel guides, which respectively are not independent and do not have significant coverage. ^Complex/_Rational 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Rhode Island. ^Complex/_Rational 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Even searching under "Museum of Primitive Art and Culture Rhode Island" I don't find much beyond travel guides or brief notations in other publications. For some museum this old, there should be more out there. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of significant coverage by WP:Secondary reliable sources. I found zero sources for "Peace Dale Museum" on newspapers.com. Jacona (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not significant coverage , not notable. Alex-h (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to South Kingstown, Rhode Island#Museums. It's a stub, and can almost entirely be merged. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a merge of content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar Mir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was procedurally closed due to an issue with the AfD page. That nomination said: Announcement of an appointment and one interview are not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BLPNOTE. This argument seems compelling to me: to quote myself, the sourcing in the article is bad in a way typical of articles about VCs and investors (stuff like PR Newswire and the like), and a news search turns up a lot more of the same. jp×g 22:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Singapore, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current sourcing is a mess: primary sources relating to the events he's attended, non-independent sources talking more about his companies than him, press releases, and lots of PR noise. The sources talking about Quadria Capital or HealthQuad don't even appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, so I would not be comfortable transferring any information from here to articles on those companies. Google search doesn't turn up anything significant. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2022 (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 rework as a prose article covering the history of anime distribution in the United States. The copy-paste draft at Draft:History of anime in the United States may be used for this after a history merge has been completed; alternatively, the parent article could be moved into draftspace if a history merge isn't feasible. I do not perform history merges myself, and offer no opinion on which route is preferable, but there is consensus against the continued existence of this article in mainspace. Apologies for any confusion that may have resulted from the previous closing statement: I hadn't realized the existing draft was a copy-paste userfication. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime distributed in the United States[edit]

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

Massively useless list with overly broad inclusion criteria. Fails to explain why a list of anime released in the US is significant. From about the 2000-2010s onwards, the inclusion criteria effectively expands to nearly all anime- it would be much more notable if a recent anime had not been released in the United States. The prose does have some promise, but it is nearly entirely unsourced and far too excessively detailed for this purpose, and it would be better served being reworked into a different article with a clearer focus (I've already WP:USERFIED the page content with the intent of trying to do something of the sort when I have the chance). As such, I believe this list should either be deleted or else reworked into a more constructive list that has less broad inclusion criteria. Joyce-stick (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Popular culture. Joyce-stick (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a single reference raises concerns about major WP:OR here. If this was referenced, something could be rescued by merging to History of anime in the United States, a notable topic (to be written, sigh). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found the List of anime distributed in the United States article to be extremely useful with regard to delving into the world of anime. Before reading this article, I was basically a beginner regarding anime. However, after performing research on the anime explored in this article, I feel that I am truly immersed in the world of anime. Additionally, there are plenty of anime in this list that have been released both in the United States and internationally. Crlis94 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This argument is neither valid nor persuasive, as it constitutes WP:ILIKEIT (an argument that we prefer to not make in any deletion discussions). In addition, your account appears to be a WP:SPA, as your sole edit thus far has been to oppose this page's deletion. Before participating in the discussion further I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and in particular, WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA, which are especially pertinent here. If you have and would like to attempt an argument for why this page does satisfy the conditions stipulated under those guidelines, then by all means feel free to do so. Joyce-stick (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Visual arts, and Entertainment. Joyce-stick (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect and history merge to Draft:History of anime in the United States (changed !vote — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Fully concur with nom's assessment. Degenerates into indiscriminate list in recent decades and offers no useful information specific to the U.S. such as local release dates, distributor, etc (compare with List of anime theatrically released in the United States). Nom's proposal to rework into a different article at User:Joyce-stick/Userspace drafts/History of international anime distribution looks sound, but I would recommend a less ambitious scope to History of anime distribution in the United States to start with.
Additional comments 1. List of anime distributed in India also exists — albeit with more sourcing, and sorted by platform/channel rather than date — and should be reworked in similar vein. Bundle into this nomination? 2. history merge into the userfied copy needed to preserve attribution. 3. Based on 2022 YTD stats, the U.S. list attracts min >100 and average >200 views per day. (The India one has even more.) We could harness this for potential contributors: put the overhaul effort at Draft:History of anime distribution in the United States rather than userspace, and redirect List of anime distributed in the United States to it using ((R to draft namespace)) which becomes ((R from move)) after completion of the overhaul. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a history merge would collect the page history together. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems the article suggests its own way forward: "this is contributed to the era known as the "anime boom" which lasted from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s." Article could be retitled something like "Anime Distribution in the US Before 2010"?--Jahaza (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simple page move isn't sufficient. The prose and the structure of the article needs a massive amount of revision (and citations) before it's remotely presentable as an encyclopedia article. Further, I don't see the merit in restricting the scope to "before 2010" as the current state of anime exportation is just as notable as the market conditions of the 1990s and 2000s, and they are directly related. Therefore they should be covered together. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some put a lot of work into this article. In case it gets deleted, I exported the most recent version to https://manga.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_anime_distributed_in_the_United_States to preserve it. Dream Focus 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to export the full history or copy/paste the history to maintain contributors' attribution even if the original is deleted. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD) applies to Wikipedia specifically, but Fandom's licensing requirements are similar. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried but the full history was too large to be imported. Dream Focus 06:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I would argue that the creator should have thought ahead of time the huge market anime has in the United States. This list was only created on August 2, we are talking about hundreds of titles that can easily be put into a newly created category (Category:Anime distributed in the United States) as most of the titles have articles for them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the earlier suggestion, I've moved my working of the article out of my userspace and into draft space. It's now located at Draft:History of anime in the United States. If any discussion participants wish to assist in improving it, feel free to do so. We can also now consider redirecting this list to the draft as an alternative to outright deletion, as was also proposed earlier in the discussion.
List of anime distributed in India, while it does have similar issues to the US list, at least has sources and can be more easily reworked into a more focused article if need be. But that's an entirely different discussion. Joyce-stick (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would wait until the draft is completed. NavjotSR (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. While I don't think that this is necessarily notable for the mainspace (I haven't looked in deep enough to determine that), the very fact that this content has been userfied will create issues with Wikipedia's licensing and the copyrights. Per WP:RUU, the page history will need to be merged to any place where the content from this page has been userfied, should this page be deleted. As such, it appears to be the case deletion will require a WP:HISTMERGE to be performed for legal reasons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the userfied copy has been moved to draft space as Draft:History of anime in the United States per the suggestion of another user in the discussion.
I was not aware of this policy regarding attribution. Had I known, I would have started this AfD first with a proposal to userfy or draftify upon deletion, rather than the other way around, but I guess the ship's sailed now. I'll be sure to keep the policy in mind for any future similar cases. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an adequate listing of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WORLDVIEW, and broad criteria considerations. I wouldn't oppose making a category for the titles to help with cleanup related issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2022 (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. Given the controversy surrounding this religious leader, we might see recreation of this article but that shouldn't stop its deletion today for lacking WP:SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Bayda[edit]

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

I noticed edit wars around this article and some possible COI issues and sock puppet blocking around this subject. Seems like one sock has been enthusiastic about creating this article and making sure it stays one way, versus the other. It stood out to me, and made me dig deeper. I don't think this subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR.

Tricycle is a well known publication in the field, but, it seems to be the only one that covers this subject at all. That's not multiple reliable sources, that's just one. Everything else are passing mentions or primary sources - bios about him or passing mentions in books.

I believe the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. But, as always, perhaps others can prove me wrong and establish in sourcing that this subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia for WP:GNG and/or WP:NAUTHOR.

Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Buddhism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has a few paragraphs for book reviews in Publisher's Weekly [7], so just barely passes AUTHOR. The New York Journal of Books [8]] has another review, website looks like a wix site though... Lots of press on the lawsuit, I guess he got too touchy-feely with certain individuals. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Publisher's Weekly literally reviews everything that is submitted, so, I'd consider it a pretty weak source and used sparingly. It doesn't really establish notability. I can submit my own book (which I've yet to write, lol) and they'd review it. FYI the New York Journal of Books is not a reliable source. It's just a personal blog about books. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is something in Proquest (paywalled/work won't let me view it) [9] and he's quoted over three paragraphs here: [10] with a full text of the paper here [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access the ProQuest article through my university. It appears to be a review of an edited collection which Bayda contributed to. Here is that book via Google. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is some coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. The mentions in the John Welwood and Pema Chödrön books are trivial mentions, and the only third-party source that mentions him with any significance is Tricycle discussing his lawsuit. He's got books and has written in compilations, but none of those are independent sources. If we were just looking at WP:GNG then he would fail, as it requires multiple third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and Tricycle is only one such reference; there are not multiple sources that meet that description. Being known in a reliable source only for a lawsuit where you've been accused of sexual abuse isn't great look when viewed through the lens of WP:BLP, and would fall under WP:BLP1E. I don't think WP:CRIME applies since he was not criminally charged and the accusation is via a civil lawsuit. Per WP:BLPCRIME, having a Wikipedia article associating him with sexual abuse when he wasn't convicted of such seems to skirt the wrong side of WP:BLPCRIME, even if the fact that the lawsuit took place and was settled is verifiable, it still creates an implication. The BLP issues combined with the lack of third-party sources means that we really should not have an article on this individual. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - FYI: A user self-identifying as Erza Bayda commented on the talk page today stating they want the article deleted. Missvain (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, the user claiming to be the subject removed the crime/lawsuit related content on the article. It has since been returned and I have protected the article to allow for reviewers to continue to examine the article without interruption. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came expecting to "keep" (and the subject wanting it deleted has no bearing on my opinion here), but the sources aren't reliable and independent. I'm shocked it's lasted this long. Book reviews from companies selling the books, passing mentions that aren't WP:SIGCOV, etc. The way the sources are padded, it looks like a paid article, but the history doesn't really look that way. He simply doesn't pass the criteria for inclusion, as a bunch of passing mentions of your name doesn't pass WP:GNG. He's published plenty, but with so much out there, if someone was going to notice, they would have by now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Barza[edit]

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

According to the article and its sports-reference source (here), Barza participated in the Olympics twice, in 1968 with Men's Foil Individual fencing and in 1972 with Men's Sabre Individual fencing. However, when I access the full results on Olympics' official website, I can't find Barza among the participants (1968 and 1972). The only mention of Barza is over at IMDb (unreliable per WP:IMDB) stating that he appeared in a film called "Munich 1972: Games of the XX Olympiad" as the Peruvian flagbear, and corroborating the article's other facts, such as Barza's birthday. As all claims of the article are either unverifiable or sourced to an unreliable source, I propose deleting this page so that we can remove the claims, deletion being the only way to do so as the claims has stayed roughly the same since its creation. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Barza's surname is also spelt "Barúa". However, I cannot find a Barua at the Olympic website either. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Olympics website does not directly bring you to the fencing article. Instead, choose "Fencing" from the list of sport, then the event from the drop-down menu on its right. Separately, a Google search does not turn up any Barza or Barua results unrelated to Wikipedia. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here he is on the Olympics website. Seems clear that his name is Barúa or Barúa Lecaros, and Barza was/is an error. It should be noted that sports-reference, Olympedia and the Olympics website are not intellectually independent. Update: I've updated the prose and added the one non-db source I could find with anything substantial; it supports his flag-bearing and competing in the foil and sabre, and also identifies him as an alférez (ensign) in the armed services at the time. I'm inclined to believe more sources may exist for him. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Peru. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should be moved to Enrique Barúa, which appears to be his correct name/surname. As Wjemather noted above, there is a direct link to his profile at the IOC website.--Darwinek (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I generally treat the sports databases as inferior sources, somewhat acceptable. When they don't even have the name right, forget it. And the only other thing we have is an offline peruvian report. It may be local, or it may well be a valid WP:SECONDARY, reliable source, but either way it's not enough to prove notability under WP:GNG, nor any other guideline I can think of. Jacona (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply existing on a sports DB is not enough, they aim for all possible inclusivity. Not seeing enough to meet general notability standards. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2022 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darinka Jandrić[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. She was not even supercentenarian (person who is/was aged 110+). In fact, she was only 108 years and one month old. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a or "was the oldest known living person in Serbia" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BLP1E, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people". This person is not living, so that rationale is not relevant here. Jacona (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. But I guess this article still not reach WP:GNG.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- She is known for several other things. THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE IS NOT THAT SHE WAS THE OLDEST. She was a student of World War II, a division medic, a member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and above all a woman whose entire family was killed by the Ustashas. .she is not a Supercentenarian, ESO does not deal with people under 110 years of age. (Only 110+ same as GRG). She might have been the oldest in her country. But that is not important, it is important to rearrange the article.Дејан2021 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some other unverified supercentenarian articles you nominated, this person is also notable for being a World War II veteran. It could be improved and potentially expanded, of course. The List of last surviving World War II veterans does not contain any Yugoslav WWII veterans for some reason, that could be filled out. By the way, the argument "small country like Serbia" is not a great outlook, she lived most of her life in Yugoslavia, a pretty significant country back in the day. I don't think being from a "small country" is a great argument for deleting biographies anyway. Per Дејан2021 as well. -Vipz (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is partially fixed for now, although there may be more improvements. She was not a Supercentenarian (110+), as I said, down to the other side of her significance, other than longevity. She spent most of her life in Yugoslavia, more precisely in Belgrade, present-day Serbia. She was one of the last women veterans of the second world war, she is not the last, there are many people (95+) who are still alive, who were participants in the war II...Дејан2021 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep'. I have no knowledge of Serbian, and am relying on google translate to read the sources in the article. They do not focus on her longevity, and are fairly detailed biographies examining her family history and survival of WWII. They are certainly substantive, and they seem decently reliable local news to an unfamiliar reader. I am not generally persuaded by longevity as a determinant of notability, but I don't think that argument is needed here. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:16, 17 August 2022 (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 Gumbel distribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Type-1 Gumbel distribution[edit]

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

This article describes the same thing as Gumbel distribution. The specific naming difference is due to the source used (GNU Scientific Library), but everything on this page is already in the info box on the Gumbel distribution page. The PDFs are the same after a change of variables. 30103db (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gumbel distribution. There's no need to delete it, and redirects are cheap. A merge/redirect should also be done for Type-2 Gumbel distribution. Tercer (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Tercer. Also, update the nav box. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Geographical Society of India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographical Journal of India[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases. A Google search gives 73 hits, most of them issues of ths joornal in Google Books, but no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator who posted a justification on the journal's talk page. However, those arguments are based on a misinterpretation of NJournals, so the PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also see my comment at the Talk page. User4edits (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC) User4edits (talk) User4edits (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Geographical Society of India and appropriate inclusion in Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University as per comments below from other editors. User4edits (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User4edits: Are you able to point to any relevant notability guideline to indicate that this journal meets it? WP:JOURNALCRIT doesn't enjoy the status of being a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), but WP:DEL-REASON#8 gives policy-based reasons to delete articles that do not meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. In other words, can you point to the SNG(s) that this article's subject satisfies and/or can you provide evidence that this passes the WP:GNG? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Geographical Society of India Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Geographical Society of India. That is a good solution, as the article currently contains no secondary sources that are independent. I did find a 1972 article in LIBRI ranking NGJI as the 50th periodical title in the world in a quantitative analysis of periodical articles on geography and their distribution (yes, "periodicals" and not "academic journals", so the list includes magazines). But I've gone ahead and added that now to the NGJI section on the NGSI page. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Geographical Society of India per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2022 (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. Consensus is to Delete but a Redirect can be created after deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Fitzroy (character)[edit]

