< April 11	April 13 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbir Khan (actor)[edit]

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

BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article are a promo mention and photo credit, a 404 page that does not appear after a search, and a database page. BEFORE showed promo, database, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 22:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the article, he just "appears" and is "seen" in movies. Not much notable acting. Aintabli (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:TNT. Right now, there is no evidence he meets our accepted standards for actors. The article is so filled with weasel words, yet oddly blank of relevant biographical details, as to require a start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2023 (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 List of Soulcalibur characters#Li Long. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient to support a standalone article. Star Mississippi 13:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Long[edit]

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

I'm sorry, but this is worse than Astaroth. I know it is GA, but that is irrelevant. All the sources are primary or trivial. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Li Long. Another 2009 Good Article with very little in the way of scrutiny at the time. It fails WP:GNG in the modern day with only trivial mentions of the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's smaller but it does have published sources examining the impact of the character in terms of representation. Also an aside voicing my frustration with the nominator going about things this way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What frustration? Notability discussions are done at AfD, that is what AfD is for. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Between the multiple AfDs in one day, in particular the nomination, withdrawal and re-nomination of one, and the tone of the nomination itself yes I feel it's suitable for the record to voice frustration.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern. I haven't dug around enough to give an !vote yet, but these nominations are lazy and insufficient for articles of these size/detail/sourcing. And rather than rectify it, the nominator is doubling down and doing more of them. Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with Kung Fu Man and Sergecross73. Just because you find an article you don't think is notable, doesn't mean you need to nominate it to AFD right away. There's no deadline here. It was bad enough already when the AFDs were flooded with Mortal Kombat characters. MoonJet (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the reflist. The appearance of Namco Bandai as the source for more than half of the references was certainly concerning. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you've demonstrated you don't understand notability. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs 5, 20, 28, and 35 appear RS. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Counts towards GNG?
Ref 5	Yes	No (Mostly plot summary and game guide to his attacks. Has a couple sentences about his effectiveness as a character.)	No (no SIGCOV)
Ref 20 (Soul Edge Official Guide)	Yes	Maybe	No (Official guide; not secondary)
Ref 28	Yes	No (single namedrop)	No (no SIGCOV)
Ref 35	Yes	Maybe (Most is a visual description - the paragraph merely states he is a Chinese stereotype)	Maybe (Leaning no since the reference discusses the Asian characters in the game as a whole.)

