< September 14 September 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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! 23:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks College

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article has only primary references to the article subject's own websites. A WP:BEFORE search revealed little or no mention of the organization and no reliable sources. Geoff | Who, me? 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the brooks college should go back to this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brooks_College&oldid=268962993 Class Action Lawsuits against Brooks College due to fraudulent activities. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg99773/html/CHRG-109hhrg99773.htm https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/comments09/c176.pdf Editior1482 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Although this entity claimed accreditation status with Western Association of Schools and Colleges that could not be verified in the WASC directory, it does appear to be registered as a corporation with the office of California's Secretary of State. The building that is advertised as their address at 1225 Crossman Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, looks nothing like the building advertised on their very slick website. It doesn't even take spidey sense to be suspicious it's a scam diploma mill. But let's assume it's legit... the article fails WP:NCORP, and especially WP:AUD, requiring multiple independent, secondary, reliable regional and/or national sources. Period. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should have noted above that as a for-profit institution, the guideline that applies here is not just the WP:GNG guideline that applies to non-profits. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 15 September 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. The only consensus I can see over the voluminous comments provided is the desire to keep this article in some form. I suggest moving the discussion from AFD to the article talk page to explore the possibility of renaming the article or merging some of the content to other articles. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queue

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

This event fails WP:NEVENT, as this is neither something with WP:LASTING significance nor an event with wide geographical scope and could frankly be deleted under WP:DEL-REASON#8. Any content here can be appropriately covered within the article on Elizabeth II's death, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, which is a more appropriate location to describe this article's subject. As such, I am proposing that we blank-and-redirect this article, as this is a non-notable event where any coverage would be better placed in the proper context of the death article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meets WP:GEOSCOPE -- Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely)
  • Meets WP:DEPTH -- The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Times...
  • Meets WP:GNG -- gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.
Unlike the generic queues for Wimbledon, this queue... THE Queue... is itself notable. Seddon talk 02:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A day on and I've changed my mind. The article has grown significantly, and plenty more news stories have come out and have not yet been covered in the article. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. It is getting too long to be included in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. I would suggest that a Lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II article including events in Westminster Hall would be a more sensible way of carving up the material, otherwise it's a bit unclear where some events should be covered (e.g., someone rushing at the catafalque). Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amending this to Keep given more news coverage such as [this article].
  • It's been several days and it seems the article may be worth a keep. The article has been expanded with enough relevant, well-cited details to make it worth its own article. That said, as many have stated, it may be best moved to a title like The Queue (lying in state of Elizabeth II) or Queue to view the coffin of Elizabeth II; as many have argued, the current name is catchy but likely won't be as ubiquitous in a few decades. I find that as a cultural phenomenon related to a historical event, with enough notable and documented incidents and relevance, it's worthy of its own article. Now that the event has passed, it's easier to see that it will still be relevant after time has passed, as a queue of this magnitude for a British monarch will likely not occur again. --The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 15:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, once the lying in state has finished, Merge. EmilySarah99 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have already voted but I think the article is in a much better place than it was when the AfD nomination was initiated XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur that whilst a rename at some point in the future may be likely but for now, WP:COMMONNAME holds for "The Queue". Seddon talk 15:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For additional context to the significance of this event, see Yahoo's documenting of the '52 Lying in State Queue which has no "cultural phenomenon" associated with it, despite it being a thing at the time also. We should be surprised if there wasn't a queue. Koncorde (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss on why there being a primary topic would mean a need to make a widely covered secondary aspect with dozens of RS have to be two lines. We don't do that for, say, Covid-19 secondary topics. And navel-gazing is an introspective thing - it's often given as the reason why there is a de facto higher burden for a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, but I can't see why it pertains here. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the "secondary aspect" is not distinct from the first, is in context of the first. That we have succeeded in bloating "the queue" with opinions and other coverage isn't evidence of significance - it's evidence of recentism and a lack of editorial oversight. Navel gazing is the act of focusing on one thing to the expense of wider issues - in this case apparently a long queue and a 24 hour news cycle desperate to fill content that we're now just going to uncritically reflect. Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
gbrading (ταlκ) 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, there wouldn't have been any queue if it weren't for the lying in state; that was its entire purpose. It just seems silly to me when you have a major event that lots of people have queued to participate in to centre the queue instead of the event. To me the event is obviously the prior matter. Lordrosemount (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't particularly long at all? Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 21 September 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! 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Punwasi

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist and unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for journalists or political candidates. The principal notability claim as a journalist is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of third-party analysis about him and his journalism, and candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- but this is not referenced to any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him, but to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all with glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about subjects other than himself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of, rather than a speaker in, his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 15 September 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 Thomas Aquinas. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of Thomas Aquinas

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

I have removed the WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and unsourced material from this article. This was much needed. However, as pointed out already back in 2007, the article "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" 's subject is vague.

There exist pages like Hegelianism, or encyclopedic formats like Hegel's Social and Political Philosophy. A summary of a thinker's philosophy is usually in a section of their biography article, e.g. Arthur Schopenhauer#Philosophy. However, this WP article seem to have been little more than a blog for the WP user A E Francis' very personnal erratic reflexion on and random interests in such and such aspects discussed by Aquina. Why present usury? Why social justice? Very few secondary sources are used, so it looks like those aspects are personnal choices.
Therefore, this article should be either deleted, or turned into a redirect to Thomism. Veverve (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looks like a Merge is happening although editors are split whether it should be with Thomism or Thomas Aquinas. I see related content in both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still looking for opinions on what merge target is preferable here. Do I need to ping all participants?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 September 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 Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip. The only alternative to a redirect is a No consensus decision as participants are all over the map here. But I feel that there is more support for a redirect but, as a closer, it was confusing as several targets were mentioned. If you would prefer another redirect target, please discuss it at the talk page. The content is still present if there is any that those advocating a Merge want to make use of. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Bautista's bat flip

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

Unnecessary content fork. A bat flip is a relatively common baseball “move.” This play is not independently notable and is already sufficiently covered in Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip Frank Anchor 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both of these pages are WP:ROUTINE coverage and only make one passing mention of Bautista's bat flip in the body of the article. Further, being a "seminal moment" in franchise history (based on the opinion of one person) is not justification to keep an article. Frank Anchor 20:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still discussed a decade later is proof of notability, comparing other things to it as in those articles. Also has a chapter in the book as described. Also discussed in Sports Illustrated, [12], a discussion about how important it was to the player here [13], the bat itself was sold at auction [14], as was the ball [15]. It's been covered from multiple angles in Canadian media outlets for the last decade, should meet GNG. It's also been discussed in scholarly journals [16],[17], in fields from theology to theatre review. May only be trivial mentions, but help to show how the event has become part of Canadian pop culture. It's also been used to illustrate race relations in sport, in a thesis [18] and similarly in this one [19]. This should be GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage of the event itself, of the ball, of the bat, of the importance to the player, how rude it was or wasn't. I'd gladly use these sources to write the article if it wasn't done already, should be more than enough to prove notability for our standards here. Coverage of the event, of the items involved and of the importance of the action. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 8 September 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) 21:36, 15 September 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! 23:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Hiratsuka

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

Contested PROD with the reasoning "he played in a competitive cup game for a fully pro Japanese top-flight team (Shimizu S Pulse)"

This player played one professional Cup game for Shimizu S Pulse. Although it's not reflected in the article, he's since continued his career in Japanese lower leagues.