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

non notable character Avilich (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I ran a Google search, I couldn't find reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG. --SunilNevlaFan 20:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any significant coverage from reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (preferred) redirect to Blood Ties (TV series). This could've been PRODed (fails GNG quite visibly, total fancruft). I'll be prodding sister article, Victoria "Vicki" Nelson. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was prodded by TTN. I deprodded with suggestion to merge or redirect to Blood_Ties_(TV_series)#Characters. Avilich could have just boldly done the merge or redirect. I could have too. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blood_Ties_(TV_series)#Characters as WP:ATD ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable independent sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2022 (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. Nom withdrawn without any other "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Law Journal[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases. A Google search gives 113 hits, most of them issues of this journal in Google Books, but no in-depth independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator who posted a justification on the article's talk page. Those comments, however, are based on a misinterpretation of NJournals, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also see my comment at the Talk page. User4edits (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC) User4edits (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User4edits: Are you able to point to any relevant notability guideline to indicate that this journal meets it? WP:JOURNALCRIT doesn't enjoy the status of being a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), but WP:DEL-REASON#8 gives policy-based reasons to delete articles that do not meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. In other words, can you point to the SNG that this article's subject satisfies and/or can you provide evidence that this passes the WP:GNG? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of two academic journal reviews of Banaras Law Journal 1(1), which appeared in The International and Comparative Law Quarterly in 1966 and Journal of the Indian Law Institute in 1965, and satisfy WP:GNG. Subsequent mentions in The Modern Law Review (1987) and Education & Law Journal (2010) in articles assessing the state of legal research and education in India state that Banaras Law Journal had an "impressive head start" as a law journal published by a university (MLR) and that it is one of the prominent national journals (E&LJ). (All of the above are cited now within the article.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough external sources over a period of years (not just year of establishment). Passes WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Kudos to Cielquiparle for improving the article. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of_a Teenage Baboon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Confessions of a Teenage Baboon

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

The article consists only of plot, and cites no sources. A cursory search for sources hasn't revealed anything beyond pages on Goodreads, Amazon, etc. As such I don't think it meets the notability criteria of WP:NBOOK. ThatSpiderByte (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ThatSpiderByte (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NBOOK as winner of ALA Best Fiction for Young Adults per Amazon [12]. Central and Adams (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Central and Adams, please don't use Amazon as a source for such information. I spent a half an hour looking for a solid confirmation of that award and was unable to find it. On the other hand, keep per plethora of JSTOR mentions of the book, many of which are relatively small, but cumulatively they add up to notability--and five I added should already be enough. ThatSpiderByte, please be advised that a "cursory search" is just not enough, and in a case like this, it seems obvious that a quick perusal of something like JSTOR or the MLA is the way to go. Thank you--and I suggest you withdraw this. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and withdrawn - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linc Limited[edit]

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

non-notable corp spam PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple research reports available for this public company. For example, one from SKP Securities is available here. Another is the report "Writing and Marking Instruments Market Growth, Size, Trends, Analysis Report by Type, Application, Region and Segment Forecast 2021-2025" by Technavio here. Analyst and research reports meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this company. I found one news particle about the company merging but that was it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how is this company notable? Not every company needs a page. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this was notable, it's written as advertisement; it would be much easier to delete rather than rewrite an article for such a company. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. While not wholly promotional, it was a worse version than the deleted one, so I deleted per WP:G4 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyder Nawab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted yesterday following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyder Nawab, which was closed as soft delete (thus precluding WP:CSD#G4), and recreated in a manner that does not address the concerns raised at that AfD. Namely, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY; the only claim to notability is being part of a noble house, with no evidence of independent notability found in a WP:BEFORE search and most content being family history. ^Complex/_Rational 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. ^Complex/_Rational 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and the reasons set out in the previous afd. I have also restored the CSD tag applied by Praxidicae just before the afd was opened as I think that's also a valid deletion avenue too, especially as there wasn't any expression besides delete in the previous afd. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: I didn't tag it as G11 because genealogical entries are not promotion per se and the language IMO is not unambigously promotional (I can see why one might tag G11 but to me it's a stretch). No concerns were raised at the old AfD about promotional language, but I can't be certain what the original article text was. Courtesy ping also to Praxidicae – apologies for removing the tag as Twinkle edit-conflicted; even though I wouldn't have tagged for G11, that was not intended as an objection. ^Complex/_Rational 17:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the basis of the article's deletion rationale but I think it's reasonable to Prax (not least as a serving sysop) to decide whether to stick with their CSD tagging or let the afd run. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:G11. Once CSD tags have been removed, by a reviewer, they should not be replaced. Feel free to incorporate the promotional aspects here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is however not only unimproved from the previous deleted version, it is, after comparison, "worse" than the deleted version. WP:G4'd -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: In fairness, ComplexRational has accepted that their edit conflict-removed the tag rather than being a conscious removal and without explicit explanation for doing so. Regardless, I see you opted to speedy anyway so you may close the afd. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(It still was not G11.) Would you like to know how long it's been since I closed an Afd? GAH. This the price I pay for OCD. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Fellowship Church[edit]

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

Passing mentions in all media I found online. No major coverage on this church and what makes it special enough to pass WP:NGNG nor WP:NORG.

Perhaps I missed something though!

Maybe others will be able to convince me otherwise, but I believe this subject doesn't merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Indiana. Missvain (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable no major coverage Andre🚐 05:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that there is nothing notable about this church. Unless content can be found demonstrating a high profile member, notable events, controversies etc. etc. then I vote for a deletion. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If editors want to create a redirect from this title, they should feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R/fuckcars[edit]

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

The CNet article is substantial, but the remainder are very passing mentions and Gnews didn't give any better results. Doesn't seem notable, perhaps can be redirected somewhere, but unclear what (if anything) would be a useful target. Fram (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Websites. Fram (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find other mentions of it other than CNet. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NWEB. CNET article does discuss the subreddit but it is more generally about all anti-car movements on the web, through the lens of this subreddit. Otherwise, the sources fail altogether. Whether or not it had a large piece of r/place does not establish notability. We just can't have a page for every subreddit that any publication takes some level of interest in. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect The article about a subreddit could be redirected to car-free movement if anyone is willing to add something about this subreddit. It appears that notability is definitely insufficient even in Google search, but since a redirect does not have to adhere to WP:N guideline and that there's another article with a similar topic, a redirect is a likely option if possible. AlphaBeta135(talk) 01:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge to Car-free movement#Advocacy groups, ~~where I have added a mention of the subreddit.~~ Jumpytoo Talk 04:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: reverted the change, so changing my vote to merge as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 16:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the redirect idea. I think the CNet article is enough to warrant a mention at the target you chose. And in my mind the existence of articles for other subreddits refutes the idea that 'social media groups' are not notable and are always promotional. But I also feel fine with the thing being deleted. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Like others have mentioned, the CNET article only covers the anti-car topic in general, not the specific subreddit. The four other references consist of two primary sources and two about r/place. I've heard of r/fuckcars before, but it's a very small, non-notable community compared to other communities with millions of members and coverage that could have Wikipedia articles written about them. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NWEB and WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lisa's Belly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Sage[edit]

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

The article is about a character that seemingly only had a major role in one episode, and since all sources are about a single attribute of her character, I would say this is as close to a case of WP:ONEEVENT that a fictional character could reach. As for alternatives, a redirection to List of The Simpsons characters or List of recurring The Simpsons characters would be fine. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lisa's Belly. If the character becomes recurring that a entry can be made at the recurring characters page. For now I think it is sufficient for this information to be in the episode's page. Rhino131 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm actually going to have to disagree with this one, Oinkers. Despite being a one-off character (so far), her being a breast cancer survivor has definitely given her some attention. In the article itself, we have a few sources about her. It's not like we're scrapping passing mentions from episode reviews here. Furthermore, WP:ONEEVENT pertains to living people, not fictional characters. MoonJet (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, claiming it to be a violation of WP:SUSTAINED would make more sense. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lisa's Belly. All content is tied to that, and both articles are barely straddling the "stub" size status. No need for a split. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lisa's Belly. Fandom is thataway. SWinxy (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fawaz Awana[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable association footballer, from an extensive search the only potential source I could find was this, which despite the title only mentions him in passing. Seemingly a WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Arab Emirates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - willing to AGF with the sources found by DO and say GNG is met. Giant Snowman 07:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, These sources show he is notable in United Arab Emirates: [13], , [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22], among many many other sources about him not listed here. On top of that, the UAE's Arabic newspapers emaratalyoum.com, albayan.ae, alkhaleej.ae, alittihad.ae, alroeya.com etc all have 2+ Google search pages worth of articles specifically about him. Not to mention websites like 24.ae, aawsat.com, dubaisports.ae, elsports.com, thenationalnews.com, khaleejtimes.com, gulfnews.com, YouTube, youm7.com, etc. He is clearly a significant figure in UAE football. In addition, he is am international capped player with over 100 pro appearances with an ongoing fully pro career where he is captain of his club team. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10. By the time I finish writing this, another ten will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Arabic and Google Translate only takes me so far - please summaries their content. Giant Snowman 17:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, 9 is an English interview article and the rest are interviews in Arabic about different topics. Keep in mind these sources are just a few examples and there are many many other sources about him not listed here from dubaisports.ae, youm7.com. 24.ae, aawsat.com, emaratalyoum.com, elsports.com alroeya.com, albayan.ae, khaleejtimes.com, gulfnews.com, thenationalnews.com, etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cited coverage by Das above is nothing but a collection of interviews, the articles quite literally consist in their entirety of quotes from the subject with no independent journalism present. Still no secondary coverage, still a clear WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: , Besides the sources provided, some additional sources about him that do not have any quotes from him, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 , among many many other sources that do not have quotes from him not listed here show he is notable in United Arab Emirates. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 13:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jelisaveta Veljkovic[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a or "was the oldest known living person in Serbia" or "Supercentenarian" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions 10:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BLP1E, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people". This person is not living, so that rationale is not relevant here. Jacona (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. But I guess this article still not reach WP:GNG.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 9 August 2022 (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 13:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Revenge (2022)[edit]

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

Copy of the August 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes article, which was also recently created. Both forks and already covered in the main article 2021–2022_Armenia–Azerbaijan_border_crisis#August_2022. This one is somehow worse and portrays a single narrative of the events. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to make this article more neutral, but it is still biased, and I think the main article on the 2021-2022 clashes is better than this one. This article should be deleted. HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not worth a separate article. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; entirely one-sided and even then, there's less information than the original article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany CoxXx[edit]

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

Most of the sources are adult industry publicity and ~~thus not independent, and those that aren't~~ don't give significant coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sexuality and gender. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is sourced extensively to different articles on AVN, which is a green-level source for pornography-related articles at WP:RSP. Easy GNG pass with multiple green-level RS. —Kbabej (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to AVN (magazine): "The magazine is about 80% ads and is targeted at adult-video retailers. Author David Foster Wallace has described AVN articles to be more like infomercials than articles". It might be reliable, but I don't see how it's independent. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia, it's still a green-level RS. And it's completely independent. The subject doesn't own a stake in that company, and I don't see anywhere that they've paid for articles. Do you have any information that isn't on the page to the contrary? It's like Politico covering politicians, or Playbill covering theatre; AVN covers porn and pornstars. They're the experts in that field. --Kbabej (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving that aside, most of these references are to movie reviews and interviews. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia What do you mean "leaving that aside"? The premise for your deletion nomination isn't valid. AVN is a RS on WP whether you agree or not; it's used 17 different times on the article. Articles solely about the subject include this one, and there is a wide range of coverage otherwise, from award nominations to film reviews. The latter obviously appear much more, which should be common sense since the subject was a porn actor. Reviews include films where the subject is obviously the star, since the subject appears in the name of the film, like Stonie Slept Here and Brittany's Transformation. The cameo in the mainstream film Bruno also got coverage. I think this easily passes GNG and you aren't understanding what "independent" means. --Kbabej (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of my deletion rationale was about sigcov, which I think is lacking here. You have presented one good source, but most of those "17 different times" AVN is cited, the reference is to an interview or a trivial review like this. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia I'm surprised you can argue there's not enough sigcov. The ref you pulled is 1 out of 50. A JRL Charts article covered her life and career in depth after she died, where writer Keith Witchka said her death "...sent shockwaves throughout the gay adult film industry" and that she was a "superstar" (here). The AVN article solely about her life written by Sherri L. Shaulis had porn heavyweights Chi Chi LaRue and Paul Barresi pay tribute, and said she performed with "every major gay porn studio" (here). In Gay Porn Times by J. C. Adams, Adams wrote "Very few bits of news have generated as much buzz" as the film Brittany's Transformation, which was named for the subject (here). Before that film was shot Adams wrote articles solely about the subject here and here. --Kbabej (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has a variety of sources and the main objection seems to be one user's arbitrary rejection of some of them. --Cake-in-the-rain (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice joke. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was really famous, even played Borat's son. No good reason to delete this. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2022 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron Christian Academy[edit]

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

Available sources are either WP:PRIMARY, obituaries, which are not generally considered reliable sources, insignificant trivia like sports scores, or extremely local. The only two sources in the article are very short routine coverage that appears to be a press release, published on the same day about a new building. The article was created by a WP:SPA with no edits to any other articles. As a private school, the appropriate notability guideline is WP:ORG. This article fails WP:ORGCRIT which requires that individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability, they must contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth, be completely independent of the article subject, meet the standard for being a reliable source. Primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. Jacona (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Georgia (U.S. state). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went back and added a few more sources. I also included a story of a substitute teach having an inappropriate relationship with a student that led to her being charged. I tired to find some famous alumni and I couldn't but a few have gone on to play in minor league baseball but not in the MLB. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But actually, no - that Hebron is in Indiana. St Anselm (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Even some newspapers messed this one up Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a lot of coverage of their sports team that goes well beyond routine scores: e.g. [23] Obviously not a run-of-the-mill school. St Anselm (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we have one keep vote based on a crime committteed at a different school of the same name, and another keep vote based on sports coverage which amounts to two references about one game. That's not WP:SIGCOV, not even close. Jacona (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been through Google News? There is a lot of coverage across several different sports. St Anselm (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, REname to Hebron Christian Academy, Dacula. I cannot believe this is the only school using the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Jacona I think you may have confused "private" with "for profit" when you wrote, "As a private school, the appropriate notability guideline is WP:ORG." WP:ORG says at the very top of the guideline, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine). Under WP:NSCHOOL, the guideline says, For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria, referring to WP:ORG and GNG. In the context of schools, "private" does not mean "for profit". Most private US schools are operated by non-profits: many are operated by religious groups and organizations (as this one is), that are non-profit. Even many private schools that are non-religious are operated by foundations supported by non-profit organizations. For-profit institutions in the US that run highly specialized operations called schools may teach music, dance, karate, etc., for profit, and are seldom notable—WP has only CompuHigh in the Category:For-profit high schools in the United States. All that said, IMHO, the article as it has been revised in this AfD process has barely enough sources to squeak by WP:GNG guidelines. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D3 Security Management Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, none of the independent sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing located on a search either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the nom, I'm not able to find significant coverage of the company by multiple WP:ORGIND reliable sources. The sources currently in the article consist of non-independent blog posts (including pages from D#'s website) and an extremely brief mention in a "year in review" publication of a university police force. I can't find Source #4, but neither can the internet archive, and even if it were a single independent RS that gives SIGCOV, that isn't enough to make a company notable. As such, this should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the analysis above, I am unable to locate anything better, references fail NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2022 (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 12:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anthony Toigo[edit]

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

Toigo was never, in actuality, an assemblyman. He was the chief of staff for one - but never served as such himself. Users with Newspapers access can see that in 1977 he considered running but ultimately decided not to run, and I can find no indication that he ever changed his mind about that. So he does not meet WP:NPOL.