As can be seen, when the sources are checked in more depth, most if not all don't show evidence towards proving notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per analysis of sources above. I cannot access ref 35 except snippet view and in the text it is sadly used for a single sentnece only, but it certainly looks like academic analysis and it should be properly merged (not just redirected and forgotten about). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Try searching "Li Long" and "Transnational" in Google Books and it may give a full page view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a search feature as well in the link provided above. The character’s full name yielded four results, including page numbers. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Kung Fu Man and Jclemens. Ref 5, which has a full page on him, has several important details. Then we have ref 35 discussing him in-depth as well. MoonJet (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd struggle to call Ref 35 indepth. It has a paragraph only, with maybe a sentence of actual commentary. The sole "commentary" is that he represents an ethnic stereotype. This is a relatively common thing with fighting game characters and in fact the book gives several examples of the same thing, in the same chapter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources seem fine, reception isn't shitty. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge It seems the article looks fine, though I think it should be worked on and get the same treatment as Necrid. The article barely passes, I think. Update:Author has chimed in, hence, changing my vote. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 01:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While this ongoing spate of fighting game nominations is indeed starting to get out of hand, after thinking this over I'm leaning toward the sentiment that the overall sourcing is weak in the article. Maximum is the only source that goes into any serious depth about the character and the Google Books citation is notable, but that's it. GameDaily and the Retronauts podcast are permanent dead links. VideoGames is literally a quick mention, as is 1UP.com; is a comment tacked on at the end about Long kicking Maxi's ass really viable reception? Attempts to find any other kind of sourcing have come up empty. That being said, if the article is kept, it won't be the end of the world but it definitely needs its GA status reassessed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After careful thought, and the fact two of the sources are now permanently dead I'm changing my stance to merging, though still protesting the idea of using AfD to force this. Standards have changed and what's said in the article can fit inside a character list just fine. I think most here wouldn't be opposed to trying to revive it later if enough reception resurfaces at a later date.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, does coverage being cited dead links really invalidate it to the point of merging? In fact, it's advised not to remove dead links. It's also possible that dead links can be brought back. In fact, there's tons of sources innaccessible to most people, but this has never had any bearing on notability. Also, Li Long seems to be discussed in this document, though I can't access the whole thing. I wonder if anyone else has access? MoonJet (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that someone, for example, could claim that Li Long became the President of the United States and claim a dead link as evidence, knowing there’s no way to verify it. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited what I could from that paper Moon, it goes into details on quite a bit of the cast and gives adequate thoughts. The thing is it's also just a standalone among the others, and I actively struggled to find any more. If he appears in a later game we might get more reception we can use, but for the time being I'm fine with a merge simply because I know if that happens it can be brought back. Right now it's just obviously crickets.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be brought back, sure, but the problem is, some editors feel that once an article is merged per an AFD result, that's it. I know you yourself have talked about this issue. This is one reason I tend to be against AFD for merge discussions. MoonJet (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, quite honestly I feel a task force would be much better for these. Like I can get it if an article gets hard resistance and there's absolutely nothing, but now we're in a situation where even I'm saying "let's merge this" and we're stuck with this whole fiasco.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay A. Tilden[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Civil servant in the nuclear field. No extensive sourcing found. Trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this person seems to have an interesting and important mid-level government job, that does not by itself signify notability. The sources cited are written by the subject or his organization, and few relevant WP:RS mentions or noteworthy news coverage. Despite the prior lengthy discussion, this one looks like an easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Go4thProsper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2023 (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. Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Ulsan Hyundai FC season[edit]