I don't believe this player meets GNG. We have a few sources but they all appear to be routine coverage. Searches in English and Japanese don't reveal anything significant. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 8 September 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) 21:35, 15 September 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. There is no clear consensus on notability either in terms of numbers or arguments, and no consensus for moving to draft space. This would normally tend to a no consensus result, and the article kept. However, there is a stronger, albeit conditional, argument for lack of notability in addition to the argument indicating lack of in-depth reliable sources, therefore I am giving this a soft delete where on request the article can be undeleted and moved into Draft space in order to be worked on. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Salvadoran Primera División

[edit]
1970 Salvadoran Primera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 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) 21:34, 15 September 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 move to draft. While there are also arguments for outright deletion, these contribute toward the general consensus that this article is not, in its current state, suitable to be in mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Salvadoran Primera División

[edit]
1971 Salvadoran Primera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 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) 21:33, 15 September 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. Article improvement or a potential page move can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's War Crimes House

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'Russian war crimes' but War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further, here is New York Times substantial coverage about another Ukraine War memorial, an exhibit titled Crucified Ukraine at a World War II memorial museum in Kyiv, whichever museum should probably be in Category:World War II memorials in Ukraine and now also Category:Ukraine War memorials. And there are no doubt more, adding up to substantial coverage of the topic area. --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: There's already a pretty extensive article on Russia's war crimes during the invasion at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two comments are about memorizing the crimes, not about the crimes. Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes, I am focused upon the memorializing process, which involves exhibits, monuments, museums. I mostly edit about places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, which is about artifacts (buildings, monuments, statues, warships, other things) that are large artifacts, that, like items at a museum, with interpretation/education/presentation can evoke the ways, events, etc. of the past to the public. At this Russia House there was a significant exhibit, at least, which attracted significant coverage, although it may or may not become a permanent museum. --Doncram (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to give it a general intro characterizing what artistic works/exhibits/monuments/memorials do, akin to the well-written-in-my-view explanation in lesson plan / teaching materials at this "Facinghistory.org" page, where it's stated: "Monuments and memorials serve multiple functions in the communities in which they are erected. When the members of a community create a monument or memorial, they are making a statement about the ideas, values, or individuals they think their society should remember, if not honor. As a result, these structures not only influence the way people understand the subjects of their commemoration, but they also reveal the beliefs of the people and the time period in which they were created. They thus serve as historical artifacts in themselves." AND "Memorials and monuments are designed to convey forceful messages about the events or individuals they commemorate. Each has embedded in it a particular perspective, an interpretation, a set of values or judgments. As a result, these public structures often raise contentious questions...."
It would be okay by me for this AFD to be concluded "Keep, but move to a more general title and develop...." or similar. --Doncram (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:58, 8 September 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) 21:30, 15 September 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. Reasonable people may disagree about the interpretation of SIGCOV, but consensus is with the "keep" side here. I will note that the cancellation of a show isn't a valid reason to delete an article about it, just as the airing of a show isn't a valid reason to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Night Wanderer

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

Fails GNG, was never streamed because it was cancelled. See 8 Highly Anticipated Chinese Dramas That Were Suddenly Canceled! on YouTube @2:41, for the announcement of cancellation. Also iNews, iMedia <–– not the best sources but also serve as an example of the sources used in the article. Atsme 💬 📧 02:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding more PAG-based reasons to DELETE - starting with WP:NFTV which basically states that unaired programs could be draftified until they are released, but the point here is that if it is not going to be released, why draftify? To that add noncompliance with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V relative to it ever being released. In addressing the cited sources, including the list of sources below, GNG clearly states that advertising, press releases are not considered independent. Every cited source for this article is a form of advertising or promotion of the series that was subsequently cancelled. Most use the same 2-minute trailer, and/or they focus on the actors rather than what went into the production because the actors are what sell. These types of plot reviews using trailers not only also fails WP:GNG, it fails WP:NTVEP as follows: The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Keeping in mind the cited sources are far less reliable than the examples, and are questionable at best. I see nothing that makes this cancelled series notable, especially the fact that it fails WP:10YT. The cancellation takes us into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and if anything would be included in the respective BLPs. Atsme 💬 📧 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: That's a great rebuttal! Though, I still disagree. The several refs you provided aren't detailed anaylsis. Quick descriptions of the settings, in a few sentences, is definitely not SIGCOV. The only critical evaluation in the Beijing Daily is together render a confusing atmosphere and [the constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view, is it SIGCOV? Then let's discuss Economic Daily: "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin" and "Night Traveler" cannot be broadcast, it will cause serious damage to the platform. The loss will be self-evident, I remain unconvinced that three sentences are enough to be significant. WP:GNG is still not met, IMHO none of the refs are solidly enough to count as significant coverage, even though these refs taken together as WP:LOTSOFSOURCES might be convincing to some. VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first four articles I provided in my original comment are completely about Night Wanderer. I translated the articles from Chinese to English using Google Translate. In English, the articles are 577 words, 338 words, 593 words, and 215 words. The television critics provided analysis about Night Wanderer along production information and the television series' plot. The totality of the sources qualifies as significant coverage about the television series. There is no support in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (the notability guideline applicable here since there is no notability guideline for television series) that for a review with critical analysis, the plot summary and production information parts of the review do not contribute to the source qualifying as significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: @Cunard: That might be true, and I'd say more participants would probably see your argument, which is well-written and policy based, as better than mine. But in IMHO, context matters. These first four refs are basically plot summaries and quite a routine production info, with occasionally a couple of lines of "review". Also, why could we stack trivial/non-SIGCOV refs together to make an article notable without being WP:LOTSOFSOURCES? More detailed critique:
Ref 1: List of cast and plot details. P.S. it's not even a "review", just reviews of the trailer and poster. I doubt many will consider this to be significant coverage.
Ref 2: Just a preview, just includes a plot summary with "..." and info on the dates. (If this is considered to be SIGCOV, minor undistributed films with release dates set and a trailer put could have an article.)
Ref 3: Plot summary and cast info, with the end a quick mention: The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by.
Ref 4: Piece with 2 or 3 sentences of opinion, then the story and cast details.

With the film not even released, these aren't reviews but are all semi-promotional, non-significant overviews of the filming. I know this is about films, but to quote something similar from WP:NFILM, Similarly, films produced in the past that were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. I'm unconvinced that this failure, which is just speculated by RS because of tax issues, is notable. Still, it's perfectly fine that you disagree with me. That's part of building a consensus, and if more editors agree to keep the article, I'll concur with the result of the consensus. Also, thanks very much for finding the refs- the amount of digging and WP:BEFORE search you do in other languages is so impressive! Overall, I'm very impressed with your great salvaging of the article through finding lots of details and the policy-guided responses, but I still couldn't bring myself to keep this article. I'd also be interested in Atsme's opinion. Many thanks again for your time and work with this article, and have a good day:) VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, why could we stack trivial/non-SIGCOV refs together to make an article notable without being WP:LOTSOFSOURCES?" - I disagree that these sources are "trivial/non-SIGCOV refs". From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Sources that provide hundreds of words "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" are considered "significant coverage" under the guideline. There is no notability guideline that excludes from consideration the content you are excluding. There is no evidence that the sources are promotional. Critical analysis about the TV series' trailer is critical analysis about the TV series. This television series received significant coverage when production ended, when the series' poster was released, when the trailer was released, and when the series release was speculated to been postponed indefinitely. A series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable. iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world. When a source discussing Night Wanderer's release postponement cites industry experts as saying it had been "one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022", it solidifies notability.