He also appears to fail WP:GNG based on a lack of significant coverage about him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and California. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 05:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth Vissa[edit]

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

Telugu scriptwriter, fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG to boot. No significant coverage presented, commentary on film director in interviews, news pieces about trailers dropping, incidental mentions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Close case of WP:TOOSOON. Though there are possibilities that it can be recreated later. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER at this point upcoming but not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2022 (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 12:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of food days[edit]

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

Following from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of food months and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of food weeks, this is the last in the series. Same concerns as with other: the concept of a food day seems to be a wiki invention. This article has many refs, but nothing jumps out as meeting WP:LISTN. Perhaps it could be renamed and rescued, and even merged with the two deleted articles (which can be easily restored to anyone's draft), as a List of food-related holidays or a List of food-related events (or food-and-drink?), but first, someone needs to find sources that would help this meet LISTN. Otherwise, this is just a list of trivia, mixing Fat Thursday with the Nutella Day, International Vegan Day, Africa Day for Food and Nutrition Security and so on. Interesting grouping, however, and I wouldn't mind seeing it saved. Can anyone help? I'll end by saying thsat my BEFOFE shows many low reliability lists (ex. thos one) but the key word is "low reliability". The best I can offer is Atlas Obscura article on Japanese food holidays: [24]. Can we salvage something here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Easily passes WP:LISTN. See source examples below. More in addition to these also exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Ever wonder where all those national food holidays come from? The answer is complicated". Tampa Bay Times. August 15, 2016. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
"Why We Keep Getting More Holidays Devoted to Your Favorite Snack". Bloomberg. July 17, 2021. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
Randolph, Laurel (December 1, 2015). "The Story Behind National Food Holidays". pastemagazine.com. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
Fleming, Ebony C. (July 29, 2014). "National food days: A food for every day". Chron. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
Snider, Mike (August 4, 2020). "Coronavirus reality: What day is it? Remove the mundane with days to celebrate white wine, cookies, beer and more". USA Today. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
Morillo, Alexis (November 1, 2021). "88 Food And Drink Holidays You Need To Mark On Your Calendars For Free Food". Delish. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
"14 National Food Holidays That Offer Free Meals and Treats". U.S. News & World Report.
McSwain, Megha (June 24, 2022). "Ranking the 12 worst national food holidays". Chron. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
"National Food Days: An American Tradition". VOA. August 12, 2017. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
Smith, A. (2013). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. OUP USA. p. 643. ISBN 978-0-19-973496-2. Retrieved August 9, 2022. (subscription required)
Schaltegger, Megan (November 1, 2021). "71 National Food Days To Know About If You Like Free Food". Delish. Retrieved August 9, 2022.

Weak keep if sufficiently cleaned up. There are some notable items listed here but it is only a weak keep because maybe a category would be just as good as a way to group them. Also, all the cruft has to go. Every food day that does not have an article, or a substantial section in another article, needs to go. (If it has an article in another language Wikipedia then that might be OK.) Anything that is not actually a food day needs to go. Almost all the pictures need to go. External links in the tables need to go. Are tables even the best format for this? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to clean up some obvious rubbish without being too gung-ho as I don't want to prejudge the outcome here. One thing I spotted is that days related things like veganism are not really food days in the sense of days dedicated to a particular food or drink. These are partially on-topic. Should we separate those out into their own section or remove them entirely? DanielRigal (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Estabilishing inclusion criteria woul help, and IMHO limiting ourselves to just "days" is wrong. Per my comments at weeks and months article, the concept of "food-related holiday/observance" would likely make more sense. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add only reliably sourced and notable names. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jacobite line of succession[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Only citation is a self-published personal website. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 05:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to Jacobite succession or just delete. The subject is sufficiently covered in that article. This article adds details of the heirs apparent or presumptive to these Pretenders, but that is not valuable information. Most of those concerned are members of the royalty, for whom appropriate genealogical information will be found in their articles. I did once see (but did not buy) a book claiming that the succession passed to a child of the Young Pretender (by a mistress), but that depended on the child being legitimate, which the child was not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Osarius 07:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International State College of the Philippines[edit]

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

A little difficult to categorize this one, but I do not feel this meets notability guidelines about either web content or organisations. The article makes no significant claim of importance. I had previously A7'd the article (the original author removed the tag), but I now feel a AfD discussion to be more appropriate to determine consensus. Osarius 10:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines. Osarius 10:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Come on, don't give me a hard time. It's actually a current trending satirical meme in the Philippines. I've removed your A7 because the article is still not yet finished and it is intended to be finished within this night. You tagged this deletion under the category under "organizations" and "education", like, c'mon. It's a meme. You didn't even give me a chance first to fix this article before nominating this for deletion. 10:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Pog ing Juan 10:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, my nominations aren’t personal, so I’m not giving you, personally, a hard time. Second, as I can see you’ve been an editor on WP for a few years, long enough to know that you shouldn’t remove speedy deletion tags from an article you’ve created, even if you disagree with the nomination. Third, at the time of nomination the article did not meet notability guidelines, whether that was for organisations or web content, hence nomination. We have tags authors can place on articles to say the article is undergoing a major edit, and we also have draftspace available to produce an article to standards before it’s moved to articlespace. Why did you not utilise these? During new page patrolling we have to take the article at face value, and if there’s no indication from the author that it’s incomplete then it’ll get tagged. Osarius 11:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article massively updated since AfD nomination. @Osarius:, you may want to look into the current face value of the article proposed for deletion and kindly tell me if, in the article, there are still needs to be revamped for it to meet at least the "minimum" notability policy guideline of Wikipedia. So far, I have exhausted my best to make it not misleading to the readers. ~Pog ing Juan 17:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 9 August 2022 (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. Consensus, including from nominator, that she is presumed notable per WP:NACTOR - the support from other editors in this discussion transforms that presumption into actuality. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Bailey[edit]

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

Once again, in the process of trying to verify biographical details, specifically her Watford origin, I was unable to locate any significant coverage about her. She has trivial mentions in reviews about her work (typically no more than one or two sentences), and in articles about her partner Mike Leigh. Again, I checked all the usual Google suspects, as well as WMF Library Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and Newspapers.com and found nothing but trivial mentions or routine casting announcements. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known actress with appearances in notable films, shows and theatre productions. Played a major role in a very notable series (The Crown). Clearly notable. Sometimes common sense has to prevail. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above by Necrothesp, the subject has appeared in many notable films as well as performed in a major role in the series The Crown. Also, the subject was given a Screen Actors Guild award and was nominated for Supporting Actress of the Year by the London Film Critics' Circle Award, all of which are included in the subject's article. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:NACTOR criterion #1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films which is clearly met as per the information in the first sentence of the article. I clicked through two of the films, saw she has a significant role in both of them. CT55555 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Everyone arguing WP:NACTOR/existence of roles is ignoring the fact that NACTOR only suggests that a person is "likely to be notable" if they meet the criteria. NACTOR does not provide presumed notability or a pass from WP:GNG/the need for significant coverage. So far I have been unable to locate any significant coverage of the subject. If she is such an important and well-known actress, common sense would suggest that someone, somewhere, has written something significant about her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2022 (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 - the Echo source and the obit from the Independent are sufficient SIGCOV that on balance I agree there is likely to be more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Attwell[edit]

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

In trying to substantiate the article's claim that he was born in Watford, I discovered that I could find absolutely no significant coverage about him. I checked all the usual Google suspects, as well as WMF Library Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and Newspapers.com and found nothing but trivial mentions, even when adding specific terms like "EastEnders". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known character actor with appearances in many notable films and TV shows. Clearly notable. Sometimes common sense has to prevail. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think as a British actor it is more likely there will be coverage on the British Newspaper Archive than newspapers.com, although I was able to find a newspapers.com accessible article from the Liverpool Echo from 1979 here, which seems fairly WP:SIGCOV. There were numerous hits on BNA but I can't see the articles unless the same papers have been scanned to newspapers.com too. I think given he had a fair amount of acting credits, and many as main roles (not just odd episodes) then we can determine he was notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable actor and cartoonist. His obituary in the Independent confirms he was born in Watford https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/michael-attwell-6105684.html. See also https://www.cartoons.ac.uk/cartoonist-biographies/y-z/MichaelAttwell_Zoke.html Piecesofuk (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Brutality (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

No notable stable. Lack of in-deph coverage about it. The sources (mostly Cagematch) are WP:ROUTINE results, which don't prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 05:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The avalanche of citations cannot hide their lack of substance: Match programs, announcements, listings, or worse. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Jordyn[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Lack of in-deph coverage about her. The sources (mostly Cagematch) are WP:ROUTINE results, which don't prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 05:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there are numerically more editors asking to Keep this article, the editors asking for Delete have examined the sources and do not believe they establish notability which is the primary criteria we look for in a deletion assessment. There has also been mention of WP:TOOSOON which means that this person might be notable in the future but doesn't have the coverage right now to establish notability. If an editor would like this article to be draftified so they can continue to improve it and go through the AFC process for approval, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Ilechukwu[edit]

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

Recycled write up in different publications such as Vanguard, Nigerian Tribune and The Sun. Reading Beans (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your observation. I learn Wikipedia everyday, I am not perfect and don't know everything even on Wikipedia. I have also taken note of all your observation to avoid such errors in the future. My honest opinion will be to keep the article and allow users to modify or edits. Thank you Olugold (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we need a better explanation of why this should be deleted. Everything in Wikipedia is a recycled write-up of different publications, that's almost the definition of our existence. Is the argument that these sources are unreliable, that the articles aren't in-depth, or that they are not independent of the subject? Sorry, no offence meant, just seeking clarification. Elemimele (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, I’m in a tight schedule to respond to this. Ideally, it is okay, to check each nominated page before voting. Please, do so then tell me if you need want to see a reason. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the nominator's job to give a reason why an article should be deleted. I am therefore suggesting procedural keep, with no prejudice against a properly formed nomination in future; the current nomination has not been carried out correctly and there is no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Note that AfD is not a vote; whoever closes the AfD will decide based on the strengths of each side's arguments, not on a straight tally of !votes. It's generally not a great idea to nominate things if your schedule is too tight to give reasoning. Elemimele (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, my job is just to nominate — and not persuade you to !vote for delete. Let's analyse the following sources.

Akubuiro, Henry (1 July 2022). "Ilechukwu's inspirational painting, welded metal". The Sun. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

Abodunrin, Akintayo (10 July 2022). "Ilechukwu's inspirational painting, welded metal". Nigerian Tribune. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

Mbonu-Amadi, Osa (2 July 2022). "Ilechukwu's art dissecting opposing forces of life". Vanguard. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

Read the piece and tell me if they're not the same. I'm not pounding on this with you, again. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, solved! We're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were asking for deletion on the grounds that the Wikipedia article is a recycled write up derived from multiple sources (which seemed a very weird reason to delete!). But you meant that the article should be deleted because all the sources are recycled write-ups derived from a single press-release. I'm therefore striking my previous comment and agree (after some general googling) that it's WP:TOOSOON and we should wait for a bit more before an article on this artist; therefore Delete unless someone comes up with a second, differently-derived source. Elemimele (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven gone through the write up and knowing fully well that WMF is on it's quest for free knowledge accessible to all, I believe that automatic deletion won't be all that encouraging at all. Considering the author's point, she has learnt and is still learning and therefore believes that the work should be left for others to be able to access it, make some edit and update it; hence, I believe that it should be left so. Deleting it will deprive others access to it. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Having gone through the article,I must confess it's educative and In my opinion I suggest you ""keep"" the article (not minding the errors) for other editors to work on it thanks... Senator Choko (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)senator chokoSenator Choko (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)] — Senator Choko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment, I've read through the article and the reason for the nomination for deletion but in my own opinion, I would suggest the article be kept but rather improved based on the faults identified. I've also noticed that it's being improved on with the problem sources removed. Let's give this a chance and let it be improved on. Tochiprecious (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is an interesting artist, but it is TOOSOON as he does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. At first glance the article looks well constructed and sourced, but once I analyzed the sources, only one (The Sun Nigeria) would count towards establishing notability, and that's not enough. The Aworanka ref is a listing in an artist directory to buy his, and other artists work (these are often pay-to-play sites where an artist pays a fee to have a listing). The ThisDayLive ref is simply a name check with no content about his work at all. The ASO Savings refs are simply a listing of artists in a show, with no content about his work. What is needed to meet our criteria is WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent sources over a period of time. I'm not finding any notable shows or collections in notable museums. Maybe in a few years there will be enough on him and his work, but for now, it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Netherzone: for this elaborate breakdown. I see you have vast knowledge too. I'll like to ask: if Ilechukwu's articles is regarded as TOOSOON, what category do articles without a single citation on the English Wikipedia fall into? Please share links too I'd like to read and find out more. Thank you once again! Olugold (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Olugold, good to meet you here! I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question. I'd suggest asking the user Bearcat about categories, I've learned a lot over the years from observing the way he works with them. I'll leave a message on your talk page with how I go about determining notability for artists, so as not to clog up this AfD with off-topic conversation. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article, from my own point of view it's instructive, errors can be corrected by others.""please keep"" Viva33 (talk) 7:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Viva33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
[... "please keep" the article for other users to work on irrespective of the errors thanks (talk)7:10,10 August 2022(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korie uchechi Jennifer (talk • contribs) — Korie uchechi Jennifer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment to closing admin: please take note of the single purpose account (SPA) !voters. It is odd that they would find this AfD immediately after creating an account. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and I must commend the author of this article, it is quite educative "please keep it" it will help other users"don't delete" if there's any error, it can be edited and more contributions can be addedNzechimere (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Nzechimere[reply]

Going through the article in question I do not see any unamendable mistake that would warrant total deletion. I would vote for the article to be left for improvement instead of total deletion. I believe that the author has taken corrections in case of the future. Daberechi16 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Analysis - I'm not seeing how he meets WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST] criteria for notability that is required to k**p the article. See source assessment table below. Are there better sources that can be listed? I'm willing to change my !vote if independent significant coverage in reliable sources can be shown to exist. But at the this time the existing sources are poor quality in relation to establishing notability. It seems clearly WP:TOOSOON at this time, as stated above, maybe in a few years after some significant exhibitions, reviews, museum collections materialize. Perhaps someone would want to incubate it in draft space until that time? As I said, I think he's a really interesting artist, but that is not a reason to retain the article if it does not meet our guidelines.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Aworanka	Art selling site with user submitted content for artists to sell work	User submitted content	? User-submitted content, primary source	✘ No
Sun Nigeria	Newspaper	? Not clear if it's sponsored content or Advertising, since at the top of the article it says Advertisement	in depth	? Unknown
This Day Live	News source	Editorial oversight, byline	name check only, no editorial content	✘ No
ASO Savings & Loan 2012	Sponsoring company	?	name check only	✘ No
ASO Savings & Loan 2013	sponsoring company	?	name check only	✘ 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)).