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

This is a rip-off of Manchester City 2022-23 season (with info related to City in the article, and none related to Ulsan Hyundai) SoftReverie (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to 2022-23 Manchester City F.C. season I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, but these articles seem to be about the same topic. As this one is shorter, it could just be redirected instead of merged (unless it has significant text that the other doesn't). Also, WP:COMMONNAME. Again, I don't know much about this, but the club's main article doesn't make any mention of a name change in the lede. Asparagusus (interaction) 23:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article content was ripped off another article and has nothing to do with the article's name. @Asparagusus: Ulsan Hyundai FC has nothing to do with Manchester City F.C.. :3 F4U (they /it) 01:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and ban this user as this is a long-standing vandal which was banned many times already, sock of Hyundaiga (talk · contribs) and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bule Cloud and many many banned IP accounts. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nonsense article. Possibly eligible for CSD under G3? Giant Snowman 15:34, 13 April 2023 (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. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this satisfies WP:LISTN. 50 of the 52 (numbers 3 through 52) references come from the primary-sourced YouTube channels themselves, Reference 2 is a routine data collection from Social Blade, and Reference 1 is not about the most subscribed-to artists on YouTube Music. A Google search returns zero sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-liked TikTok videos. 123957a (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have also nominated List of most-followed Twitch channels for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Twitch channels. 123957a (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 123957a (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. My reasoning is basically a) YouTube is a commercial enterprise and there is no way to verify their published subscription numbers. So we could be spreading misinformation which favours a commercial enterprise b) the topic is dynamic in that the most subscribed artists will by definition be constantly in flux, and a level of constant WP:OR is needed to keep the page current. I don't think we need this kind of content. If people want to know about the current popularity of YouTube music video creators (or cat video creators or anything else), they can go to YouTube and find out for themselves. JMWt (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youtube channel popularity changes constantly and it would be nearly impossible to keep this article updated with any form of accuracy.. JoseJan89 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, under the condition that more sources are added. Updating subscriber counts is WP:CALC, so I don't see that as an issue. However, as was previously mentioned, the only reference on the page that is not a YouTube channel or a Social Blade link is an article about the merger of YouTube Music accounts with Vevo accounts, which does not prove notability in this case. There are several articles that allow for this to scrape by WP:LISTN, including one in Forbes Middle East and one from Audacy's news section, while NME, Billboard, Rolling Stone, and Allkpop have reported on Blackpink taking the top spot. One Variety article also addresses Taylor Swift becoming the eighth artist to surpass 50 million subscribers and lists the seven other artists to reach the milestone. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does get news coverage, so it meets the general notability guideline. And it is acceptable to get information from primary sources for things like the current subscribed numbers. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for this topic, and they have been found. Dream Focus 19:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"most-subscribed YouTube Music artists" is not a notable topic. The individuals may be notable, but they are not discussed as a group. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This goes too far into reporting on news or being a real-time stat database, both things that Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should stick to lists that are unlikely to change drastically in short amounts of time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the most popular of anything and linking to their articles, is a valid navigational list. Dream Focus 21:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This violates LISTN and NOTDATABASE. It is not a valid navigational list, it is LISTCRUFT. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be too much for wiki volunteers to maintain such specific lists about most subscribed YouTube artists. It shall set precedent for a "List of most subscribed YouTube writers" which we have to avoid. Azuredivay (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has gotten over ten thousand pageviews in the past 20 days. Far more likely someone will update it than other a lot of other articles. There are plenty of articles where information is regularly outdated. Every article for a movie, album, game, etc, list the sales figures, and this information is outdated weekly the first months after it comes out. The infoboxes for business list a company's revenue, that information outdated every month. Being outdated is not a valid reason to delete information, and certainly not an entire list. You list when the last time the information was updated at the top, and its fine. There is no burden to maintain it. Dream Focus 21:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, pageviews are not an indicator of notability. See WP:ATA. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDATABASE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subscriber numbers aren't audited/validated, so can't be used. So it's a list of channels with no meaning. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to keep updated, and subs can be bought so it is not even a good judge of popularity. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I update it occasionally but I don't think it has any encyclopaedic value. - Ïvana (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Clements[edit]

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

I declined a speedy on this as I don't think it qualified strictly for the criteria, and looked for sources. I can't find any good sources beyond those in the article, and those are local sources, and I'd really like to find something of national prominence before I'd feel comfortable having an article. It's always worth erring on the side of caution for BLPs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and South Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article.

She's been featured in Blue Monkey Magazines, PPMC Magazine issue 75, and Randfontein Herald. She also had a radio interview with Hotmix Fm. JohnDoe46991 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - this is the article's third creation, having been previously speedy deleted twice on March 30, once by me. The subject's claim to notability is winning a beauty pageant which itself does not appear to be notable: we have no article on it, and Googling it does not bring up any significant results. The creator has previously asserted in a now-deleted edit, "The article is written about a person of interest in the local community. People want to learn more about this person." This to me strongly suggests promotional intent, and given the subject matter, very likely undisclosed paid editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Winning a beauty pageant is notable. There are hundreds of articles about beauty pageant winners.

Indicating that there's an interest does not show any promotional intent whatsoever and solely states the reason why the article was created.

After every deletion request the article was edited with the efforts to abide by the criteria. 41.216.201.244 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every beauty pageant is notable. Winning a pageant no-one has heard of does not confer notability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. // Timothy :: talk 08:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt. Not notable. Uhai (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find reliable sources. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Ben 10 (2005 TV series) episodes#ep1. ✗plicit 23:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There Were 10[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet any notability requirements, tagged since 2021 DonaldD23 talk to me 20:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not seeing a whole lot but I at least found [1] and [2]. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben 10. Not seeing sourcing to show WP:GNG is met, and no sourced content to merge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ben 10 (2005 TV series) episodes#ep1, fails WP:NEPISODE and no sources. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:79CC:BBFB:97C6:9626 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ben 10 (2005 TV series) episodes#ep1, does not seem notable and fails WP:NTVEP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ben 10 (2005 TV series) episodes#ep1 per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Moritz[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable journalist/musician. I'm unable to find significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Journalism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NBAND, and WP:NOTINHERITED. There is not sufficient coverage about this person, rather than his work. The consensus has been that editors and reporters of ordinary publications, and musicians, do not automatically inherit notability from what they write or where they write, or even with which bands they perform. I would not oppose an appropriate redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Steinberg[edit]