Cunard (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing against your points still, but many thanks for your detail!
iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world: popularity is not a gauge of notability; it's like saying a viral video with millions of YouTube views deserves an article.
I also disagree with WP:NOR and WP:V. From here, we could write a mainly plot-based article, with very brief descriptions of the production, which relies on details for the cast and trailers/videos that are part of the plot. It's very close to WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT in that the article would almost entirely be a plot summary. The guideline states [summary]-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. What could be written for this indefinitely delayed film? Development/design? No- save a very brief trailer and video info that is basically a plot description and a cast list, which we can find for virtually every single film listed in a decent database. The reception/significance section is also virtually impossible. IMHO, it's difficult to write an article currently that doesn't violate these.
On WP:GNG: [a] series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable- a couple of coverage in 2021, and several news-like coverages about the actor quickly mentioning the show in 2022 only for the tax issue. I know this mainly applies to WP:NFILM, but most refs you provided, in fact, meet plot summaries without critical commentary (or we could consider a one or 2-sentence description of the setting as "critical commentary" if so, that's certainly all right). Yes, it's for NFILM, but if we're dismissing WP:NTELEVISION entirely, that seems to be a similar guideline that this fits somehow. Again, thanks very much for your detail and replies! VickKiang (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough analysis and production information in the articles I found for this to not be a plot-only article. The relevant guideline for television series is Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, not WP:NFILM or the essay WP:NTELEVISION. If WP:NFILM applied to this article, the sources I provided would meet the "plot summaries without critical commentary" clause since the sources do provide critical commentary as I have shown. Cunard (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: @Cunard: I disagree with that this television show meets WP:GNG. Per WP:GNG: [Moreover], not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. It's absolutely clear IMHO that, even if these are RS, the coverage are not "reviews", as you suggest, but announcement columns and minor news stories. If it's stated that these refs are "significant", that's all right and part of building a consensus, but I'd like to point out that context matters, not just a word count. If this is a corporation or product, it would definitely end in delete because the guideline explicitly states that routine news releases aren't acceptable to be SIGCOV. But the general notability guideline has it in a footnote and is less clearly worded. So, obviously semi-promotional news releases, disguised under 1 or 2 sentence commentary on the settings of the trailer, could be branded as a review (sigh)... I'm just providing another AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Asih (2nd nomination) that ended in draftify, but if these routine news releases are SIGCOV, then they could technicially be kept. But, for a show that is cancelled indefinitely, draftification is not an option, as the article is not even borderline notable, unless it is suggested that a cast overview like IMDb's listings, plot summary, and 1 or 2 sentence mentions are reviews. Many thanks for your time and help again, though I disagree strongly, thanks for your participation and work to keep this article! VickKiang (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VickKiang did an excellent job of explaining in detail why this article should be deleted. Perhaps you are not quite understanding the fact that it was cancelled before it was ever streamed. Try seeing it as vaporware because that is pretty close to what we have here, except for the fact this series was cancelled so it is no longer even vaporware. It got some promotional coverage disguised as reviews in questionable sources, and even then it was all based primarily on future projections, peek previews, promotion of its potential. None of that satisfies even WP:SNG. It is not encyclopedic material, much less worthy of being a standalone article about a potential now cancelled streaming internet series. It will be forgotten in a month or two = not notable, not note worthy, not worthy of inclusion in WP, poorly sourced, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:V, WP:10YT, WP:GNG & SNG and so on as explained multiple times above. If even the first episode had been streamed and reviewed in multiple RS, it might have stood a chance for being redirected, but that didn't happen; coulda, shoulda, woulda – did not happen. Atsme 💬 📧 13:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: No, your reply is WP:OR. Even you admit that I consider these refs to be similar quality compared to Xinhua when evaluating the refs. So, you deem, without evidence (not even an essay), that the news sites are RS? For example, in an AfD, there are two sources, all of them like SPS and blogs, and we could just say, since we deem the source to be similar in quality to another, it's RS? And, why is a situational reliable ref that's unreliable not just for political-related topics but also extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people should be considered as notable? Also, this RfC conclusion also supports my statement that to include cancellation of the show because of tax issues is gossipy and WP:NOTNEWS. Even your reply admits that the news are similar in Xinhua, to state from your perspective, should not be used for extraodinary claims, further supporting that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Also, Xinhua per the RfC is probably one of the better Chinese refs, your generalisation that the refs are RS is fully invalid. Further, are we forgetting that almost all of the refs you cite are from just two organisations (excluding reprints of stories)? Per WP:GNG: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, yes, they may be different stories, but are all from the same organisations, so I'm still viewing your argument as a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, using questionanble refs that are elevated to be reliable, and insignificant routine coverage deemed to be reviews. VickKiang (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR says in the opening sentence that the policy applies to Wikipedia articles. It says in the introduction, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." I have conducted original research to conclude that the Beijing Youth Daily is a sufficiently reliable source under the WP:XINHUA standard. Beijing Youth Daily is a "well-established news outle[t]" under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. From this book:

With a daily circulation of one million copies in 2000, Beijing Evening News has the highest circulation, while Beijing Youth Daily enjoys the highest advertising revenues. ... Beijing Youth Daily was once the official paper of the Beijing City Communist Youth League, and that organization remains the paper's "sponsoring unit" ("zhuban danwei"). It was suspended during the Cultural Revolution and revived in 1981, but remained a small-scale operation until the early 1990s when a series of reforms made it more efficient, established its own distribution network and advertising agency, and introduced a series of additional newspapers. Beijing Youth Daily is now the flagship of its own group, which is second in size only to the Guangzhou Daily Group."

This book from Routledge notes, "The Beijing Youth Daily is affiliated with the Beijing Communist Youth League, but is a semi-independent paper and is staffed by contractors rather than Party insiders. It has built a reputation of being aggressive, ambitious and energetic. ... The semi-independent newspapers Beijing Youth Daily and Beijing News are mavericks, yet the power that they wield is different from that of CCTV. They face challenges in getting interviews with officials, and their reporters lack the protect on of official Party sanction."

These sources were published before star Deng Lun encountered tax troubles, so they would be used to verify critical analysis, plot information, and production information. They would not be used to support anything controversial. Speculation about the indefinite postponement of Night Wanderer owing to the tax troubles can be sourced to the Hong Kong-based HK01 and Sing Tao Daily. You have raised WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V again which I explained do not apply. Regarding the sources being "all from the same publication", this is incorrect. The Beijing Youth Daily, The Beijing News, HK01, and Sing Tao Daily are all different publications from different organisations.

Cunard (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my mistake, yes, they are from "different organisations". But, there are still only 4 refs, most reporting similar stories, including the latter two covering very briefly, and none of them meet SIGCOV at all. Even if you cherry-pick one ref praising Beijing News organisations, it's absolutely clear that it's a conclusion that's part of your opinion that the sources are reliable. Also, for WP:OR, I know I should have chosen a better word, but basically I'm implying that your idea is a generalisation that depend on one refs semi-praise. Also, what makes Hong-Kong based newspapers automatically RS? The RfCs linked on RSP also recommends another well-known but now defunct newspaper, Apple Daily, as needing caution, which is still a generalisation. Indeed, your cherry picking for The Beijing News on that it's semi-liberal is contradictive, our WP article states According to the South China Morning Post, an English newspaper from Hong Kong, the general public were afraid that The Beijing News would be turned into a "propaganda mouthpiece".[12] In February 2014, The Beijing News, made a news coverage regarding Zhou Yongkang's son possible corruption, but the article was taken down from the newspaper's website[13], so is one ref sorta praising the coverage, despite China's increased censorship recently, enough for it to be considered okay for political related and controversial-BLP related material? Same with HK01, see [24] that refutes your view that these papers should be considered to be superior or at least on par with Xinhua. So, what makes the speculations automatically worthy of inclusion on WP? For your comment that the refs provide critical commentary, I can't come to see even plotline reviews as full critical reviews (see previous link), so how are these almost all routine releases (even cautioned by a footnote from GNG) meeting GNG. As such, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:V are obviously still failed IMHO, many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider these sources sufficiently reliable and in-depth. You do not. It is clear that we will not come to an agreement, and I do not want to spend more time formulating responses at this time, so I will withdraw from this thread of discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 14 September 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) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious- which few refs do you think are the best and ensure that GNG is met? I'd be very interested to hear your opinion, and many thanks! VickKiang 22:41, 22 September 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. BD2412 T 23:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninian Sumadia

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

Sumadia is an appointed (not elected) member of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (Philippines). This appointment in and of itself does not appear to convey the level of notability to merit a Wikipedia article. Google searches turn up little to nothing of use up which to build a biography. The article has been marked for notability for 6 years with no apparent improvement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:11, 15 September 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! 23:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (numismatist)

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

Not seeing much in the way of GNG-qualifying sourcing, either in the article or via a WP:BEFORE search. There's a bit of coverage in the local press, but it's all either non-independent interviews or unreliable letters from readers. Other sources are unreliable (e.g. The Sun) and/or passing mentions; there's no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note also that the article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and SALTed at Blake Alma. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 15 September 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.

Cliff Thornton

[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. After combing through multiple search engines I found nothing, outside of this one item of local news coverage, that would constitute (non-routine) significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Sal2100 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination withdrawn. Based on FormalDude's added sources, plus an additional one I found on Google Books (and added to the article). Sal2100 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 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 per existence of two valid topics. BD2412 T 01:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Peters

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

We only have one article on a person by this name: Tina Peters (field hockey). Another Tina Peters is mentioned in 2022 Colorado Secretary of State election, but as there's a clear primary topic the latter article can be connected to the former with a hatnote and without the need for a disambiguation page. I was prepared to await an AfC decision on Draft:Tina Peters (Colorado) (see Talk:Tina Peters#Tina Peters (Colorado)), but as no progress in that direction has been made for a month I think we should delete this unnecessary disambiguation page, and move the hockey player article to the base name, with no prejudice against recreating it if an article on the Colorado politician ever comes into being. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Arms & Hearts, how much have you heard about the hockey player, vs. about the Colorado county clerk and election denier? I would say it is overwhelmingly the case that the latter is primary usage for the term, so the latter should be moved to Tina Peters and there should be no hatnote from the article directly to the hockey player, but rather there will be a hatnote to the disambiguation page, to be moved to Tina Peters (disambiguation).
FWIW, I edited the draft article and submitted it to AFC. I updated it somewhat, but didn't bother with covering the arrest warrant. There is simply too much going on in the news with her for a single editor to keep up. It needs to be in mainspace, where it will be heavily reviewed and changed.--Doncram (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Thank you SWinxy for notifying us about the article about another Tina Peters. I think it is now clear that this article is needed as a disambig page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 15 September 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. Despite spirited opposition from the nominator, there is only one other person who has called for deletion in this instance. Furthermore, the keep side have successfully pointed to significant coverage in major publications such as the Houston Chronicle and reviews of his performances. It was repeated in the discussion that the coverage of Mr. Keast in the LA Times and WaPo is critical, but for WP:N purposes, whether the coverage is positive or negative is not relevant.