Netherzone (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON I do not find significant coverage, or evidence of awards or exhibitions or being part of a notable collection. Artfacts list inclusion in one group gallery exhibit. Sourcing Analysis above shows no evidence of notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked pretty hard for additional sources, but it's hard to find any. I'm generally concerned about the extent to which our reliance on Google searches may reduce our coverage of non-White or non-Anglophone artists, but the sourcing doesn't seem adequate for an article here. I agree that it looks like it may be too soon.--Jahaza (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing doesn't seem adequate for the subject fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cat anatomy. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toe tuft[edit]

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

Article is regarding a very niche part of feline anatomy alleged to be named 'Toe Tufts'. Cannot find any further verifiable info online pertaining to these tufts that is scientifically accurate.   Kadzi   (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Science.   Kadzi   (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are these different from Ungual tufts? BD2412 T 01:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know but that article is about rats. I'm not finding anything for cats, but in human anatomy it seems to mean something entirely different – a small bone underneath toenails. That seems to be the most common meaning. SpinningSpark 16:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term seems to be commonly used in books about pet cats, for instance The Ultimate Guide To Cat Breeds where it is repeatedly used as a breed identification feature. SpinningSpark 16:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like there must be sources for something like this, part of the anatomy of a cat, when there are cat shows and cat breeders who would care about features like this and document their opinions on function and appearance and the like. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known part of owning a cat, every cat owner knowns what these are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can the potential sourcing for this be elaborated on?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellohi!: Was that comment aimed at me? What kind of elaboration are you looking for? Is it quotations from the book I linked to? SpinningSpark 12:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinningSpark: I was asking for extra sources to add to the article after to both solidify the keep rationale and for others to add to the article after this AfD is over. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source I linked basically has a lot of passing mentions. All that could be extracted from it is which breeds have noticeable toe tufts and their length/colour for each breed. That's the one that covered the largest number of breeds wrt to toe tufts, but a number of other books mention them for one or two breeds, for instance Domestic Cats: Their History, Breeds and Other Facts. The nearest I got to anything encyclopaedic beyond who has them was Planet Cat: A Cat-Alog which says, at least for one breed, they are part of winter protection, and Cat Lover's Daily Companion which describes another winter-evolved breed that doesn't lose its toe tufts in summer (implying, by the exception that proves the rule, that some breeds do so lose then) SpinningSpark 18:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cat anatomy. Unsourced article which can easily be covered with a couple lines at the target. Note that the target does not currently mention 'toe tufts', but along with some of the sources discussed above, a mention would not be detrimental. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure what to do about it. It is a thing, yes, but it's usage seems to be internet lingo, which is why academic searches don't result in anything. Perhaps it is that rat toenail thing? Maybe redirect to cat anatomy? Could there be another term for this? SWinxy (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weakmerge to cat anatomy.... I suppose this is the best place for it, but it doesn't seem to have any traction if it isn't already even mentioned there. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's written (or isn't written) in Wikipedia articles doesn't prove shit per WP:UGC and WP:WINARS, but I'm not so sure they aren't talked about in that article; In their normal, relaxed position, the claws are sheathed with the skin and fur around the toe pads. This keeps the claws sharp by preventing wear from contact with the ground and allows the silent stalking of prey. SpinningSpark 11:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like it is describing toe tufts. It sounds like it is describing claw sheathing. Perhaps the cat anatomy article needs a section about cat fur, and then maybe add a line in there about toe tufts. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, fur does not form any part of the claw sheath, and cats can't retract their claws in and out of the sheath as described here (except by shedding them altogether). SpinningSpark 18:49, 15 August 2022 (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 am setting aside any arguments based on the sentiments of pet-owners, and others that are too cursory to be informative. There remain policy-based opinions on either side of this debate, that are numerically quite evenly split. I believe all the participants here agree that a variety of dogs were used in dog-fighting, that dogs were bred for fighting, and that many labels were used for this large set of dogs that continue to be used today. Reliable sources have been provided that discuss dog "breeds" used in fighting (I use quotes intentionally): the list therefore has a scope that is defensible. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns that the kinds of dogs described by those terms do not represent the same things today as they did when dog fighting was common, and no sourcing has been provided to show that the terms translate clearly from the nineteenth century to the present. As such it is quite clear that stating "modern-day breed X was a fighting breed in year 18YY" would be complete original research. However, it isn't clear that any list article on this topic would necessarily be original research, nor that the article is so full of OR that WP:TNT deletion is justified. While this argument to delete has more support than opposition, it does not in my opinion rise to the level of consensus. I will note in passing that kennel clubs do not have a monopoly among reliable sources on the use of "breed" as a classification, and that any consensus on this topic needs to address the sources that use the term "breed" to refer to categories of fighting dogs. I would recommend that any future discussion begin by examining how to define the topic of this list in a way that avoids OR, and only then examining whether a list so defined is worth keeping (in any form: standalone list, prose article, subsection of Dog fighting, something else). Vanamonde (Talk) 10:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog fighting breeds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is a POV fork of Dog fighting and conflates modern purebred dogs with the mixed breeds of fighting dogs that were used for blood sports back in the early- to mid-19th century. Dog fighting is an illegal sport in many countries, and this list serves no good purpose for modern conformation show dogs and other modern breeds that are absolutely not/never have been fighting dogs. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Self-closed by Atsme. Adding: I realize that redirects are cheap, but please consider the damage caused by these types of lists when considering the breeds of dogs listed are known to be beloved family pets, or conformation/performance show dogs. The only reason I can imagine for any modern breed being included on this malformed, misguided list is because of the bad reputation of their centuries-old mixed breed ancestors, and a very small percentage of modern dogs that have been either misidentified, and/or purposely trained and used nefariously by ill-intentioned people, or improperly socialized which is the fault of dog owners, not the dog. It should be salted not redirected. Atsme 💬 📧 11:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) (updated 14:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Self-closed by Atsme.
Adding: I realize that redirects are cheap, but please consider the damage caused by these types of lists when considering the breeds of dogs listed are known to be beloved family pets, or conformation/performance show dogs. The only reason I can imagine for any modern breed being included on this malformed, misguided list is because of the bad reputation of their centuries-old mixed breed ancestors, and a very small percentage of modern dogs that have been either misidentified, and/or purposely trained and used nefariously by ill-intentioned people, or improperly socialized which is the fault of dog owners, not the dog. It should be salted not redirected. Atsme 💬 📧 11:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) (updated 14:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Sports, and Lists. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WT:WikiProject Dogs Atsme 💬 📧 ~~23:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)~~ 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding - since it was brought up in a comment below that the reason for my nomination wasn't clear or policy based, I will take this opportunity to elaborate. This list ~~is basically a WP:HOAX~~, fails WP:OR, fails WP:V for accuracy – the sources are neither supported by science, nor do they support the context of a list of dog fighting breeds – it amplifies the misinterpretations by laymen about dog breeds, and it is noncompliant with WP:NPOVFACT. It is a fake list that probably should have been speedy deleted rather than brought here. The dog breeds listed are not verifiable dog fighting breeds – there is no such thing as a dog fighting breed. Anybody who has ever owned or been around dogs knows there's a high likelihood that 2 male dogs – purebred or mongrels – that don't know each other will likely fight each other over a female, regardless of breed. Also see this NYTimes article which links to this article in Science, VOL. 376, NO. 6592. A few more common sense facts: (1) any dog that is/was used to fight another dog in the clandestine sport of dog fighting is unverifiable as a bona fide dog breed – it could be a mixed Heinz 57, or a crossbreed but highly unlikely that it's a modern registered purebred for use in an illegal activity; (2) visual identification of dogs is proven unreliable, so what is a pit bull considering it is not a breed; (3) there is only one dog breed with the term pit bull in its breed name: the American Pit Bull Terrier. Atsme 💬 📧 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not WP:HOAX, or WP:OR as the concept is discussed in many reliable articles (like the ones you describe) and in legislation, see Breed-specific legislation. The UK, for example, restricts dogs of both historic breed and of dog type, treating them separately. Perhaps the more suitable policy is WP:FRINGE as the concept of a dog-fighting breed/BSL does not agree with the scientific consensus.

Despite this, Wikipedia cannot ignore the fact that the idea of a dog fighting breed exists both legally and historically, and this AfD feels more like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as a consequence. To delete List of dog fighting breeds on this principle seems to contradict a lot of our other articles with reliable sourcing, as Lightburst notes below. Has there been an RfC on the concept of dog-fighting breeds in the past? NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: ^^SPA or block evader with 15 edits^^ Atsme 💬 📧 20:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty well convinced that it is correct to describe the nominated page as failing OR and V, but I take issue with painting it as WP:HOAX. That's over-the-top, and unnecessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, is there better terminology to use in place of hoax? Perhaps fictitious? Regardless, it is unrealistic so I'll just strike hoax and stick with OR and V. Thank you for your candid input. Atsme 💬 📧 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking it. The better terminology is "original research". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of having an agenda because I disagree with you. I think everything I've said is at least somewhat useful to the people in this AfD and it is not OK for you to imply that my words don't matter by accusing me of breaking the rules here. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that add clarity:

Durham University Study: Modern dog breeds genetically disconnected from ancient ancestors – Breeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as "ancient", are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds due to the effects of lots of cross-breeding, the study found.
Observations | Evolution: The Curious Case of Dogs by Christie Wilcox, an author for Nature Magazine – We picked dogs that were less aggressive or looked unique. And in doing so, we spurred on rapid diversification and evolution in an unbelievable way.
The Conversation: Why Dog Breeds Aren't Considered Separate Species – In the course of dog domestication, their behaviour, morphology and physique has changed, and differences among dog breeds are indeed astonishing. Imagine if future palaeontologists were to find Chihuahua remains in the fossil record: this animal would appear to have little in common with wolves.

Science has finally caught up to what professional dog breeders have known and have been engaged in developing since the mid– to late–1800s when purebred dogs became the new trend because of the laws that were passed that made bloodsports illegal. Atsme 💬 📧 11:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If deleted, the category Category:Dog fighting breeds should also be considered at CfD. TartarTorte 20:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

conflates modern purebred dogs with the mixed breeds of fighting dogs Maybe the issue here is the title is inaccurate. If it was retitled to something like List of historical dog fighting breeds, would that fix the issue for you? Would the article still be accurate?
Dog fighting is an illegal sport in many countries WP:NPOV Wikipedia presents reliable knowledge without editorial bias.
not/never have been fighting dogs If they have never been fighting dogs, then remove them from the list. That's not ground to delete an article.
I don't know how/why this article was created, but I'm not sure how it is a POV fork if dog fighting is the main topic and this is just a list of breeds. Maybe the issue is it just needs to be reworded/retitled to accurately describe what it's listing. The void century (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the ancestral dogs that fought in the pits in the early- to mid-19th century were not a bona fide breed; rather, they were mongrels with undocumented pedigrees. They were named for their function (bull dog, rat terrier, bird dog, pointer, etc.) and were of a certain dog type. There were no breed names because purebreds that were documented by notable dog breed registries did not exist prior to the founding of the KC in 1873. See Bull and terrier. Modern purebred registries such as the KC and AKC do not condone dog fighting, and are very strict about their requirements. They will take swift action against a club member who partakes in such a despicable clandestine sport. It's a POV fork of dog fighting which does not list breed names because there is no way to positively verify by visual ID that a dog is of a specific breed. It was media hype that helped create the "pit bull" even though no such breed exists. Far too many innocent dogs have been euthanized as a result of misidentification based on incorrect visual id practices. I see no good purpose for WP to perpetuate such misinformation about modern dog breeds in such a list which is based on the anecdotal accounts, and the reputation of their ancestors from centuries past, or because advocates of breed specific legislation want them all annihilated, or because irresponsible pet owners failed to socialize their dogs properly. Atsme 💬 📧 02:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best to expand Dog fighting if necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator doesn't make any reference to policy, and very few purebred dogs are still being used for what they were originally bred for. Nobody is herding with Shetland sheepdogs, for example, almost all herding is now done by border collies. The other argument that fighting breeds never existed because breeds don't exist without a kennel club to register them is not something I find convincing. Whatever this nomination is about, it looks like this does have something or other to do with pro-pitbull advocacy. Geogene (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting this list does not make Wikipedia better. The list could perhaps be improved with ideas from Talk:List of dog fighting breeds. 80.187.68.191 (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: ^^SPA or block evader with 1 edit^^ Atsme 💬 📧 20:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Editor was subsequently topic-banned by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through the articles linked to, they mention these dogs were bred for fighting. You can rename it List of dog breeds created for fighting if you want. Bull and terrier reads It was a time in history when, for thousands of years, dogs were classified by use or function, unlike the modern pets of today that were bred to be conformation show dogs and family pets. Bull and terrier crosses were originally bred to function as fighting dogs for bull and bear baiting, and other popular blood sports during the Victorian era. You could also rename it List of dog breeds used in bloodsports. Bull_and_terrier#Dog_fighting explains how they bred new species of dogs to use in blood sports. https://scienceline.org/2017/09/de-evolution-bulldog/ is the referenced source. That article goes into detail about how modern bulldogs are the results of breeding for fighting purposes. This is a real thing, reliable sources do cover it, the articles linked to in the list cover it in greater detail for each specific case. Note the nominator mentions "please consider the damage caused by these types of lists", which is not a valid reason to delete it. Wikipedia does not censor. Dream Focus 22:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to D4iNa4 above, the topic is a grey area which is best discussed in the text at Dog fighting. Also lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I came here from the ARS listing.) If I understand this admittedly complex issue correctly, the problem is that sources show that, when these dogs were used for fighting, they were not identified as these breeds, because the current definition of dog breeds was not yet in effect. See Dog type#Dog types and modern breeds, where it cites sources saying that breeds were formed after fighting had been outlawed and that breeding had altered the dogs from those who had been used for fighting. They were called by these names in some cases, but the names are not the breeds, and the pagenames in the list are of breeds. It is therefore contrary to sourcing to say that these breeds were first created for fighting, but are no longer used that way. I'm not seeing a viable way of renaming the page to address that. ("List of dog breeds that are not quite the same as kinds of dogs that were historically used for fighting" – nope.) We don't need lists of everything, and I think WP:LSC (and probably WP:NOR) points towards deleting this list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding some clarifications to my comment, based on some recent comments below. At least for me personally, my opinion has nothing to do with wanting to protect family pets, or any other WP:RGW. The invocation of genetic tests was made as a keep argument, not delete, and legalization dates are significant in terms of relating to the dates of breed emergence. And nobody is disputing the notability of the subject or the fact that there are lots of sources; the issue is what those sources say in terms of how to create a list page. (I hope that the closer will carefully evaluate the accuracy of comments, rather than just counting !votes.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list does what it should per our WP:LISTN guideline Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I just went through the individual dog breeds mentioned on the list. There are 21 dog breeds on our list and only four breeds do not make mention of their dog fighting history in their individual articles. Of the four two of them are descended from fighting dogs and two are questionable and perhaps should be removed:

√ Shar Pei - but another name for the dog is the "Chinese fighting dog"
√ Neapolitan Mastiff descend from Mastiff which is a fighting dog
X Spanish Mastiff not descended from a mastiff - need more information for inclusion
X Kerry Blue Terrier need more information for inclusion

Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mastiff was simply a generic name for a large dog. The Shar Pei was a hunting/herding & family guardian dog that nearly went extinct in the 1940s when China turned communist and started levying high taxes on dogs. “The Guinness Book of World Records” named it the rarest dog breed in the world, late 60s and 70s. To call the modern Shar Pei a "Chinese fighting dog" and include it on an encyclopedic list as if it's a verifiable dog fighting breed is ludicrous, especially when there is no verification beyond anecdotal accounts – and that applies equally to all the modern dog breeds on that list. A Dogster article mentions ancient artifacts, and a translated 13th-century Chinese manuscript that refers to "a wrinkled dog with traits like those of the Chinese Shar-Pei." Sorry, but that is not verifiable science-based evidence of it being the same breed as the modern Shar-Pei, or that it is/was a dog fighting breed, much less a popular one. Also keep in mind that not everything we find in RS is worthy of inclusion in WP, and this is one such case. Atsme 💬 📧 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, demonstrated notability is not the issue here. In other words, each of the listed breeds is notable, and the topic of fighting dogs is notable. That's not the problem. The problem is that it is original research to treat the breeds, as they are covered on the pages about each of them, as identical to the animals that were used as fighting dogs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I continue to be puzzled by this Fringe theory that modern dog breeds are somehow meaningfully different than their fighting ancestors, simply because the ancestors were "mongrels" and the modern descendants have kennel club pedigrees. But I've added this source from a veterinary journal that acknowleges that Shar-Pei's were fomerly used as fighting dogs in ancient China [25] and this NIH DNA study that explicitly links modern bull and terrier breeds with their fighting ancestors: The ability to determine a time of hybridization for recent admixture events can refine sparse historical accounts of breed formation. For example, when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860–1870. This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that, though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved, report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity, hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894) Here is another one: In the mid 1800s dog fighting reached a peak in popularity and breeds were created specifically for the sport. The most successful cross created for this purpose combined the tenacity and energy of the terrier with the power and devotion of the molossers (Frome 1999 (rev. 2004)). These dogs, the bull-terriers, rose to popularity and remain so to this day though the sport has long since fallen from grace. [26]. The idea that modern breeds were (and are still) used for dogfighting doesn't seem to be controversial in the literature. Geogene (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to hear it described as fringe. I'm no expert on the source material, and I'm receptive to being convinced to change my mind, but the sources cited at Dog type#Dog types and modern breeds seem to me to present a convincing argument. Also, having a DNA linkage is not the same thing as being, well, the same thing. Humans have a DNA linkage to pre-human primates. You quote a source that dates some breeds to 1860–1870, which agrees with other sources I've seen. But dog fighting was outlawed in England in 1835, and at about the same time in Ireland ([27]). Mongrels and purebred breeds are not identical. There is no question that the present-day breeds descended, and even descended closely, from the pre-1835 varieties. But they are not the same thing, and I don't think it's fringe to acknowledge that. I still think it's OR to ignore the sources at Dog types, and instead infer the opposite based on a misunderstanding of what a DNA linkage is. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I decided to look at our page on the Beagle, choosing it somewhat at random as a well-know breed that is unrelated to the fighting types; it's also an FA. From the lead section: The modern breed was developed in Great Britain around the 1830s from several breeds, including the Talbot Hound, the North Country Beagle, the Southern Hound, and possibly the Harrier. Thus, Beagles will have close DNA linkages with those other dogs. But the Beagle breed is not the same kind of dog as any of those. Our page describes Beagles as scent hounds, whereas the Talbot may have been either a scent hound or a sight hound. We might put the Talbot on a list of sight hound breeds, but it would be OR to put the Beagle on that list simply because it might have been bred from the Talbot. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dogfighting was legal in parts of the U.S. until 1976, according to Dog fighting in the United States#History in U.S.. The United Kennel Club (UKC), which still exists as a registry (and which renounced dogfighting a long time ago), was founded in 1898 originally to register fighting dogs as purebreds, and this is where the American Pit Bull Terrier breed came from [28]. The AKC doesn't recognize the APBT as a breed, which is why you'll never see one at Westminster. They categorize pitbulls as American Staffordshire Terriers, which is how that breed came about; the UKC does not recognize Amstaffs. And so we see that this "purebred vs. mongrel" thing is more or less arbitrary. Mongrel fighting dogs became purebred American Pit Bull Terrier fighting dogs when a new kennel club was created to recognize them as a breed. Do sources exist that say that purebreds and mongrels are biologically different? Geogene (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry about the ec. For your last question, I guess it depends on how one defines "biologically different". I readily agree that the purebred vs. mongrel distinction is muddled. But the fact that the distinction is imprecise does not indicate that there is, consequently, no difference between them. The very fact of the contradictory terminologies that you describe should lead us to be careful not to assume that the fighting dogs were identical to the current breeds. (I know there have been some recent content disputes about the nomenclature of bull terriers, but I'm not clear on the status of those.) I take your point that dogs have been used for fighting up to the present day, and so there could well be modern breeds that are used that way. In your link to Dog fighting in the US, it does name some breeds, albeit without inline citations. Perhaps there is a way to identify breeds that are well-sourced to be used, as the actual breeds, for fighting. That I don't know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thinking further on that, for a list we would have to define some sort of criterion for historical use versus modern use, and it's unclear how to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to list of historical dog fighting breeds or merge/redirect to dog fighting or delete. Some sources say that certain breeds were bred for dog fighting, but other sources likely say the opposite-- that those breeds are harmless domestic pets. Historical terminology seems to differ from current terminology in this case. Thus @Atsme makes a compelling argument that this is WP:OR. The info here would make more sense in the context of the dog fighting article. At the very least, using the words "extant" and "extinct" to organize this article seems like WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, using scientific terminology to describe a colloquial topic. The void century (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've put this horizontal rule here out of courtesy to other editors participating in the AfD. It is unusual in AfDs to have very lengthy debates between a few editors about how to interpret sources, as opposed to multiple editors expressing views on keep/delete/etc. What follows is a lengthy debate involving only me, Atsme, and Geogene, and it doesn't really come to any agreement. Editors and the closer can of course evaluate it however you wish. Editors wishing to continue providing AfD views can do so beneath the horizontal rule at the bottom of the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity – what I can't seem to get across to Geogene is that documented purebred dogs; i.e., a documented, pedigreed breed that breeds true, did not exist prior to the formation of The Kennel Club in 1873. Calling a dog that existed in the 1800s by modern registered breed names unambiguously fails V and OR. Back in the early 19th century, dogs were referred to by their call names and their function. IOW, Joe the bulldog was a dog that was used to bait bulls. When they crossed bulldogs with terriers (terriers burrowed into lairs after varmints), they got the "bull and terrier". What breeds comprised the bulldog, no one knows, and the same applies to all the other dog types. Geogene's allegations of Fringe theory is grossly mistaken. Furthermore, I'm a long way from being an advocate of pit bulls, unless advocating for accuracy, neutrality and ridding the project of misinformation is now considered an advocacy, then I'm guilty. My time on WP is not inspired by anything beyond my desire to share my many years of professional knowledge and experience in topic areas where I can contribute at an expert level, including this topic area. It's the keep arguments that are based on fringe theories and anecdotal accounts (such as statues) which place the existence of a wrinkled skin type of dog during the Han Dynasty. It is that type of dog that is believed to be the progenitor of the modern Chinese Shar Pei. There's also a 13th century Chinese manuscript that refers to a dog with wrinkled skin and some other characteristics like those of the Shar-Pei. Keep in mind that according to the AKC, the Chinese Shar Pei's "documented U.S. history began in the mid-1960s, but American interest in the breed truly began in 1973." The keep votes are banking on undocumented, unverifiable anecdotal accounts, and as such, they've failed WP:V and WP:OR by saying the modern Shar Pei is the same dog as its ancient ancestor. Geogene needs to re-read the PLOS research article he cited above because it describes 2 different types of dogs - early 1970s type and a "traditional type". Notice the word "type" - type is not a "breed". Visual IDs are not reliable in determining a breed of dog - phenotype is not inherited and it is variable. It's common knowledge that dogs can look like a particular breed and fail DNA testing. I am not going to waste time arguing the obvious. The following recent scientific research unequivocally supports the deletes:

Science: Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes
Smithsonian: Dog Breed Doesn’t Affect Behavior, According to New Genetic Research"
Nature: Massive study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

This list needs to be deleted and salted. Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:OR are about sourcing. Sources do say that at least some of the dogs on this list were used for fighting. I've pulled up the PLOS One paper Atsme thinks I should re-read. Here is a link to the source, [29], and here is a quote from the source: Shar-Pei dogs have been companion animals for centuries within China where they were commissioned to guard and hunt, and to sometimes serve as fighting animals. Atsme is trying to claim that this source is wrong. That fails WP:V, is WP:OR, and is quite possibly WP:FRINGE. Geogene (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, editors on all sides of the dispute need to drop the exaggerated labels, whether HOAX or FRINGE. And editor motivations, as well as arguments based on not causing real-world harm to dog breeds, are irrelevant to AfD decisions. We won't get to consensus as long as that goes on.

The PLOS Genetics (it's not PLOS One, but is from the same journal family) paper is about a DNA sequence's (coding for hyaluronic acid synthase) role in a fever disease, not about the history of dog fighting in the breed. To focus on the opening sentence in the Introduction section, which is just giving a brief context for what follows, overlooks the fact that the rest of the source goes on to argue that the Shar-Peis of the present are genetically different from those that were "companion animals for centuries within China". It still looks to me like we have a strong preponderance of sourcing that says that there is a poor correlation between modern-day breeds and the types that have been used (at least over history, perhaps not in present-day illegal practices) for fighting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this source which states: Breeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as "ancient", are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds due to the effects of lots of cross-breeding, the study found. It's a 2012 PNAS study. Oh, and see this article and scroll down to the section, It Never Really Existed, which is not an unusual find in some RS. Atsme 💬 📧 03:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That first source is about the first dogs, 10,000 years ago or more. It's not the same sense of the word ancient that most people use when they refer to "ancient China". It also says, From there, high bootstrap values (>95%) support the basal position and genetic distinctiveness of the so-called ancient (basal) breeds: the Akita, Basenji, Eurasier, Finnish Spitz, Saluki, and Shar-Pei (Fig. 1 and Table 1). @Tryptofish:, how do you interpret that sentence? The "it never existed" thing isn't about any of the specific breeds being disputed, and so isn't relevant to the argument. Geogene (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replying specifically about that sentence. This took a significant amount of reading for me, and it gets farther down into the weeds than is typically needed in an AfD discussion. Short answer: that sentence has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

Long answer, for those who are scientifically curious
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The authors of the PNAS paper are looking at which dog types and breeds are closely or not closely related to one another (and to ancestral wolves). They are using things called single-nucleotide polymorphisms to find differences between one kind of dog and another, where the difference is a single point on the DNA (in other words, really, really small differences). Bootstrap values are explained here. A high bootstrap value means something is statistically significant. If one goes to that article ([30]), and scrolls down to Figure 1, it's a graph like those at the lead section of clade. Breeds that are "close" to each other on the "branches" of the graph are the most closely related to each other; when you have to move from one branch to another, those dogs are more distantly related. The parts that are in red are the ones that were closest to the wild wolves, and also are the ones that have the clearest statistical significance based on those bootstrap values. The blue ones are the ones that first branched off from the red ones, and have a little less statistical certainty, and as you go down through the grayer ones, those appeared later in history, but are subject to a lot of uncertainty in the results.

Long answer, for those who are scientifically curious

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The authors of the PNAS paper are looking at which dog types and breeds are closely or not closely related to one another (and to ancestral wolves). They are using things called single-nucleotide polymorphisms to find differences between one kind of dog and another, where the difference is a single point on the DNA (in other words, really, really small differences). Bootstrap values are explained here. A high bootstrap value means something is statistically significant. If one goes to that article ([30]), and scrolls down to Figure 1, it's a graph like those at the lead section of clade. Breeds that are "close" to each other on the "branches" of the graph are the most closely related to each other; when you have to move from one branch to another, those dogs are more distantly related. The parts that are in red are the ones that were closest to the wild wolves, and also are the ones that have the clearest statistical significance based on those bootstrap values. The blue ones are the ones that first branched off from the red ones, and have a little less statistical certainty, and as you go down through the grayer ones, those appeared later in history, but are subject to a lot of uncertainty in the results.