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

The subject of this article is mentioned in a few mid-1980s news articles (e.g. [3], [4], [5]), but appears to fail WP:GNG and the requirements at WP:BLP. Furthermore, this article appears to be WP:COATRACK for LaRouche movement in that it seems to exist only to showcase the subject's "Selected publications" on a variety of fringe topics in Executive Intelligence Review. (Related to this, see the LaRouche-related topics in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests.) Location (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Businesspeople. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Just took a quick look. Looks like zero GNG type sources and as a result near zero content about him. Bulk of the content is list of essays. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking for independent reliable sources about Steinberg is frustrating. There are a lot of other Jeffrey Steinbergs who show up, and those hits that I can be reasonably sure are about this Steinberg are not independent, or merely mention him in passing. I cleaned up the bad sourcing in the article, which left almost nothing sourced to an independent, reliable source. - Donald Albury 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like DA above, I am unable to find significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable secondary sources, so they seem to fail notability guidelines. Their "essays" in Executive Intelligence Review are also not notable; listing them serves only as a weird, promotional effort for the LaRouche movement. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Larose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual fails WP:POLITICIAN. Being a candidate for office in of itself is not enough nor is the run of the mill coverage given by a political campaign enough to meet GNG. The excessive SuperPAC creation, is a civil offense, so it does not meet WP:CRIME (or in his case criminal). I think in terms of notability this falls under Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Mpen320 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, and WP:CRIME. Agree that this appears to be case of WP:1E. Sal2100 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, floridapolitics calls him an "election fraudster" but he doesn't seem to be notable enough even so. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus since at least 2007 that political activists and candidates are not per se notable, nor are criminals (alleged or convicted). I've long been advocating for naming, blaming and shaming criminals, but that is not our collective rule. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources exists. We are not a free web host for real crime stories. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2023 (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. Thanks to Yae4 and LjL for finding good sources I hadn't, and adding them to the article. I'm withdrawing this AfD, since it does appear notable enough. (non-admin closure) DFlhb (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CalyxOS[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Almost all references are primary. GoFOSS, AlternativeTo and the F-Droid forums are user generated. Kuketz is self-published, MakeUseOf is very borderline (barely above a group blog) and AndroidAuthority is purely a passing mention. That leaves three articles by Moritz Termmel. I searched, and found no suitable book sources, or significant coverage in other reliable publications. It could plausibly be "presumed" notable, but in practice, I really don't think we have enough for an article, since it would be hard to provide even a basic overview without needing to "fill the gaps" with primary sources. DFlhb (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DFlhb (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please also see Talk:CalyxOS. CalyxOS is widely known in phone alternative "ROM" circles, and GrapheneOS supporters frequently criticize it. I'm trying hard to assume good faith here, but I've interacted with DFlhb before; They supported completely removing cited information on GrapheneOS involvement with the ANOM police sting.[6] IMO, the info' somewhat reflected badly on GrapheneOS and the primary developer. However, it is strange that XDA Developers does not include either in their 2023 "most popular custom roms" list.[7] In an article on the ANOM sting, XDA said "This is how the bootloader on a Pixel phone can be locked after flashing a security-hardened custom ROM like CalyxOS or GrapheneOS, and it's likely how the FBI also loaded ArcaneOS onto the Pixel phones they sold to criminals."[8] Alternative "ROMs" are a somewhat obscure topic for Wikipedia, and most of the articles have marginal sourcing, and a lot of COI editing, to be frank. There are more recent sources not included in CalyxOS. I can't get to the actual book, but the summary says: "There are actually a few of these, but the one I would recommend is CalyxOS."