I will also note that the arbitration committee recently stated a principle regarding WP:BLUDGEON here. While making replies to comments is clearly within the scope of acceptable conduct, making accusations such as "You just steamrollered in here without a clue" is not constructive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Keast

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

BLP with woeful refs. Profiles and sps sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Very very early career. scope_creepTalk 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being the main author of the article I obviously vote for keeping it. Keast and his orchestra did indeed receive broader attention ( Five-Star-reviews from BBC Music Magazine, Fanfare Magazine and Das Orchester). I just added those after a quick research. Everybody who knows a little bit about the world of classical music is aware, that only very few people in this field make mainstream headlines. That does not make them less relevant. Andek (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The orchestra perhaps did, but the sources don't indicate that he did. scope_creepTalk 07:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is his orchestra. Andek (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes little sense. He's the founder and director of the orchestra. Those reviews are about him. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need sources for wiki. "Just because" isn't a good enough reason. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just added three sources to the article.-Andek (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Oaktree b: Would you mind viewing the sources further down and seeing if those could potentially change your vote? Why? I Ask (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: What does that mean exactly? Rewrite the article as Berlin Academy of American Music and get rid of the BLP elements, or rename possibly with some BLP elements? That review is a bit of passing mention as well. scope_creepTalk 09:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
refocus to be about the group but keep some details on founder and conductor. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of sources out there: a review of his album in the Winnipeg Free Press [26], a write-up in the New York Daily News [27], and a profile in Newsday [28]. This is alongside the Houston Chronicle and Limelight magazine sources already in the article. There seems to be a BBC review too, but I can't access the source to verify. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Winnipeg Free Press [29] states he is a conductor. Not the most salubrious reference.
  • Here is the LA Times [30] There are large projections on stage of Bernstein famously conducting with extravagant feeling, something the company’s conductor, Garrett Keast, aggressively attempts to match with a pit orchestra.
  • Here is the Washington Post [31] and conductor Garrett Keast was not able to control balances to the singers’ benefit at all times.. Not even particularly decent conductor.
So there is reams of routine coverage, on the mediocre conductor, but none of it is signifcant and fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 20:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused? What's wrong with the Winnipeg Free Press saying that he is a conductor? And continued routine coverage in major newspapers alongside direct articles about him establishes notability. I didn't even reference the LA Times or Washington Post.
Your comments on Mr. Keast are bordering on WP:NPA. Please watch yourself. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All it says is he is a conductor. That is it. That is a true definition of a "passing mention". As its very very early career, he is working as a guest conductor moving from position to position , so it mentions him in the theatre pages as a conductor all over the US, but there is no real WP:SECONDARY coverage. It is all "he is a conductor, he was trying to do this and so on", but no more than that. It is not significant coverage. scope_creepTalk 06:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're going to ignore the other two sources and the Houston Chronicle? It's a review of an album; not a biography. It's just one source out of many that can help prove notability. Reviews of an album in a paper of record are still nothing to balk at. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also some of the mentions hes getting, there is more stating he is not a good conductor. That fact of the article being on here, is a true WP:PUFF piece, is to advertise his album. scope_creepTalk 06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And his talent as conductor has to do with... what exactly? The fact that you're able to find enough sourcing saying that only further proves his significant coverage. And his album has been reviewed by BBC and Das Orchester as mentioned above. Two notable things on one page: an album and conductor. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it two reviews. I couldn't see the Houston Chronicle ref and could find the BBC one. I did find this though: Chron interview. I don't know if that Chron is reliable source. scope_creepTalk 07:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chron is the Houston Chronicle. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Limelight sources at [32] which is a review. So that is one review and one interview so far, that are in-depth. Interviews can't be used to establish notability. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews can be used to establish notability, but just like anything else, it's done on a case by case basis (see WP:Interview). I'd say in this case, it establishes notability. And you still haven't refuted my other two sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay not a policy and having long experience in Afd, close to 4k, I've seen it refuted many many times. Its junk. scope_creepTalk 10:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's no policy for not having interviews published by reliable sources count toward notability. Aside from that, the Houston Chronicle isn't even a basic Q&A format. It shows high editorial oversight. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It not a case WP:IDONTLIKEIT nor WP:AGF. All the coverage is passing mentions apart from 1 decent, profile review and bbc profile. That is it. scope_creepTalk 15:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To spell it out, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT part is calling him a "mediocre conductor" and claiming "some of the mentions hes getting, there is more stating he is not a good conductor" as reasons to delete the page. The WP:AGF violation is your accusation that "the fact of the article being on here... is to advertise his album," when taking 30 seconds to check who wrote the bulk of the article shows otherwise. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference stated he wasn't a good conductor. You haven't even looked at the references. You just steamrollered in here without a clue. scope_creepTalk 16:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed looked at the references -- the fact that you assume I didn't and "steamrollered in here without a clue" (how exactly does that differ from just... commenting?) is another WP:AGF violation -- and agree with Why? I Ask about their usability. I don't have any opinion on this guy's skill as a conductor, but there is nothing in policy that states that a negative review is unusable for notability purposes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep and Oaktree b. Your comments seem to show you both missed the German review I linked above. Any commentary on that one. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's useless, it's a CD review that talks about the music on the album. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Yep, should have gone with my first thoughts and only pinged Scope. Waste of time doing otherwise. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: Thanks for bringing that up. I'm sorry I missed. I did search for that for quite a bit of time and couldn't find it. It is a profile references, a cd review. The extent of his passing mentions "Nevertheless, it is remarkable thanks to the colorful and varied compositions in excellent interpretations by the Berlin Academy of American Music under the direction of conductor Garrett Keast." They like him a lot, but it is another passing mention. Its not significant and more the same of the same kind of coverage we have seen elsewhere. scope_creepTalk 14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it is coverage for the group, backing up the alternative of refocusing the page to be about the group. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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! 22:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marionnet

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The best source I see is a conference paper by the authors ([35]). They published a follow up few years later I think ([36]). I am not seeing much impact or significance of this project, and frankly, the article seems to acknowledge the small impact of this: "The system is now in active use in several universities" (in use how?), " Marionnet has been presented at two international Computer Science conferences, many French events[5] and at FOSDEM". For a French project, there is no French interwiki (I checked, I don't think it was ever written about there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:I think it is fair to object. Marionnet is still being used and in fact developed. Here is a very recent reference:

Mariotel: A Web-Based Virtual Remote Computer Science Lab J.V. Loddo, R. Kanawati ITHET'22 November 7-9, 2022
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-46315-4_1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c044d7bb-80a6-4fa0-9ee3-fff9137d3fef

Rushed Kanawati's home page lists a papers about Mariotel, along with a public presentation in Germany: https://www-lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~kanawati/ The paper has been accepted but not yet published as of September 2022.

There has been another paper about Marionnet by Camille Coti, published in 2015: https://dblp.org/pid/78/4708.html Disclaimer: I have not read it.