The paper simply isn't about which breeds are or are not the same as they were back when dogfighting was legal. It is not about how breeds did or did not change over time, just about which breeds are closely or distantly related to one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just thought of one thing. It does show that the Shar-Pei originated as something pretty close to the wild wolves. If one wants to stoop to violating WP:SYNTH, one can conclude that the Shar-Peis of historical China looked significantly different than the present-day breed, which fits with an image in one of the sources discussed here earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: The PLOS Genetics source actually does show that the original Shar-Peis and the present-day Shar-Peis are genetically different. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of your hatting a block of relevant text where I explained how that was OR, and then restating your opinion here. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've repositioned the hat. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's Atsme's source, thank you for agreeing that it has nothing to do with the point at hand. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now, why did you ask me about that specific sentence, instead of whether the source as a whole was relevant? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One argument that's being thrown around here is that the concept of "breed" had no existence without kennel clubs to register them. (Words being used in some of the !votes for this AfD include "ludicrous" and "pseudoscience", but actual sources that back up that language haven't been provided). The sentence from that paper seems to me to be saying that Shar-peis have a distinct breed identity that pre-dates the 1960s when the AKC recognized them as a breed. Therefore, there is no reason to not list them as having been used in fighting, since there is sourcing that supports that claim. I've found another SNP-based analysis that also discuss the existence of what they consider to be ancient breeds, Ancient breeds are a small group of dog breeds originating more than 500 years ago, characterized by detectable genetic admixture with wolves and represent an early stage of dog domestication [31]. This demonstrates that at least some authors are publishing in scientific journals using the word "breed" to describe dogs that existed 500 years ago, or more. Given that, why wouldn't Wikipedia do the same? I acknowlege your point that dogs are expected to change over time, however I don't believe that this article claims that they don't. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent close to an hour carefully reading up on what that specific sentence meant, and you could have made that argument without imposing on me to do so.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is disputing the fact that there were ancient breeds of dogs. And I don't think anyone disputes the fact that present-day Shar-Peis, for example, descended from ancient Shar-Peis – nor that the ancient ones were called Shar-Peis. But, as I pointed out just above, ancient Shar-Peis looked pretty similar to domesticated wolves – which present-day ones clearly do not. They can both be called Shar-Peis. Plenty of sources can call them both "breeds". Other sources use the term "types" to make the distinction between earlier versions of breeds, and present-day versions. That does not mean that sources using the term breeds, and sources using the term types, are contradicting each other, so long as the sources are understood in context. It also doesn't mean that the sources are saying that the dogs whom they place in a breed at the time that the animals differentiated from wolves, are identical to the breed members that exist today.

I said above that the PNAS source never compared DNA samples (that they obtained from archeological sites) with present-day dog DNA. I agree with you that this does not provide evidence that they were different. But it also does not provide evidence that they were the same.

The issue here is not whether sources about dogfighting use the word "breed" for dogs that were historically used for fighting; there's no need to seek out molecular genetics studies to find sources that do. The issue is whether sources say that the historical versions of breeds, used as fighting dogs, are the same as the present-day breeds that are widely understood to be those that are classified by kennel clubs. The issue is whether it is editorially appropriate to use the present-day breed names to identify dogs that were used for fighting in the past as the same as dogs today. Sources still seem to me to say that dogs that were called by a breed name in the past and used for fighting, have undergone further breeding, not selecting for fighting propensity, to become the dogs that breed names are currently used for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any of those sources. What I've seen are sources like the PLOS Genetics paper that say unequivocably that these breeds were used for fighting. Geogene (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to Dog type#Dog types and modern breeds, where you can find sources. And you are doing WP:IDHT about where I said that The issue here is not whether sources about dogfighting use the word "breed" for dogs that were historically used for fighting; there's no need to seek out molecular genetics studies to find sources that do. The issue is whether sources say that the historical versions of breeds, used as fighting dogs, are the same as the present-day breeds that are widely understood to be those that are classified by kennel clubs. And even more so, for where I said of the PLOS Genetics source that To focus on the opening sentence in the Introduction section, which is just giving a brief context for what follows, overlooks the fact that the rest of the source goes on to argue that the Shar-Peis of the present are genetically different from those that were "companion animals for centuries within China". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PLOS Genetics says outright that Shar-Peis were used for fighting in China. Your claim that Shar-Peis of today are so different from Shar-Peis of the past (based on a single protein) that it's misleading to include them on this list is your original research. Geogene (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim from that source: This investigation also demonstrates how strong artificial selection may affect not only desired and selected phenotypes, but also the health of domestic animals... Strong selection by breeders for dogs who retained their skin folds into adulthood has altered the phenotype of the breed to the more commonly heavily wrinkled meatmouth type. Thus, Shar-Peis were used for fighting in China. And then, there were "strong"ly-selected changes in phenotype – the outwardly observable characteristics of the dogs – resulting from selective breeding, in the present-day members of the breed. They were selectively bred for skin folds, not for fighting. Also: In parallel, we performed a genome-wide association study to map the susceptibility locus for FSF. So they also looked at the whole genome, but found that the "single protein" was the one responsible for the fever disease. No OR from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of Geogene's confusion, I added more sources above for clarity which further support what Tryptofish has tried to explain, and has done an incredible job doing it. This peer reviewed article, Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography concludes: These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication. And guess what? The most recent study published in Science as explained in the Smithsonian article, Dog Breed Doesn’t Affect Behavior, According to New Genetic Research, has done some of the unraveling. I've already included those sources in one of my comments above. Oh, well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Atsme 💬 📧 11:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed by your paper that asserts no ancient breeds exist, because it's WP:PRIMARY and it's eleven years old. This paper from 2019 says, in its background/introduction section, Ancient breeds are a small group of dog breeds originating more than 500 years ago, characterized by detectable genetic admixture with wolves and represent an early stage of dog domestication. Modern breeds, which represent the vast majority of the more than 400 present day dog breeds, originated from stringent breeding efforts taking place only over the last 200 years [32] Your paper that claims breed doesn't affect behavior is also WP:PRIMARY and appears to contradict this source, which is a comparison of behavior between ancient and modern breeds. I haven't spent much time on the question of whether breed influences behavior or not because it has no apparent relevance to this AfD, and it looks to me like a Gish Gallop tactic. But if dog breeds have no influence on behavior, and that somehow turns out to be relevant to this AfD, I think you'll need more than one Primary paper to prove that that idea represents a scientific consensus, because there's quite a lot of studies that say otherwise in the literature [33], [34], [35]. Geogene (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to agree, but cherry picking sentences while ignoring context accomplishes nothing beyond validating what Tryptofish said; "And you are doing WP:IDHT", and not just in his case. You've done it throughout this discussion. It's rather bizarre for you to reject a primary source that doesn't agree with you while at the same time your arguments are based on primary sources and OR. Regardless, I've provided multiple high quality secondary sources, including 2022 articles in Science Magazine, Nature, The Conversation, and Smithsonian Magazine, all of which cited recent research that unequivocally supports the delete arguments. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As with Atsme, I feel like this sub-section of the discussion has gotten past the point where anyone will change the mind of anyone else. As much for the benefit of other editors as for any other reason, I'll provide this reply to Geogene, and then I'll (probably!) move on.

I appreciate the four sources in Geogene's post, because they actually do come closer than some other sources that have been discussed, to actually examining behavioral differences between breeds. The Serpell et al. book chapter does look specifically at aggression, although none of the sources actually discuss fighting dogs. What all four sources share is that they are comparisons among breeds: how one breed differs or doesn't differ from another.

Now let's be very clear on what we have been discussing here. Everyone here agrees that there are breed-to-breed differences. The dispute is over whether or not there are differences between:

Dogs of a particular breed (called "types" by some sources, and "breeds" by others) that have been used for dogfighting, and
Dogs of that particular breed as they are today, and as they are identified by the pagenames on Wikipedia.

It's important to realize that all four sources are comparing one breed with another, and none of them really compares a single breed as it was a few hundred years ago with what it is today. They aren't about changes within a single breed over time. What that means is that they do not address directly whether or not a breed has changed over time, so they do not refute other sources cited repeatedly here, that say that the dogs used a few centuries ago for fighting are different than the same-name breeds today (although the current breeds may well be used illegally and behind the scenes for fighting).

The sources do say some things that reflect on within-breed changes over time:

The Nature Communications source contains the passage quoted by Geogene just above. It refers to the stringent breeding that gave rise to modern breeds "only over the last 200 years". That approximately 200-year time is the same as other sources that put the end of legal dogfighting before the modern practice of selecting breeds, so there's consistency about that.

The Serpell book chapter has a section that is aptly titled (for our purposes) "What is a Breed?", starting on p. 32. The first paragraph is about early evolution of dogs from wolves and foxes. The second paragraph is about Paleolithic and Neolithic human interactions with dogs. The third paragraph, on p. 33, says:

Modern ‘purebred’ dogs are an entirely different story. In current dog breeding circles, the term ‘‘breed’’ refers to a population of closely related animals of similar appearance that is bred and maintained from a known foundation stock through genetic isolation and deliberate selection. For any modern dog to be successfully registered as purebred, both its parents and grandparents must also have been registered members of the same breed, which means that essentially all modern dog breeds are closed breeding populations (Ostrander 2007). The idea of ‘fixing’ the characteristics of dog varieties by genetic isolation and inbreeding is less than 200 years old, having originated from the hobby breeding of prize-winning poultry and livestock in England during the middle of the nineteenth century (Ritvo 1987). In some cases, it is claimed that modern purebred dogs are direct descendants of ancient or foundational stock but usually the genetic evidence for continuity is shaky at best (Larson et al. 2012). In reality, the lines of descent between modern and ancestral breeds have been thoroughly obscured by the effects of arbitrary selection for unusual or extreme aspects of physical appearance combined with deliberate hybridization between existing breed types to produce new, true-breeding strains that combine the attributes of the parental lines.

There's that same 200 years, treated as a dividing line when dogs began to be inbred to a very great degree that made them distinct from those that predated the 200 years. Again, other sources consistently put the end of public dogfighting at around 200 years ago.

The J. Neurosci. paper states:

We also investigated the relationship between these covarying morphological components and the phylogenetic tree. If variation in brain organization mainly reflects the deep ancestry of the tree, with little relationship to recent behavioral specializations, then brain morphometry should be highly statistically dependent on phylogenetic structure (i.e., high phylogenetic signal). Conversely, if brain organization is strongly tied to selective breeding for behavioral traits, then morphological traits should be divorced from the structure of the tree (i.e., low phylogenetic signal). We observed the latter (Fig. 4).

That's an actual result that concludes that something (brain structure) changed a lot between breeds during the era of selective breeding.

Finally, the Konno et al. paper in PLOS One says:

Moreover, the current breeding of show dogs and companion dogs may be also associated with modifying behavioral traits in purebred dogs, an idea that has recently received support from a study on dog’s personalities [39]. If this is the case, then lineage differences within a single breed could also lead to behavioral differences. Since modern purebred dogs have been established through various selective pressures at different points during their breeding history, the domestication of dogs can be considered to be still in progress [20,39]. Further investigations focusing on a more detailed analysis of breeding processes is warranted to elucidate the influence of a specific selective pressure on canine behavior.

That commentary is also consistent with behavior changes over time within a breed as a result of present-day breeding selection.

All of that is verbatim from the source material. No original research. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors continue below this line.

After some consideration (this is quite a long discussion, hm?), I vote delete for several reasons. Firstly, I dislike the name, as it implies that "fighting dogs" is a dog type, natural grouping, or something still in effect. Dog fighting is illegal in the places where standardized dog breeding is likely to be prevalent. Also, I feel that an overview of modern breeds descended from fighting dogs can be better dealt with, with greater context, in the Dog fighting article. With better sources, too- not that the encyclopedias are bad, but I doubt they go in-depth into a breed's history, and some of the other sources seem rather questionable to me. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a morass of OR and prejudice based on poor sourcing (much of it not realized to be poor until rather recently). We already have a Dog fighting article, and the salvageable material can be covered there. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolute original research including by synthesis that is policy. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. as This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. Fails WP:LISTCRIT: Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV-laden OR. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's extensive in-depth coverage of this topic in scholarly literature. Dogs have throughout history been both bred and trained for fighting, as of course they still are (and what on earth does the legality or illegality of that practice have to do with anything?) If the use of the word 'breed' is bothering people then they should start a move discussion – a title such as List of fighting dogs might work. No objection to a merge discussion either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, the attempt to contest what sources say plainly by invoking other separate sources about genetic tests is far more OR than the list itself. This is also not a synthetic category. It is a category that is discussed as a group by sources. It feels to me that some of the delete comments are driven more by a desire to protect the reputation of "beloved family pets" than by policy. I believe this is especially true of the nominator's suggestion that this article should be "salted and not redirected" which doesn't seem to give any policy-based reason for that request. ApLundell (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commment what a lot of talk about something very simple and unimportant. Dog-fighting is obviously a notable subject (no one has suggested deleting our article on it, the original nominator merely saying this is a fork). So we either have a list of breeds that have been associated with dog-fighting as part of that article, or we have a separate list article. Separate lists are usually justified when the original article is inconveniently long. Elemimele (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dog fighting Having watched this discussion happen for a while, it is clear to me that a lot of the primary sources presented both pro and against this list would be very difficult to use as part of an article because they require WP:SYNTH to be meaningful. I don't really want to get into the weeds but a lot of the sources presented in this discussion really do not provide good evidence for the existence/non-existence of dog-fighting breeds. This list should really be present in an article where more context and an explanation of the different viewpoints can be provided. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already got Dog fighting. Agletarang (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN - the list is accurate, and nobody has successfully disputed the fighting history of the breeds on this list. I do not agree that the list is a POV fork. It is not a POV push to create a list of dog breeds which have a history of being used in dog fighting. In the American Kennel Club (AKC) there are 197 dog breeds, and most were not used or trained for fighting. So our list is focussed, accurate, and it is informational. All of the blue links tell us that it aids navigation within the project. There will always be a debate with one side saying, "It's the owner not the dog" - but that statement appears to be historically inaccurate. As ApLundell stated above, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to ignore the fighting reputation of "beloved family pets". FYI, even AKC acknowledges that some breeds 1 2 have a history in dog fighting. Bruxton (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has tried to dispute the fighting history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2022 (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. Even if there were no consensus, I'd consider the conditions of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE met. Sandstein 17:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Constable[edit]