[9] Billionaire Jack_Dorsey's Start Small[10] is giving a million dollars to Calyx Institute and much of that will likely go to CalyxOS one of their primary projects. Almost any time GrapheneOS is discussed or sold, CalyxOS is mentioned, and sometimes criticized.[11] --Yae4 (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the insinuations on talk page. I have access to that book, and that sentence is the only passing mention of CalyxOS in it (fails WP:SIGCOV). It goes without saying that NitroPhone and Dorsey's sites are not reliable secondary sources. DFlhb (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yae4: BTW, that book is in the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which you should have access to. Check it out, it's a great resource — DFlhb (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Note the 3 Tremmel reviews were in two different publications, Golem.de and Linux Magazin. At Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_1#Any_comments_on_new_golem.de_source? for a similar article, it was a single golem.de citation that pushed GrapheneOS over the notability hurdle, according to User:Newslinger now a wiki-admin. I've added a few more citations from the book and scholar searches; it's not clear to me what DFlhb is talking about re "suitable" books. Kuketz is considered expert in IT, and anyone actually reading the series of detailed reviews of independent alternative phone operating systems should see that. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as while the article's references suffered from a prevalence of primary sources, this distribution stands out among Android ROMs for various reasons, many of which are covered by the Linux Magazine (German edition) reference that I've added to the article, which is a lengthy (definitely not incidental) monographic review of CalyxOS. The article about Linux Magazine should, I believe, serve to establish notability of this publication. LjL (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2023 (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 . Star Mississippi 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aril Brikha[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NMUSIC. Google search brings up fewer than 60 results, mainly social media accounts and music streaming sites. ... discospinster _talk 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Iran, and Sweden. ... discospinster _talk 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A search in w:sv:Mediearkivet, which collects all but not all Swedish newspaper articles from more recent years, gives 154 hits in print media, though. Articles like "Techno för själ och fot" (Sydsvenskan, November 2000), "Själfull techno" (Sydsvenskan, January 2000), interviews in major media like Svenska Dagbladet or Sveriges Radio P2 and so on seems to indicate notability to me. I figure the problem here isn't notability, but rather that most of the buzz never ended up easily accessible online because he peaked 23 years ago. /Julle (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: i improved and added more citations and based on what Julle said, I will vote to keep this one.Royal88888 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per edits to the article since it was taken to AfD and my comment above. /Julle (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2023 (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 with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is th' Life[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, tagged in 2023. Nothing found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Moving Picture World (Jul-Sep ,'14, p. 1144) has a very detailed plot summary (that the Imdb page for the film reproduces extensively, fwiw). This film about electric inventions including cars is not to be confused with the 1915 Adele Farrington film that goes by the almost same title. (Both seem notable but only this one has a page here).— MY, OH, MY! 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Electricity Vital to Development. Interesting "Flying A" Subject". Motography. Vol. 12, no. 8. 1914-08-22. pp. 263–264. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The article notes:
  Containing a truth of life, splendidly portrayed through a series of closely connected developing incidents, the two-reel release of the American Film Manufacturing company for August 24, entitled "This Is Life," is a production which is of more than mere entertainment value.
  The relation of modernized methods, especially those in which electricity figures, to those of the old days when every little duty about the farm was performed by hand, forms the theme of this pleasing comedy drama and the convincing manner in which the plot has been rounded out, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the picture.