Other disclaimer: I am Luca Saiu, one of the original authors. Am I in a conflict of interest? I am not sure. I am no longer involved with the project, Université Paris 13 (since renamed), or indeed France. --positron (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate you disclosing the potential COI. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 15 September 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! 22:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Jain

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ( All sources are from one TV serial ) PravinGanechari (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 15 September 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. There is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. Cunard who supported keeping the article provided a number of sources to support his position that Chase Tang meets the WP:GNG criterion of significant secondary coverage. While it has been asserted that the coverage isn't sufficiently significant, I find little in the way of arguments to support that position, and several of the later "delete"s lack much reasoning beyond an assertion of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Tang

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

No evidence of any significant notability. The NETFLIX appearance which sources make much of, is for an uncredited part. This is also true of all the remaining acting parts. There is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR which requires that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;"  Velella  Velella Talk   12:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also this in the Toronto Guardian, a local online newspaper [39] and this feature on an Canadian entertainment program (like Entertainment Tonight) [40]. We're well in GNG, not sure ACTOR has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in the Epoch times, which is not a notable source [41] but it shows sustained coverage. This in a language that Google translate won't pick up, selecting Chinese, it seems to talk about him [42], appears to be a Chinese source from Madagascar, so unsure if it's RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the above sources provided by Cunard are insignificant and/or possibly unreliable. The interviews don't appear independent enough to justify the inclusion of this article. Is there something notable the subject has accomplished? See also WP:NACTOR; for point #1, this subject doesn't have notable roles in films and for #2, I don't think they've "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (what I said about the sources).

Also, the user who made this article, Melaniewang, the user who made the article Chase Tang on Simple Wikipedia, Irene Germo, and the user who took this photograph, claiming to be a "photographer", Krisz Tarcsi, are all single purpose accounts. NytharT.C 06:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 Sanriku earthquake

[edit]
March 2011 Sanriku earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No impact. WP:NOTDATABASE WP:NOTCATALOG Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 15 September 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) Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Ethiopian coup d'état

[edit]
1974 Ethiopian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed WP:BLAR. Article is an unattributed copy-paste from Ethiopian Civil War#History. I thought a redirect made sense. Article creator reverted without explanation. As per WP:BLAR, AfD is an appropriate forum to resolve this dispute. Singularity42 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article can be expanded to further paragraph and I willingly do it as soon as possible. I'm not agreed to merge in the Ethiopian Civil War as it is standalone coup d'état and no need to insert infobox there twice per MoS. For copyright reasons, I would like to trim contents and write in my own with copyediting. The Supermind (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a lot of sources that detail about the coup d'état such as in JSTOR and Google Book. AfD should considerate to this issue but please give me a time to develop it or incubate to draft space rather than speedy deleted? The Supermind (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD generally runs a minimum of 7 days. Do you want to just draftify it for now and I'll withdraw my AfD nomination? Partly my bad - I should have run this option by you before this AfD nom. Singularity42 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I want to draftify, I'll develop it there. Thank you for your understanding. The Supermind (talk) 20:33, 15 September 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. Unless I'm missing something, there's no "delete" opinions from unblocked users. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krtin Nithiyanandam

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

He is not notable. It might have been thought he was at the time, but nothing has come of this. The most recent reference on his page is almost 5 years old (from Dec 2017), and his LinkedIn profile shows nothing of note since 2018, and even this was a Junior Prize. There was a lot of hype at the time, but he has achieved very little. Perhaps his article can be reinstated in the future when he achieves something noteworthy. WondrousMachine (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, you just seem very passionate about this article being deleted. Let the process play out and see what other users say about it. If others come in with alot of Delete votes, I'll strike mine, but for now I'm sticking to my !vote. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete - To be honest this guy does seem pretty irrelevant. And as was said in the last nomination, it's just a resume boost. Tanner68573 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 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 Gloomhaven#Sequel. The consensus is explicitly for the topic as it stands today; if notability changes substantially, possibly as the result of new media, this discussion is no bar to recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frosthaven

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

Information on this article is entirely contained on the Gloomhaven page, save for the Infobox information. Unreleased board game, 50% of the article is about the kickstarter campaign, fails to show independent notability and certainly WP:TOOSOON until separate notability can be shown. Suggest merging infobox into Gloomhaven#Frosthaven. Skipple ☎ 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right, but current article says The game is scheduled for release in September 2022 despite no reviews now. VickKiang 23:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a further look into this, the way it's written is a bit misleading. The game isn't being released to the general public but rather starting to ship to Kickstarter backers. The game is set to release to the public in early 2023.
According to this article from Wargamer a couple days ago, A Kickstarter update from August 12 says Cephalofair’s goal is to get backer’s Frosthaven copies in their hands by Christmas 2022. Curtosy ping for @BOZ: and @Hobit:. Skipple ☎ 23:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree--I can't link to the latest update (blacklist), but it indicates that you're right. I'm okay with a merge for now, !vote changed. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 20 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tami-Adrian George

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

Previously deleted article. Subject doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. No significant roles. Career is a series of minor movie roles and single appearances in shows. Rumor of being cast in a show that never happened won't get past it either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What significant roles in multiple notable films or television shows has she had? And what notoriety? Keeping on principle isn't a valid reason. It's just WP:ILIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Major character in Starship Troopers, and other series, such as Star Trek etc. Common recurring roles in both film and television. Capture footage/motion footage work in Video games. Also, a lot of WP:BIO, and WP:NACTOR nobility and notoriety, comes from reception. Ergo, in other words, does the subject have a trending support/reception base, which the subject also has that. Perhaps this is trivial, but as a Wikipedian thats a minority/of color myself, I feel there aren't that many Black female performers, I feel the subject has nobility perhaps on that too. So I feel I made my points clear enough, that I'm hoping you shall understand. If there are still any misconceptions, perhaps we aren't going to agree I'm afraid. I guess I can try to do some last minute revisions to this article, if the AFD doesn't get refreshed, but it's up to the admin as to whether the article stays, which I believe it should. But I said my piece. Thank you. Bronoton (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your view of what a "major character" means needs some work. A single episode is not a major character. None of her TV roles are recurring. Her race and gender are irrelevant to this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Groves

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

While a working music producer, can't find the in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 15 September 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. This is a messy discussion, numerically split 3-4 for delete-vs redirect and 2-2 on the redirect target. THe argument to redirect would normally be strong, given WP:ATD, but in the absence of a good target, is rendered virtually null. There is a clear absence of consensus about the target; the two !votes favoring redirecting to one of the band members are nullified, in my view, by the argument that when two members exist, redirecting to one of them isn't appropriate. The argument to redirect to the album is weakened by questions about whether the album is notable at all. There is clear consensus that a standalone article isn't viable, and the most direct way to implement that is deletion, which I'm enacting. If the article about the album survives the AfD it is probably being sent to, it will likely be reasonable to redirect this there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Queen