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

This BLP's subject has submitted a WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST at ticket:2022080910002407. He does not meet the revised WP:NOLYMPIC guidelines, and, even if he could otherwise be shown to be notable as an athlete, would only be marginally so. As such I think his request should be honored. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tamzin and per WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST unless someone is able to find some really strong significant coverage that supports keeping the article over the wishes of the subject. I'm going to also add that it should be explained to the subject that deletion of the article doesn't mean that it can't be refunded or recreated in the future if the subject suddenly starts receiving lots of significant coverage (positive or negative). I also think it should be explained to the subject that if the community decides to honor his request that he shouldn't take that as meaning he can re-create the article or have someone do it on his behalf just to try and exert some editorial control over article content. If "delete" is the consensus, then perhaps the title should be WP:SALTed to prevent any attempts at recreation without at least an administrator review. Finally, it should also be noted that there are eight non-English Wikipedia articles (Arabic, German, Persian, French, Egyptian Arabic, Dutch, Norwegian and Chinese) about the subject as well and the deletion of those articles (if also desired) probably needs to be resolved locally at each of those Wikipedia projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did not find sufficient independent coverage to argue against the BLPDELETEREQUEST. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't see any reason for deletion. Clearly notable, even though a bit of effort is required to find online sources. Deb (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the subject's request not a reason for deletion? And of the sources you've added: In [36], 2+1⁄2 sentences and a photo caption are about Constable; [37] is half a sentence; and [38] is a piece by Constable himself. I don't see how that adds up to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, even ignoring his request that we delete the article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no. I've never previously come across a case of us deleting an article just because the subject of that article wants to conceal the less savoury aspects of their past career. Deb (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly has precedent; I'm pretty sure the incident that led to BLP's establishment (and maybe to BLPDELETEREQUEST?) is similar. Ovinus (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reasoning behind that particular decision appears to be to do with unreliable sources which would not have been allowed anyway. But this is a case where certain facts are in the public domain but the subject wishes to conceal them. I'd be more inclined to accept it if this were a different Patrick Constable who didn't want to be confused with the one in the article. Deb (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we should be using our BLP articles as a way to punish the subject for "certain facts ... in the public domain". If those facts are in the public domain somebody can find them elsewhere. Regardless of the reason for the subject wanting to delete the article, the notability is at best borderline, and with that being the case I feel like we should default to respecting somebody's wishes to not be included on Wikipedia. nableezy - 17:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't put this source in the article - yet. I only found it because better sources were requested in order to justify keeping the article. Deb (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, I've removed that source before as a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation. Restoring it without consensus would violate WP:BLPRESTORE. More broadly, I would imagine that most people who BLPREQUESTDELETE do so because they feel that having a Wikipedia article in some way harms their public profile. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - I never saw it before, presumably because you removed it. I find your explanation baffling, since it's clearly this particular fact that the subject wishes not to reveal to the rest of the world. It's always hard to argue with a Wikilawyer, so I'll stop bothering. Deb (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NOLYMPIC and the request to delete seals it IMO. nableezy - 01:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly international quality athlete, reached the top 8 at the Olympics in an individual event, has won medals at international competitions, including the Commonwealth Games. Won an event at the cycling World Cup - we certainly wouldn't delete someone who has won an ATP Tour event or a UCI World Tour event and other significant coverage on a drug ban and another in-depth interview with career summary at the start. Unfortunately this is like a boy who cried wolf effect that because it is a Lugnuts article people would assume that the subject must be unworthy. There are all these pile-ons with subcontinental cricketers who have players 30-40 first-class games (about 3 years' worth of consistent top-flight competition) being hammered off when if it was a regular person who started it, nobody would even look anything further just based on their rankings/longevity Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated because of a request by the subject, not because Lugnuts created it. Maybe try, just try a little bit, to AGF? nableezy - 14:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you paid attention to the way I wrote the comment, you'll understand that I'm not a fan of Lugnuts' tactics. It was pretty obviously an implication of unconscious bias/switching off by a judge/referee in response to persistent frivolous behaviour by a participant in a dispute/applicant in some process etc. Of course any smart POV pusher would try and keep the admins happy to go block-shopping and so that others don't notice their fake edits, misrepresentation of sources etc (not that any POV applies here), as Lugnuts' purpose on WP was quite different, but obviously his purpose was inherently incompatible with keeping a low profile. Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~. Delete per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC) ~~Commonwealth Games medalist. Here are some sources[39], [40] and [41] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

- The first two sources don't count toward WP:BASIC; the first one is a Q and A and the second is pretty trivial. The third source is maybe okay. In any case, I'm of the opinion that requested deletion should be taken pretty seriously. Ovinus (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The first is one of the largest newspapers in Adelaide, that shows coverage, ie WP:SIGCOV. The second one is over the WP:100WORDS, which demonstrates WP:SIGCOV as well. Here are two other sources [42] and [43] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  A piece by the subject is not "coverage". If it were, literally any journalist or opinion columnist would be notable. The second is from "E-news, Charles Darwin University’s fortnightly news bulletin". It's unclear whether that's a reliable source, since some such bulletins are just thrown together by an intern in a university's comms office, and this one has no masthead, statement regarding whether there's editorial review, etc. I'm alsto not sure it could be called "independent of the subject". It is, besides, a brief bit of routine coverage of him failing to win a medal. You will find coverage like this of basically anyone who competes at the Olympics. Your third source is, yes, a single instance of significant coverage in one reliable source, although it's still routine coverage, nothing in-depth. Your fourth source is from what appears to be a blog. No masthead, no indication of editorial review, not even any bylines. And most of it is an interview. And your fifth is a press release from a government agency, which, as it makes negative claims about him, cannot be included in the article absent verification in secondary sources. (I have removed it twice in the past; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive338 § Patrick Constable.)
  Most of all, though, I'm troubled that there are now three keep !votes, in response to someone's request that we delete our article on him, and not a single one has explained why we should go against the normal practice of honoring such requests by non-notable and marginally notable people. When we discuss BLP athlete stubs, we often talk about the question of whether it's responsible to have so many brief, unmaintained articles on living people. Well here we have a case where a living person is saying he doesn't want to be in our encyclopedia. He's reading this, I imagine, so perhaps someone can explain to him why we so desperately need an article on him, despite our inability, to date, both to expand it and to keep it free of BLP violations.. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be marginally notable. But there's not enough strong coverage and I'd rather err on the side of deletion. Ovinus (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Tamzin As I can't view the ticket, could you possibly explain how you can be sure it is the same Patrick Constable who is requesting deletion of "his" article? Deb (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He sent the email from an address that Constable has publicly said belongs to him. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems reasonable. I have to say I find it hard to understand why someone who is a public figure and whose career is ongoing - and who's even put themselves on LinkedIn - would request suppression of the article. Deb (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I get it now. Deb (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change my vote to DELETE based on the subject wanting their article deleted. Sorry I must have misinterpreted it when I originally read it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE. Obviously. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons mentioned above. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugovin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just Vanguard and The Guardian, and they're both promotional pieces. Reading Beans (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that Nigeria Guardian is not always reliable for entertainment articles because they often just reprint a musician's press releases. For example, see the unprofessional puffery like "illustrious career" and "the superstar he has become today" in this guy's articles. Otherwise, we can be charitable and say it is is too soon for this singer because he has not yet been noticed by anyone who is willing to do more than reprint his manager's promo announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uche Nnaji[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Reading Beans (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a future candidate in the election for state governor, he currently fails WP:NPOL and there's insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Yankton Sioux Tribe. Or somewhere else appropriate. The one "keep" is poorly argued, it makes only a WP:WAX argument. Sandstein 17:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YST Transit[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Small local transit operator. Article is primarily sourced to self-published website. Searching turns up little. MB 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Dakota. MB 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yankton Sioux Tribe. Article does not appear to be notable on its own. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capital Area Transportation Authority has its own article. Admittedly CATA has almost three dozen routes while YST might only have one, but then again YST is operated by a sovereign Tribe while CATA only by the surrounding cities. Or compare Tillamook County Transportation District, which also only has two or three sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLeeLambert (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vilmoš Zavarko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. World record holder, 10-time world champion, best ranked 9-pin bowler in the world for 11 years, passes GNG by a light year:
- Biševac, Safeta (May 31, 2017). "Vilmoš Zavarko: Biti najbolji na svetu". Dnevni list Danas (in Croatian). Retrieved August 11, 2022.
- Kolundžija, Denis (June 20, 2022). "Vilmoš Zavarko: Novak Đoković kuglaških staza". Vojvođanski istraživačko-analitički centar "VOICE" (in Serbian). Retrieved August 11, 2022.
- "Вилмош Заварко, најбољи куглаш света, на време стигао кући". Дневник (in Serbian). Retrieved August 11, 2022.
- Жарковић, Сања (December 9, 2021). "FENOMEN: Svetski prvaci koje Srbija nikada nije dočekala na balkonu". NOVOSTI (in Serbian). Retrieved August 11, 2022.
- "Zavarko: Hoću još trofeja, nikad mi nije dosta pobeda". Sportal (in Serbian). April 27, 2022. Retrieved August 11, 2022.

No such user (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John Fetterman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Fetterman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Levi Fetterman

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

This is just a dog owned by a notable politician. Not notable enough for its own Wikipedia page. Most sources are just passing mentions of Levi. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article author) This nomination feels hasty. It was made 15 minutes after the article went up, within 5 minute of an edit and before I had even finished putting in content or external links. While it is true that most sources include passing mentions, that is not a justification to delete, because some are also not just passing mentions. I think we should keep it due to the multiple, independent, reliable sources where the subject of the article is the primary focus of the news articles that I list below. I think the significant coverage demonstrates notability as per WP:GNG

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/john-fetterman-fans-pa-democratic-senate-primary-20220420.html (ideal source, I think)
https://theburgnews.com/in-the-burg/lucky-levi-how-a-chained-rescued-dog-became-the-official-dog-of-pennsylvania (does rely in interviews by the dog's owner, so some content lacks independence)
https://www.abc27.com/digital-originals/pa-lt-governors-rescue-dog-becomes-twitter-comfort-canine/ (like above, relies on primary sources for some content)

In summary, I don't have the perfect three above, because two rely on quotes, but while that requires care for verifiability, it does not majorly detract from notability. I note the coverage is taking place over two years so far, with no reason to assume it will reduce. I don't like that this was nominated for deletion without me being notified, without any alternatives to deletion WP:ATD such as draftification or redirecting to Gisele Barreto Fetterman being considered, but more importantly, the subject meets the criteria for wikipedia = the general notability guidelines. CT55555 (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First two sources are enough to pass WP:GNG; not passing mentions. Poor Levi: chained up most of his life, then about to be put down in a shelter, and now his Wikipedia page is going to be deleted. And after just 15 minutes? We have a policy about not biting newcomers, don't we? :) BBQboffin (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. There appear to be sufficient references to establish notability, and it's somewhat concerning how quickly this article was proposed for deletion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes it's "just a dog", but it's been covered enough in reliable sources, which is the requirement here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Politics, and Pennsylvania. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Fetterman. There is some coverage but I don’t see a basis for a stand-alone article; this can be covered in the main article with this state-level news. Reywas92^Talk 13:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Fetterman. As Reywas92 points out, the coverage is primarily local/state-level news stories. Not enough to qualify for a stand-alone article, in my estimation. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and there are possible WP:RECENTISM issues to consider as well. I would suggest merging the core content to the "Personal life" section of the Fetterman page, where Levi is already mentioned. That would be enough to create a separate paragraph, or even a small sub-section, about him with a targeted redirect linking directly to it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any guidance that depreciates local news. Are you? CT55555 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on this, but WP:LOCAL is a good read for this. Generally, if something is exclusively covered in hyper-local media (think your local two-bit newspaper), it's probably not notable, even if that coverage is significant. Again, no opinion with this particular case. Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL is indeed a good read, but this isn't a community or small town. Pennsylvania is the 5th largest state by population in the US. BBQboffin (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL might not apply here, but WP:N does. It defines notable topics as "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". I am not convinced the current level of coverage constitutes "significant attention by the world at large" as there seems to have been very little of it outside of Pennsylvania. The coverage has also not spanned a long enough period of time to establish independent notability, IMO. I reiterate that it is simply WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Fetterman, while there does exist coverage in major newspapers such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, the coverage in these sources is of a passing nature and does not in my view constitute a sufficient amount to pass GNG. The other cited coverage is mostly very local in nature, and is not sufficient for a WP:SPLIT from the main article of John Fetterman. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Fetterman#Personal life. This is a case where WP:GNG is met but is outweighed by WP:NOTNEWS, so WP:PAGEDECIDE's advice applies: There are ... times when it is better to cover notable topics ... as part of a larger page about a broader topic. If Fetterman (the human) is elected to the U.S. Senate, or becomes a national figure by some other means, and Fetterman (the dog) becomes a major part of his public profile, an article may one day be viable. At present, this is covered in sufficient depth in the other article, to which we should point the interested reader. No material needs to be merged, in my opinion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isar, Joghatai[edit]

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

Mass-created article by User:Carlossuarez46 based on unreliable databases; alternative name "Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye Do Zurzamand" of this putative village is of a well. Apparently deprodded by the prodder for no apparent reason. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, since we don't have a reliable source which says the subject exists. The Iranian census often listed people by the nearest landmark, so the fact it appears there does not mean it's a populated place. Google translates the Persian title as "Zorzmand deep well number two" so it definitely sounds like a well rather than a village. Hut 8.5 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already de-PROD, by the PRODder?, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I normally like to try and salvage these kind of articles but this one is beyond what I can do. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo McCafferty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jo McCafferty

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Couldn't find any sources on this person or her music online. Personal website and blog are offline, leading me to believe that they have moved on from music without much fanfare. Novemberjazz 23:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak kepp: Have added a nice little piece about her music and non-music careers, though it's from her employer's inhouse magazine. Also a uni profile at her current name, and a reliable-looking blog which confirms the change of name. PamD 08:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of those could be considered RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some coverage found here [44][45][46] and [47].-KH-1 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources added after the nomination do little more than show that this person exists, and that is not an indicator of notability. As Jo McCafferty (musician) she can only be found in a few minor local gig announcements and some gig reviews that don't add up to reliable and significant coverage. As Jo-Anne Tait (academic) she has a few brief interviews in specialist newsletters and announcements of appearances at conferences, but that does not satisfy the rules for academics either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tiramani[edit]