  Charlotte Burton, in the leading feminine role, that of a country girl, is delightfully natural in her acting, while Ed Coxen take the male lead in equally charming manner. George Fields completely loses his personality in the role of a hard-headed old farmer, who considers all modern improvements a waste of time, and the character portrayal further proves this actor's versatility. A number of the "Flying A" favorites appear in the supporting roles, all doing good work in their respective parts.
  The interior settings and the exterior locations on the farm are pleasing and abound in atmosphere. A number of new electrical inventions worked into the latter part of the second reel is a novelty in itself, while several larger engines seen earlier in the picture are also well worth notice, irrespective of their bearing upon the plot. The photography is of the best and the sub-titling and vision work well handled.
  The story opens with a friendly call of the Browns upon the Millers, the families living on neighboring farms. Brown and Miller engage in a checker game, while John and Rita, their son and daughter, respectively, slip away to the garden. Mary Brown and Mrs. Miller are great friends and visit with each other on the porch. All goes very well and the young lovers in the garden have forgotten there are any other persons in the world until Brown finds himself cornered on the checker board and a quarrel between him and Miller results which leads to the sudden departure of the Brown family and the separation of the lovers.
  Brown is set in his ideas and will not consider forgetting the matter. John is industrious and studies electricity when alone in his room. His father learns of this and angrily throws the books away, telling his son that the modern ideas are all a foolish waste of time, and that the only real way to do things is by the old methods.
  John is determined to succeed in the work he has chosen, however, and that night leaves home to go to the city. He stops at the Miller home and says good-bye to Rita, telling her that he will return when he has made good. Brown disowns John. In the city he finds work oiling some huge electrical engines and, given this opportunity to study their construction, quickly learns the principles of the work. He continues his study during the evenings and it is not long before he is promoted.
  On the Miller farm electricity replaces all the former slow and tedious methods, but Brown, although he has again established friendly relations with his neighbor, refuses to even consider any improvements in the methods he employs, and his daughter, Mary, is forced to do all her work by hand. Rita is sent to a boarding school in the city, and there John and her again see much of each other, and her company inspires him to even greater efforts. The spark of genius has been lying dormant in the young man and under the pressure of his daily work it appears, and it not long until he turns to invention.
  Time passes and one after another of John's inventions become successful, but still his father refuses to forgive him for leaving home. Rita has returned home, but receives letters from John almost daily. The inventor is unable to leave his work, however, even for a moment, as he is now working on an X-ray machine which promises to become the greatest of its kind in the world.
  Mary works far into every night in order to complete her household duties and in time the strain wears on her and she begs her father to get the many little modern inventions which would make her tasks lighter, but he stubbornly refuses. The frail girl does the best she can, but it is only a short time before the inevitable happens. One day as she is ironing a sharp pain shoots up her back and she falls to the floor in a faint. Rita has just come to the Brown home to visit Mary and finds her in agony. It is now that Brown begins to realize the worth of the modern inventions, and when Rita secures a doctor by telephone he is very thankful. The doctor, however, can do nothing for the girl and says that she will be paralyzed for life.
  Again Brown sees the wonderful uses of electricity when Rita reaches John in the city over the long distance telephone and asks him to come to his sister's aid with his latest invention, the X-ray, and a specialist. While the little party consisting of the Miller family and Brown anxiously wait in the little farm house, the son who had been disowned speeds homeward in an automobile, and as soon as he arrives the doctor and he start to work on the stricken girl with the new invention. Brown waits outside the door of the room, anxiously praying for the best, and when half an hour later the pair come from within and announce that through the medium of John's wonderful X-ray the girl will be restored to health, Brown repents and forgets all the malice he has felt towards his son.
  A short time later Mary is again well, and when she is able to work again she finds all the modern conveniences at her command and is surprised on the day of John's and Rita's wedding when her father calls for her in an electric automobile. He is highly pleased with the new mode of living he has adopted and enthusiastically exclaims "This is th' Life."