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

Prev. deleted, clearly fails GNG & NMUSIC, cited sources unreliable except for a single NYTimes citation that is not even about Demon Queen but Black Moth Super Rainbow, and it's passing mention in one sentence about style of music.deleted unrelated materialAtsme 💬 📧 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC) The albums are self-released labels, basically FB, YT style garage-band recordings. This article was created by User:Goldborg (64 edits), and I suspect a COI is involved or possibly UPE, and that includes the related articles in the suggested redirects: Tobacco (musician) was created by Satwig who has 6 edits, it was expanded but even then, the cited sources do not pass RS to support N/GNG. Black Moth Super Rainbow (created by Sdhursh (7 edits) and it is not notable beyond 1 or 2 sources with passing mention used to describe this type of music by a very small cult following; thus, the self-promotion. It is G11 but not an obvious one, so here we are, and I'm thinking if the closer is of the mind to also delete the related self-promotion articles being suggested for the redirect of this article, they have my support. It's a self-released label, self-promoting garage band, duo, and music producer striving for attention with a very small cult following...maybe 2,000. Atsme 💬 📧 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of that process either, but Wikipedia usually favors the alternatives to deletion option. If someone in the future searches for "Demon Queen" they can be redirected to Tobacco, which reduces the temptation to create a new Demon Queen article that would have to go through another AfD discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my years of experience as an NPP reviewer, redirects are too easily reverted, hijacked, and misused. We currently have 4,885 redirects in the NPP queue, and that number is down from over 8,000 which is typical. An AfD is far more dependable, and much harder for garbage and non-notable articles to be recreated in main space. I do hope you will re-consider. Atsme 💬 📧 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have also been through this hundreds of times over several years and usually just vote to delete something like this, but then I get overruled by someone who cares more about WP:ATD and how the search term might be used in the future and how we have to save edit histories for proper attribution blah blah blah. See the pointless arguments I got into here and here for example. So this time I recommended to redirect and got pushback in the other direction. This illustrates the conflict between different WP procedures, and I have highlighted that conflict many times before, all to no avail. The community needs to figure this out. I did not come to this AfD for yet another argument so I don't really care what happens to this useless article on Demon Queen, as long as it's something. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain, and I hate being the one who added to it; it was not my intent. I'm here now because the article was created by a block evader and deleted. Now the article is back 2 years later, and here we are; at least we had a 2 yr break. I hope one day you will forgive me. Atsme 💬 📧 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I forgive you but I do not forgive the WP community for giving us two directly contradictory attitudes on deleting or redirecting unworthy articles. And both are based on policy. Back to Demon Queen, they absolutely do not deserve a WP article, and the worst thing that can happen here is a useless "no consensus" because the community can't figure out the contradiction. I've seen it happen many times. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you upgrade to delete, we stand a much better chance of it being deleted. That guy has gotten enough publicity on WP. Atsme 💬 📧 14:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Address the community's contradictory policies, not me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there would be no purpose to AfD if we keep redirecting everything that is not notable to something similar or somewhat related. We can redirect non-notable inventions to the article INVENTION or what the subject closely resembles, such as a newly developed cell phone on the market by a brand new manufacturer – it's not notable but we'll just redirect it to Apple iPhone because it uses some of the same parts. A redirect is not policy, it is a guideline, and it is not contradictory if you are properly interpreting what it prescribes. Tobacco is a single person, and Demon Queen is a non-notable duo. See #5 Note in Notability: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. Also WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Sorry, but the duo (e.g. the subject) is neither covered by independent RS, nor is it notable. There is also: No inherited notability – Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. All of the aforementioned applies to the duo. This article is not about a song/album Tobacco produced as a solo, and even if it was, the song/album is NOT NOTABLE. The DUO fails NOTABILITY/GNG. A redirect is inappropriate because nothing in that article is notable, and because it is a DUO; we should not redirect a standalone duo to a single person because you are giving indirect credibility to the non-notable duo via inherited notability, the latter of which is noncompliant. Atsme 💬 📧 15:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks just about even between delete and redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Award Top albums of 2013 (2,489th)
  • Award Top albums of the 2010s (25,519th)
  • Award Best albums of all time (90,703rd)
  • It appears to me the whole lot needs to be deleted including Tobacco (musician), and Black Moth Super Rainbow because it comprises what is obviously a fringy self-promoted non-notable musician who knew how to use the internet to self-promote, (not unlike selling self-published books). Maybe I'm holding my mouth wrong, but I'm not finding anything notable about Black Moth Super Rainbow that satisfies N or GNG or SNG – none of it. Seriously, it even fails WP:10YT, and the cited sources clearly do not satisfy RS, except for maybe one or two paid promotions disguised as articles. Even then, it is about nothing - not worthy of being noted. This whole self-promotional mess and related articles suggested for the redirect should all be deleted. Atsme 💬 📧 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NMUSIC, "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline" (and that's assuming you're right about any of the other articles being non-notable which I wouldn't automatically assume). Article easily passes WP:SIGCOV which is the actual relevant measure of notability on this website, unlike this Best Ever Albums website you're linking which I don't think I've ever heard of before. And being a self-released project does not negate notability, WP:SELFPUB is for sources not for subjects. Are you gonna try and claim that a self-published album like The Big Day or Wasteland are non-notable as well? QuietHere (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to assume anything – it is WP:NOT garage band; there were 712 pageviews since 2021 and most of those are BOTs and WP editors trying to fix it. I have 3x that many pageviews on my UTP in a month. It is a vanity self-released label, and surely you know WP's position about that, and what is required in the way of RS. I invite you to consider WP:NPPSCHOOL to get a better handle on what is notable and worthy of inclusion. You know, sometimes even the coverage doesn't make it notable for inclusion. Atsme 💬 📧 17:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
m( Extremely frustrating, but I still have faith in some of our admins/closers to make the proper decision based on the arguments, not the voting or suggestions. I think most of the time, our admins are as snowed under as NPP reviewers and don't want to get bogged down, so they may do a quick scan without little research. I try to teach my trainees in NPPSCHOOL to not rush through a decision of notability and to cover all the bases. One such situation is Barbara Dawson that ended-up at DRV. I have always done my best to save articles that are worthy of being saved, and try not to waste too much valuable time on garage bands and sports figures that only need to show-up to earn a blue ribbon. Atsme 💬 📧 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least throw in an argument for whichever admin comes to close this that there's a strong case against redirecting to one member of the duo, a strong case for redirecting to their album, and the redirect votes (despite naming different targets) outnumber the delete votes three to one (or two if Atsme's nomination counts as a vote). Especially if DOOMSDAYER520 and Bruxton would be willing to change the redirect target of their votes then I think that should stand fine for a consensus. QuietHere (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
doomsdayer520, we do the best we can. But just like there aren't enough editors on the project who participate in the AFD area, there aren't enough admins willing to spend time going through the more challenging AFD discussions. What seems obvious to you may not appear that way to the discussion closer. And when BOLD action is taken, you can find yourself taken to Deletion review and be accused of "Supervoting" by the parties that are unhappy with the closure. That is such an unpleasant experience that it tends to make AFD closers more conservative. I don't think any editor or admin enjoys their editing decisions under intense scrutiny even when you are very confident you made the best decision among the possible alternatives. But I don't expect this discussion to be closed as "No consensus". Just my 2 cents. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A whole bunch of people are telling me to reconsider my vote, as if everybody after me made more sense. I envisioned a conflict among contradictory policies and that's exactly what we got. The thing is, this is not even close to the first time this sort of thing has happened. Others can be found easily, and I linked a couple back near the top of this wall of text. If someone has the wherewithal to address the contradictory policies at a higher level, I will contribute to that discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks Liz, it is good to hear your perspective. Regarding QuietHere's assessment of consensus, I would just add that (1) of course the Nom.'s !vote is understood, and (2) the fact that multiple redirects are proposed is, to my mind, evidence that no redirect should be used. If there is consensus that a particular redirect is appropriate, then that is fair enough because redirects are cheap, but the purpose of a redirect is to signpost future readers to the content they want. A redirect, however, takes precedence over site search, and so per WP:RFD#DELETE 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. It is not just the multiple targets either. A search for "Demon Queen" might now or in the future throw up hits in pages on fantasy gaming, fiction novels and TV shows. Anyone searching on the phrase might be rather surprised to find themselves taken directly to a page on some obscure garage band instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 and an excellent point, Sirfurboy. I am keeping that diff for future use in NPPSCHOOL. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 10:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good point indeed, though for the sake of this discussion I will at least say that unless you have specific examples in mind, this reads as speculative and not actually relevant at present. Sure, said articles could come along in the future (assuming they don't exist now, but I did a brief search and didn't see anything that stood out), but if they're not here now then the result of this discussion doesn't need to reflect articles that don't exist. And if/when they come to exist in the future, perhaps converting this page to a dab and/or moving the redirect to Demon Queen (band) would be appropriate.
And I'll also reiterate the arguments against/for those two targets as a reason why both proposals existing should not be taken as evidence against any redirecting. If you have a more specific objection to either potential target then that'd be more helpful here than a general dismissal. QuietHere (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[45], [46], [47], [48], [49] just for starters. I make no representations about the quality of any of those pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three of those fall under WP:PARTIAL. Rangda only uses the term once in prose, and not as a proper noun, so the connection feels a bit too thin. And for Maoyu, the term's usage is referring to a specific character rather than the work itself so I think a hatnote saying "For the Maoyu character, see Maoyu" would be the most appropriate. QuietHere (talk) 14:18, 22 September 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. The arguments to merge are strongest, in my view, but nonetheless do not have clear consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ARC-182