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

There is only one citation that appears to suggest notability: brief mention in USA Today article [48]. All other sources are self-published, SEC filings, press releases, or local newspaper simply reporting on a press release. Vast majority of the article is content promoting companies he is involved in. Can't find other sources beyond the USA Today to establish notability, and the article is primarily edited (sometimes disruptively) by apparent SPA accounts/IPs, suggesting this is largely promotional. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an overzealous deletion that has been submitted after numerous attempts to remove relevant and cited information by user ZimZalaBim. Simply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis. Lurxxer (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Lurxxer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NBIO, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:NOT. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lurxxer and two other accounts are now blocked, for a combination of edit warring, undisclosed COI editing, and socking. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that @ZimZalaBim and @Lurxxer both participated in an edit war. User @ZimZalaBim removed a majority of the content from this page including many sources both primary and secondary. ThePageNinja (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSirMister (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The USA Today source seems to be the best. Plenty of mentions in a local Vegas paper about what the company is doing, nothing much for him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one source found in a book [49], not substantive coverage, but it's something. How do we feel about the book source? Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although hesitant, I agree that the USA Today article is the best source currently referenced. I see more in the edit history that I'd be inclined to take as well. [50] Might consider WP:TOOSOON and go with a draftify in this situation but I think I'll sleep on it.--Littehammy (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - looks like he's the founder and is/was CEO of two entities that seem to be somewhat notable. Boxabl looks kind of cool and there's a draft, and I found a decent amount of coverage that could help get it approved, despite the obvious COI history: [[51]], [[52]], [[53]], [[54]]. Digging into this article's rocky history, I found some media coverage of another venture he founded through 500 Group, Supercar Systems [[55]]. Unfortunately, nothing more recent, so the car company may be defunct. Keeping this from being a full keep is that there's not that much biographical info about him, as pointed out above. I also don't see much about 500 Group besides the Supercar Coverage. The book is so-so, but appears to be written by someone promoting their software. This [[56]] describes the Group and its patents, but there's no author byline, hurting its reliability. I'll look some more tomorrow and see if I can find anything more substantial. If most of the decent coverage is about his role with Boxabl, I'm not opposed to merging and redirecting this to a "founder" section in the Boxabl article (assuming the draft can be cleaned up and accepted). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vegas Review-Journal source [[57]] discusses his previous role with 500 Group and mentions his patents, and a large deal with Stanley Black & Decker. I found this design-focused interview from 2015. [[58]] I know interviews are considered inferior sources, but at least it sources his design background, and prefaces things by calling him an award-winning industrial designer. Some design samples follow the interview. This source [[59]] shows the awards. Not earth shattering, but I think this, the previous 500 Group info, and what could be a good future article about Boxabl puts this into keep territory. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is an early closure per WP:SNOW. It is evident that there is going to be no consensus for deleting the article. The dispute is between keeping the article and merging it elsewhere. Whether and where to merge the article to is a discussion better suited to the article talk page, where it can be pursued without the distraction of people commenting on a possible deletion. Sandstein 16:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raid of Mar-a-Lago[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. There's not enough information yet to be able to expand this topic into a full-fledged article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main Mar-a-Lago article. Marioedit8 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The page was nominated for deletion not even 10 minutes after being created. There is plenty more to add. However, there is already a ton of coverage including internationally. The home of a former president being raided is very notable and is unprecedented. The page can also be expanded based upon Republican's response - such as claims to defund the FBI or McCarthy saying he will subpoena Garland. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The claims made by Mr. Trump are unsubstantiated, and while likely true, no RSes have claimed as such. It's also very uncommon, if at all, for articles based on FBI raids to be created. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article on place. WP:TOOSOON applies, start as section on main article (Either something to do with Trump's presidency and post-presidency, or the place itself). FrederalBacon (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is probably going to be a big story. Roger (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably" isn't a word that should justify an article's existence. When this becomes a big story, then this page can be remade. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump per WP:TOOSOON. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mar-a-Lago. Better than Trump's article because it's more applicable there. SWinxy (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mar-a-Lago and/or Donald Trump. It's too soon to say whether this event will have WP:LASTING effects, and if it does, the article can always be recreated in the future. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an event unprecedented in modern history - a raid on the home of a former President of the United States. It will probably be expanded much more based on data from reliable sources. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 02:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Trump's page at least until more information is available, and then likely split because his article alone is far too long to begin with anyways. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The raid seems it will have a political impact similar to the Watergate scandal, so it warrants an article. Screendeemer (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I mentioned to Roger, potential events aren't good enough grounds for an article to stay up. If more develops, then this article can stay, but right now it's too soon. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, Patience -- This story just broke, and no one knows where it is going to go. While it may have been premature to put up a Wikipedia page so soon, it is up. Better to keep it up, and later merge it with the larger article on Mar-a-Lago if nothing significant develops. The option of merging it now, and then having to break it out is both awkward, and wasteful of time and energy. And, articles about former President Trump easily take on a life of their own. 2603:8081:4900:55C6:AC73:75AE:D0B0:81F8 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. This singular law enforcement action doesn't need its own encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Mar-A-Lago. Like the others, I agree that the article can be split if more information can be sourced and if the event has lasting significance. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There seems to be a dearth of reliable information so far in this story. This is a story that has the potential to be huge, but more information from more reliable sources is needed. Dash77 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep stub articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Mar-a-Lago. Also, WP:RAPID does play an impact in this AfD due to it being a current event and nominated to AfD with a current event template still present. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yet another case where a trout should be used. It should be forbidden for such AfDs to be created so soon. This ~~will be~~ is already a significant topic and the follow-up will be enough for an article, maybe a long one. This is the FIRST time such a thing has happened. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm torn on whether or not this should be kept. Other than that, all I have to say is that this maybe shouldn't be decided based on a majority vote, since the situation will likely rapidly change over the next few days. X-Editor (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm basing my decision off of now. If it grows into a bigger story, then this page can be recreated. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious solution is move to FBI investigation of Donald Trump and classified materials, and broaden to add what is known about the entire investigation, not just the raid. Trump left office, some boxes went missing, some boxes were returned, and the FBI raid followed. That is a complete and notable subject, into which the raid fits as a section. BD2412 T 03:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reported by multiple independent reliable sources. By 15 August 2022, when this AFD is closed, there will be enough information to satisfy even a very strict test of general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Florida. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep let the page improve it's still new MrMemer223 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We don't have a crystal ball, so we cannot ascertain if this incident unto itself will bring about criminal charges, thereby exposing something noteworthy - we simply don't. Is it worthy of its own subsection on Mar-a-Lago? For now, absolutely. But, until we have a clearer picture, we should treat it as a mention on the Mar-a-Lago page. BOTTO_(T•C) 03:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Keep in mind, this page being potentially a big story is not a valid reason to keep it in mainspace. It's notable enough to be mentioned in Mar-a-Lago's article, for sure, but the details regarding the raid are still murky. Worst case scenario, the page can just be recreated without objection. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm leaning towards keep but only because by the end of the week this could be a much larger thing. If this fizzles out and is nothing then lets just merge it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not even been a day. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the same vestige, I can say Delete it hasn't even been a day. Curbon7 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can say, confidently, that at least 50% of articles here began in a less-than-favorable state. They need time to flesh out. This becomes this. This becomes this. And this becomes this. So no, you cannot, by the same vestige, vote delete. In the hours since this was AfD'd, the length has already increased. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, most of these discussions should be "unpublish" discussions. The issue here is this page was moved to the mainspace way too early. There is such a rush here to publish an article that contains so little information. The principle of "let's just publish the article and flesh it out later" simply is not how this site is supposed to work. If we are talking about an in-progress event that we absolutely know will be able to be fleshed out enough to not be likely subject to a merge later there is wisdom to posting like this, but if nothing pertinent is found in this raid, this is an easy merge. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major story. All indication is that coverage will continue as the week goes on. I think this nomination was a bit premature. Sometimes it is best to wait a few days to afd articles like this to see if coverage quickly subsides and lasting significance is not demonstrated. Thriley (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Making a TOOSOON AfD against a developing story like this seems very unproductive when an AfD discussion runs for at least 7 days anyway, which is plenty of time for people to determine whether the event is notable or not. It might be easy to recreate the article if it's determined to be notable, but it's even easier to just leave it until there's more consensus. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And frankly it's just embarrassing that people coming to Wikipedia to read about this are greeted with a big red deletion notice at the top of the page... Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going too, but I almost want to WP:IAR and just close this early. It's clear that this is going to be kept, and it is quite ridiculous that this were ever proposed... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably unfair, but part of me feels that anyone who comes to Wikipedia to read about this right now kind of deserves what they get. This is what Wikinews is for. De Guerre (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both wikinews and ITN seem to be purposely ignoring the topic right now though, leaving the page the only place to go to. 2A01:4B00:8786:D00:48F0:69AF:56EA:6413 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The single biggest thing I hate on all of this website is the need some editors have to be the first to create an article on a recent event, no mind to quality or sourcing. It's idiocy, and I wish we took more action to dissuade it. That said, this is certainly a notable event. Coverage is wide and significant and it gets over the WP:NOTNEWS hurdle by the fact of who it is. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. singularly notable event in American history.

Saintstephen000 (talk)

Keep, this seems like an event that would pass WP:10YT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just, way, way too soon. For all of those saying this event will be notable, as a 1st, everything needs to happen a 1st time if it does happen. We can say in the merged article that this event was a 1st time event. The reality is, it's way too soon to know if this raid will actually have a large impact, if any at all, on future indictment. Once we know more about the findings of the raid, I would suggest re-publishing, but this article is way too heavy on "Reactions" at the moment, something that all these politics-related articles have, but really is the least important part. Is this event significant? Yes. Is it going to be significant enough to where it simply needs to be a separate article? That's Crystal Ball right there. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And as a postscript, I'm also quite favorable to the suggestion that BD2412 has made. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Classic WP:109PAPERS, except with 100 less papers, making it worse. No thanks. 12.5.215.114 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seriously? Why is this being proposed for deletion? This is the first time this has happened in American history, and I'm sure we will be talking about this event for years to come, even if (in the very unlikely circumstance) Trump is never indicted. Please stop making obviously spurious deletion proposals. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NETRUMP 12.5.215.114 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? Besides, Trump didn't even do this. The FBI did. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Plenty of other current events of equal or even less political significance have gotten articles this quickly with the same amount or less of content in them, considering the potential this has to be an extremely major story and the fact reputable news sources are already producing a large amount of coverage for it, it would be extremely unwise to delete an article that will inevitably need to be recreated later anyways. This clearly merits more than just a mention on the main Mar-a-Lago article. 2601:405:4400:9420:5175:B20E:F653:2E42 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If Sharpiegate gets an article, why shouldn't this? TaserTot (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FBI investigation of Donald Trump and classified materials per BD2412. There are currently two ongoing federal investigations into Trump. Every semi-public step in both investigation is going to receive a lot of coverage. The question we are asking is whether or not this particular step is independently notable. I find it very hard to conclude that it is right now. De Guerre (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to justify its own page. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A former President has never been subjected to such a warrant before; that makes this notable itself irrespective of what happens next. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once we find out which years long multi-million dollar boondoggle assault on democracy this is attached to maybe fold it in. Merging into Mar-a-largo is silly that's an article about a building this is an article about federal troops attacking a political opponent. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what it's about at all, as former presidents are not immune from prosecution in the United States. It's also not the case that only Republicans can investigate Republicans. (Wray was picked by Trump, not Biden) The FBI is a law enforcement agency, not a military agency, but you know this. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL then I suppose this was a "federal raid" on a sovereign nation of free peoples? --SinoDevonian (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The FBI raiding the home of a former president is of historical importance. Thus it's important to provide encyclopedic information. 93.224.105.112 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now let it mellow. Currently/was recently the no.1 story on BBC news (UK).--SinoDevonian (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable enough to have its own article. Vida0007 (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely covered in numerous mainstream media, including multiple reliable sources. The article is short but what's there is sourced and demonstrates notability. Meets WP:NEVENT for me, particularly WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. It appears the AfD was the thing that was TOOSOON - only a few hours after the news broke, before many publications could begin to cover it. Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination was too WP:RAPID; lets see how the article develops. Already, there's enough for an article, but this is of WP:LASTING, historical importance and sure to expand as more information becomes available. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete This is a small event of a larger story, though the problem is that we don't know which story it is yet (related to papers claims to have been taken from WH, or part of the Jan 6 hearings?) It should be documented, but this is not a major standalone story and a violation of NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 12:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It’s a minor occurrence in an investigation rumored to be taking place. Law enforcement officers execute search warrants all the time. The fact that the premises belong to a former president is the only reason this one is newsworthy but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It’s possible that this will turn into Trump/GOP/Carlson/Fox’s next "Hunter Biden laptop" conspiracy theory but at the moment it’s an isolated law enforcement action. The name of the page violates WP:NPOVTITLE. Sounds as though the FBI broke down the door with a battering ram but according to RS the FBI searched the premises with a search warrant. When RS use "raid", they are quoting Trump (NBC, WaPo, Guardian, NYT, NPR, Politico, CBS). The page shouldn’t be merged with Mar-a-Lago or Donald Trump; the search is already mentioned on both pages, with more detail than necessary in the Mar-a-Lago article IMO but that can be fixed after the hullaballoo has died down. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS, TOOSOON and WP:RECENTISM. A couple sentences in the main article on Trump may be warranted, but at this point not more than that. The long-term significance here is unclear and the tabloid like coverage can mostly be credited to Trump who is a lightning rod for the news media. That's not to say this is insignificant. But as others have pointed out, warrants are issued all the time. If this turns out to be a major event leading to criminal charges, then we can always recreate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A federal warrant against a former President of the United States would not be sought or approved by a judge unless there was already substantial evidence against that person. The long term significance here is crystal clear- this is historically unprecedented. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While what you note is partly true; it is likely that there is evidence of criminal activity or no warrant would have been issued, that is not relevant. This is crystalballing and evidence does not equate to a charge. Just because he is a former POTUS does not mean we waive BLP and start giving UNDUE coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - unnecessary at the current time to have a separate article from Mar-a-Lago or Donald Trump. Anarchyte (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For the first time in American history, a former president's home has been searched during a law enforcement investigation. This article will definitely stand the test of time. Besides that, the AFD nomination was too soon. Juneau Mike (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename to FBI investigation of Donald Trump and classified materials per BD2412. As much as I believe in the quaint policy of WP:NOTNEWS, there's no way this isn't going to generate enough media coverage to meet WP:GNG, but BD's suggestion does make sense as it puts it into a larger context. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it's very new, like really new, and it's unnecessary to delete the entire page altogether. Tylerota2 (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I'm amazed that this is even being questioned. This is an extremely unique, newsworthy, and notable event which is going to have lasting consequences and perspectives. 173.240.190.3 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Mar-a-Lago page. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Investigation into Donald Trump's handling of classified material. This would cover the wider investigation, of which the raid would be merely a part. A merger into Mar-a-Lago wouldn't really work, as the location/physical place is less important than the movement of material. Neutrality^talk 16:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable event. Andre🚐 16:18, 9 August 2022 (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 New Mal–Changrabandha–New Cooch Behar line#Railway Stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhotepati railway station[edit]

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

There is now a community consensus that railway stations aren't inherently notable. This one doesn't pass WP:GNG. My suggestion would be a redirect to the railway line, New Mal–Changrabandha–New Cooch Behar line, but a redirect was reverted by the creator. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and West Bengal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This author has a history of making poorly written train station stubs, and one was recently redirected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaldah Gopalpur railway station. The same should occur here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Mal–Changrabandha–New Cooch Behar line#Railway Stations per nom as WP:ATD, found no WP:SIGCOV. No prejudice to restoration when enough citable information can be found in WP:RS to create a start class article. Jumpytoo Talk 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Mal–Changrabandha–New Cooch Behar line#Railway Stations: as per above —VersaceSpace 🌃 05:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2022 (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.