[edit]
AN/ARC-182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AN/ARC-27, here's another case of a catalogue-like, poorly referenced entry about a piece of military equipment that seems to fail WP:GNG. My BEFORE, again, failed to locate anything but a few passing mentions that suffice to confirm this entity exists/ed, but not that it is notable. More cleanup of Category:Aircraft stations is likely still needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Andre🚐 05:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BilletsMauves, Thanks for mentioning HIMARS and the like. A year ago they might have been considered by some to be too obscure to merit separate articles. Now they are featured in the nightly news. In online discussion, many more weapon systems from multiple countries are mentioned, often with links to their Wikipedia article. Our editors did not write all these articles in anticipation of war breaking out in Europe, rather from a desire to have complete coverage of the major systems used by the world's militaries. That is what an encyclopedia does. Aircraft radio systems are not minor components, but significantly affect the capabilities of military aviation, in terms of range, security, protection against jamming and interoperability with other services. I could easily see a story emerging about re-equipping Soviet era fighters with radios such as these, for example, or their use in small patrol boats. Whether we have one large article on, say U.S. military aircraft radios, or several smaller articles hardly matters.--agr (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold huh ? HIMARS, Javelin and others already passed GNG by a wide margin back then. Passing GNG does not necessarily have to do with coverage in mainstream media, far from it. That with "a story emerging about re-equipping Soviet era fighters with radios such as these" is irrelevant: we judge the subject's notability in its current state, and we don't try to predict what it will be in, say, six months. While I agree that radios are important systems on an aircraft, the question is whether or not this specific model passes WP:GNG. And it appears that it doesn't. That's all. BilletsMauves€500 20:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "maybe this will become notable one day" just reinforces the problems with "it's not notable now", plus WP:CRYSTALBALL. And, uh, this is a 1970s tech that might be obsolete by now (the article does not suggest it is still used). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently split 2-2-2 for delete, keep, and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mello, AFD is not a vote. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, sorry for unclear phrasing that implies the contrary. I understand that merely getting the most votes does not make an option win, but I wanted to just succinctly state how split people are over here. I would not encourage closing based on just the amount of votes it has received. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:50, 15 September 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 the article does have many sources, there is merit to the argument that none of them really give in-depth coverage beyond news articles/press releases stating that someone won an award, and that none of the sources really show that the award is a significant one. Without any analysis as to which of the sources provide notability, I cannot give the dissenting "keep" much weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A' Design Award

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

To start with, this thing has all the hallmarks of a scam (asking for self-nominations "subject to a nominal fee", see also this and that reddit threads). But... that’s, like, my opinion, and even so, it might still be a notable scam.

Admittedly, I have not read all the 31 references. However, all I checked are either from the design award themselves, or from recipients of the awards, or otherwise non-independent - most of those can be seen from the ref title/URL only, and others can be quickly discerned by clicking the link.

A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of value. A generic search for "A' design award" brings up non-indy sources, and trying to restrict the search to newspapers etc. causes the search to match the string a design award which of course is not specific enough. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked at those sources. All of them (yes, 10) follow the same template: a (pushy) call for contributions, and a few photos from previous winning entries. Looking at the "metadata", two of them have a byline that makes it clear they are non-indy: this has This award/grant/scholarship announcement was submitted by an ArchDaily user, and that has this is a sponsored post. (Possibly the non-English ones also have some language of that sort, but I’m accessing them through DeepL, so I might miss some stuff.) Only one of the other eight has a byline attributing the content to a staff member (and that staff member is the editor-in-chief, so possibly that is the default one). Finally, one of them has text both in English and Spanish, which highly suggests an unchecked copy-paste job.
Each individual source would be meh, but the real problem is that they are clones of each other. In my opinion, we should not only discount the obviously bad ones (the two that say they are non-indy + the Spanish-English mix which is likely not the result of a reliable editorial process). If the bad ones had not come to light, maybe we could pass the article with the rest, but now that they have, the whole thing is obviously part of one unified PR push from A'. (The creation of the article by a paid editor fits that pattern.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 12:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slavi Panayotov

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

Not passing WP:NACTOR or ANYBIO, Reliable sources, GNG. Dark Juliorik (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 15 September 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 Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk

[edit]
Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not an easy nomination to make. Unfortunately, the article creator -- through an impressive level of mania -- has turned out an article that belongs in the Twilight Zone. At nearly 120kb, it's bloated out of proportion, and carries a breathtaking 636 citations. It is choked with unencyclopedic trivia and WP:UNDUE detail that has had more than one editor pronounce it unreadable.

Equally unfortunately, the article creator has been defending his work with an unwarranted level of ownership reflected in the edit summaries, in other related creations of his, and at ANI, disparaging the efforts of those he feels are "non-experts" in the field. I can't claim that the subject is non-notable, or that it is unverifiable. But I feel that the article is unsalvageable as it stands, and that blowing it up and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Ravenswing 12:09, 15 September 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) MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Sharma

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

Article subject has not been covered by significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Article should hence be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:47, 15 September 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 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna City F.C.

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

Virtually unreferenced stub on a non-notable footy team. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NTEAM. This was declined at AfC but the creator moved it to main space anyway; then a speedy request was removed by a mystery IP editor (!), so here we are at AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 15 September 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 Popalzai. Clear consensus to redirect, but nobody has explicitly mentioned a target. Reading between the lines I'm led to believe the !votes are referring to Popalzai, but if I'm mistaken, and there isn't clear agreement, a talk-page discussion or RfD may be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habibzai

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

Stumbled upon this stub while adding article descriptions in my commute. It's plausible that the subject exists, insofar as there are people with the last name Habibzai. But I've performed a WP:BEFORE and found essentially zero reliable sources discussing it. The Panjab Chiefs mentioned it but I question the reliability of this source, and it's literally one mention. There's a ResearchGate link but that's not a WP:RS. BeReasonabl (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified editors who have edited the article over its 10 year existence. BeReasonabl (talk) 12:27, 31 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! 16:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:55, 15 September 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. Sources are not required to be online; old print sources are certainly acceptable; but if no evidence of their existence has been found, "keep" arguments based on the supposition that they do are rather weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcote House School

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

Non-notable primary school. Of the sources cited, only the Tatler piece comes even close to RS sigcov, and it alone isn't enough; search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media accounts, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 September 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 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Wilhelm Lindholm

[edit]
Otto Wilhelm Lindholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article came up by way of an ANI complaint, and after some measure of work, it's apparent that the subject just doesn't meet the GNG (or any other relevant notability criterion). The article is overwhelmingly sourced from the subject's own memoirs -- and edited by his own great-grandchildren, and such other sources as are mentioned involved casual and often tangential namedrops. Nor, when the verbiage is boiled down, does this article contain useful and encyclopedic detail beyond a straight CV of the areas he went whaling and the ships he bought.

We wouldn't accept a contemporary bio of a businessman with so little a level of notability, sourced from his own memoirs. It may be an interesting read, but it cannot be used as the basis for notability of its author. Ravenswing 07:22, 15 September 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 Vennila Veedu. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vetri Mahalingam

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)

Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But there is no reliable sources of the director other than passing mentions. This source has him talking to The Times of India about an unreleased film but not much can be found about his career that are non-passing mentions (like an interview with a newspaper). His third film had a low-key release but not many notable newspapers reviewed that film, so he only has two notable films. Is two a body of work? What about his short film titled Pencil? Based on this source, it received a "lot of accolades" which one other that the "Melbourne Tamil Sangam's Film Festival" (is that even notable)? When did the short film release. Original research should not have to be used.

Is his third film notable (reviewed by Maalai Malar)? If it was (had another reliable review) then maybe he would have been notable. Sadly Filmibeat.com (review here) is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force.

I would propose a redirect to Vennila Veedu, his most notable work. DareshMohan (talk) 07:12, 15 September 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 Alone (2015 Kannada film). Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JKS (director)

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)

Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But lack of significant coverage (not passing mentions) is why this should be deleted for now. Also so many directors have directed two films, is two really a body of work as opposed to four, five, etc.?

All the sources in this article, in Shathru (2013 film) and in Alone (2015 Kannada film) are passing mentions. This source mentions him three times (JK/the director) but is about an unreleased film. DareshMohan (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose a redirect to Alone (2015 Kannada film), his most notable work. DareshMohan (talk) 08:02, 16 September 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. Despite a leaning "delete", consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "delete". Nonetheless, anyone is free to add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Stuart

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

NN college softball player, fails the GNG going away, with only one semi-valid source from a small town paper. The other sources are casual mentions, primary sources and the subject's Twitter feed. Meets no criteria of NSPORTS. Article created by a SPA who had almost no edits outside this article. Ravenswing 19:38, 31 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! 21:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. In addition to not actually passing NCOLLATH, NSPORTS in general has been depreciated and this subject does not pass GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 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! 05:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezah Titus Busonga

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

Not enough WP:RS and fails WP:SIGCOV; doesn't meet WP:GNG? — Tulsi 24x7 05:22, 15 September 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! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two-ball

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

Article has no sources, possibly contains original research, and is not linked-to by other Wikipedia pages. Has not been edited since 2018. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 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! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Abuska

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

Coverage of this player appears to be limited to routine databases and his mention, in a list of several others, in a number of articles about a match fixing scandal (e.g. https://www.modernghana.com/sports/1176519/breaking-news-cas-free-21-players-involved-in.html). Rusalkii (talk) 04:02, 15 September 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! 04:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Abuchi

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

Could not find any coverage of this player beyond routine databases. Rusalkii (talk) 03:59, 15 September 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 Rico Nasty#2021–present: Rx and Las Ruinas. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rx (mixtape)

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

This is what happens when we make articles on future-stuff without an official announcement. This was never given a release date (only a general timeframe), was supposed to happen last year, and she's since released Las Ruinas. It's all-but clear this will never happen and this "non-happening" is not notable enough for its own article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect just as SBKSPP says. QuietHere (talk) 04:52, 17 September 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! 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levert, Indiana

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

Having Caris LeVert join the Pacers for a season was not helpful for searching, but as far as I can tell this one is some phantasy of the highway department, or maybe the GNIS compiler misread things. At any rate, the location is spang in the center of Lake Everett, and while there is a neighborhood on the north side, the fact there are no real estate hits for Lavert indicates that nobody seems to think this is the neighborhood's name. Beyond that, I get nothing but gazetteer and clickbait hits. I think this is a totally fictitious place. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 15 September 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 Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Johansen

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

I am proposing this article be deleted or redirected to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles.

I boldly redirected myself but BeanieFan11 (correctly) reverted it after finding some coverage.

I have added both pieces of coverage I can find into the article but I still don't think it's enough for a GNG pass. One is very local and the other appears to be based almost entirely on an interview. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 15 September 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. Just noting for the record that the previous AFD was about a different person with the same name. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yohai Aharoni

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

only source in article is a database. fails notability guidelines for sportspeople. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i got WP:HEY'd. again. anyway, i withdraw my nomination statement. i can't close this because others have voted to delete/redirect this. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to the gentle call of the relister below to state under which guideline the article should be kept: WP:SPORTBASIC #6#5. Maybe also the place to explain what happened to the sources. There is one great source, that is now a reference in the article. We have access to this source only because of Aharoni's IMPORTANCE as a player. Aharoni was curated at the Museum of Hapoel Petach Tikva which carries a non-routine article about the player, at any scale. The Israeli national newspaper archive contains mostly the issues of Maariv, international Jewish, and some immigrant newspapers. Maariv is historically a moderate right-wing newspaper. Aharoni, during most of his career, was a player in labor-affiliated sports teams. Left or left-leaning newspapers are not in the archives. Also, ALL sports dailies miss from this archive. The museum had an article from a sports daily possibly found (difficult!) among the physical papers at the Tel Aviv Central Library. Since accessibility to historic Israeli newspapers is so bad, important Israeli players, such as recently a Maccabi Netanya oldtimer, are routinely kept without references. No need here as WP:SPORTBASIC #6#5 is met. gidonb (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference talks about Aharoni's induction in his team's star boulevard. Rather than SIGCOV, as the reference above, this source talks straight to the NOTABILITY of the winger. gidonb (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "WP:SPORTBASIC #6"? It has four bullet points and they aren't numbered, so I'm genuinely confused about which policy you're pointing to. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We both miscounted. Fixed on my end. gidonb (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Thanks for clarifying. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 15 September 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 Mainstream (disambiguation). The arguments to keep hinge on what this article could be, not what it is; as such there is consensus to redirect, but if anyone wishes to salvage material from the history for a new article, they are welcome to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream

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

I am afraid this article is a major mess that may warrant WP:TNT. The treatment of "mainstream" as an overarching concept is very brief and poorly referenced (to a dictionary, and to three academic articles that however do not discuss mainstream as a main concept, but just very minor aspects of it in the context of media consumption in the Czech Republic and mainstream churches). In other words, the definition in the lead, sensible at first glance, seems ORish. Then we have an etymology section and a collection of chapters on "mainstream this" or "mainsteam that", including my new chapter on mainstream fiction (which I mostly merged to literary fiction as well, since it seems to be on this topic). The "Sociology" section seems the worst, since despite being short it seems to mix several concepts, from that of normality to the critique of mainstream sociology. Overall this article seems like a disambig expanded to discuss various concepts that are not connected to one another by any independent, reliable source. I am afraid WP:TNT may apply, with my recommendation being to split/merge some content (ex. the religion and science section can be used to start mainstream religion and mainsttream science articles) and then redirect this to the disambig page. For those who would like to keep this, I ask - can you find a source that discusses mainstream as an overarching concept, as well as the dimensions of m edia, religion, science, fiction, etc.? Otherwise, again, we have a wiki essay on "all things called mainstream" (that is "grossly incomplete", since why not discuss within "mainstream biology", "mainstream physics", "mainstream culture", "mainstream toys", etc.). That's what disambigs are for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we're in any substantial disagreement here on the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Redirect+split vs keep is I think a bit of disagreement :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense to attempt a holistic treatment of mainstream because it does not exist in a holistic way. Similarly a summary article isn't viable because there are too many mainstreams to cover (mainstream food, mainstream cars, mainstream children's books) and most treatments of that subject are highly culturally specific (for example, in China the Jonas Brothers are niche, not mainstream). We shouldn't encourage the creation of an article that defines mainstream as something that exists outside of its originating context. SFB 20:04, 21 September 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! 06:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Women's Revelations Cup

[edit]
2022 Women's Revelations Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further note: You can't just search on "Women's Revelations Cup" (in quotes) and expect to find it via google.com (which by the way filters what you can see based on your geographic location and search patterns). Try "Revelations Cup" and "women" or "Revelations Cup" and "FMF" and "2022" – it could also be because "Women's" doesn't parse well because of the apostrophe, etc. – you start to get a different set of results than if you only search with quotes or only search google.com. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


checkY This article meet with neutral point of view of all countries in the tournament.
checkY This article was based only on information published in reliable sources (secondary sources and official web site for complemented).

Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.

 Comment. This article should be kept. The article can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing, but not for deletion.

Relates articles:
2022 Sud Ladies Cup
Revelations Cup
2022 SheBelieves Cup. Rey1996ss (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's needed is some reliable sources in newspapers or websites for example. Wikipedia articles don't help, unfortunately. The good news is, Cielquiparle says there are sources and they are very good at finding them. Looks like they've already added some. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some basic match reports do not infer notability. GiantSnowman 18:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I'm not sure I agree – what is a tournament, after all, if not a series of matches that are notable collectively? – but yes, there is also non-match-report coverage we can demonstrate, that makes the 2022 Women's Revelations Cup at least as notable as the men's Revelations Cup.
If there is some other criteria we should be following for tournaments specifically, or other type of coverage you are looking for, please let me know. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1: Colombian Football Federation
Reference 2: onefootball.com
Reference 3: Fémina Fútbol Magazine
Reference 4: minuto30.com
Reference 5: Revelations Cup Mexico-Official Twitter
There was a little confussion - some people thought this wasn't real, or this wasn't a tournament. But this was the inaugural edition of the tournament, some people did not know about this tournament. There are many friendly-tournaments: SheBelievesCup, Toulon/Maurice Revello, or Arnold Clark Cup. The only difference is that this is U-17. In fact, the match ceremony was attended by members of the local government of León, Guanajuato.
Authorities for Mexican Football Federation and local government of León in the tournament award ceremony: click on 2:31:06
Colombia with the tournament champion trophy: 2:37:28 Rey1996ss (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of sources have been presented, just need some assurance they confer adequate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

checkY The article should be keep This article confer notability WP:EVENT:

  1. The scope of reporting its national and international.
  2. The article were very widely covered in diverse sources: Television, sport magazines, newspapers, social media etc.
  3. The article is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
  4. Its the inaugural edition for women's and there was 2 editions for men's: this does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
  5. A lot of sources have been presented: the event received significant coverage. There are secondary sources and principal/direct references as well.
  6. Diversity of sources, per above: Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic.
  7. The matches not be considered routine because this is a Tournament: at the end of the tournament was given: a troppy champion, top scorer award and fair play award. -That's the same situation in 2022 Sud Ladies Cup, that article it's a 4 U-20 teams tournament, the Women's Revelations Cup it's a 4 U-17 teams tournament, so both articles should be keep.Rey1996ss (talk) 00:48, 16 September 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. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8Xbet

[edit]
8Xbet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every listed source is about the company's partnership with Manchester FC in Asia, and any source I came across doing a WP:BEFORE search had the same problem. There is no coverage I could find that verifies that this is a notable gambling site. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:12, 15 September 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! 00:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Arts Foundation

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

Fails WP:GNG. Minor project, appears promotional, also appears to fail WP:SIRS. NytharT.C 00:30, 15 September 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.
More