  The cast for the production is as follows:
  Farmer Brown—Geo. Field
  His Son—Ed Coxen
  Farmer Miller—John Steppling
  His Daughter—Charlotte Burton
  Farmer Brown's Daughter—Edith Borella
  Farmer Miller's Wife—Josephine Ditt
2. "This Is Th' Life". The Moving Picture World. 1914-08-22. p. 1144. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The article notes:
  This Is Th' Life (Two Parts—August 24).—Farmer Brown, a man who clings to old ideas, is so set against the wheels of progress and modern science, that his son John is compelled to steal away from home in order to complete his education in electricity.
  In contrast, Erown's neighbor, Farmer Miller, installs modern ideas and machinery. His farm products and stock thrive and bring great results, while his daughter Rita, can attend boarding school. Rita and John are sweethearts and Rita applauds and encourages John in his struggle toward progression. John becomes a genius and invents many electrical meters and a powerful X-Ray, but time nor success will soften his father's heart or reconcile them.
  Miller even lightens his wife's household burdens by installing electrical washing and ironing devices, while Brown's frail daughter, Mary, is a slave to the heat and drudgery of the old methods of housekeeping. One day Mary, while lifting a heavy wash boiler strains her back and falls to the floor. Brown finds her and for the first time fully realizes the necessity of a telephone. Rita just home on her vacation comes to his aid and rushing over home summons a doctor, then by long distance summons John to bring a surgeon and his new X-Ray. The country doctor announces that Mary has suffered a paralytic stroke and will never recover. Brown's heart is crushed, but the next day John and the surgeon arrive. After an examination the surgeon declares to Brown that through the aid of the wonderful X-Ray and modern science his daughter will be permanently restored to health. The wedding day of Rita and John arrives and Brown's gift to the couple is in the nature of a new home completely equipped electrically even to the stove and cooking utensils. He becomes a convert to progress and modern science, and declaring "this is th' life" takes his neighbor Miller for a drive in his own electric car.
3. ""This Is Th' Life"". Reel Life. Vol. 4, no. 2. Mutual Film. 1914-08-15. p. 16. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The article notes:
  Jasper Brown had no use for new fangled notions. His father and his grandfather before him had wrested a good living out of Pine Crest Farm by the old methods, using plenty of brawn and leaving the rest to Providence. The trouble was, they had exhausted most of their stamina in the process, and the last generation was physically weakened, Mentally, however, Brown's children had forged ahead the more eagerly, as though to invent by their wits some means of escape from ancestral servitude.
  Only, Farmer Brown couldn't see this. His son John early had developed a mechanical genius which irritated his father not a little. When he had become absorbed in electricity and refused to get down to stone picking in the old "granite lot," Brown made his young life a burden. The result was, John ran away to the city to complete his electrical education.
  At about the same time, Joseph Miller's daughter, Rita, went away to boarding school. Brown wondered how his neighbor could commit such an extravagance. He had taken his own daughter, Mary, out of the Academy to do her share of drudgery at home.
  Besides, Miller spent large sums on his place.
  The truth was, Miller was as progressive as Brown was backward. He had installed labor-saving machinery both indoors and out. He took the Cornell Agricultural Bulletin, and made frequent trips to experiment stations to observe improved methods of cultivating the soil. He knew to his own satisfaction, and to the profit of his family, that scientific farming paid. Mrs. Miller, though a farmer's wife, enjoyed life. She was as enthusiastic about the electrical washing and ironing devices which Joseph had given her on their last wedding anniversary as her husband was about the new orchard spraying outfit. When she ran in for a friendly call on the Browns, it made her heart ache to see frail Mary Brown bending over the tubs in the hot, steamy kitchen.
  "She'll give out sudden, one of these days," she told her husband. "Men like Jasper Brown ought to be jailed for living back in the Dark Ages!"
  It was not long after this that Mary, lifting a heavy wash-boiler one day, strained her back and fainted dead away. For the first time in his life her father recognized the need of a telephone. But Rita Miller, who was back on a vacation, running in just in time, went rushing home to phone the village doctor. Then, by long distance, she called up John Brown at the Technical Institute, telling him to come at once, with a surgeon and his new X-ray device.
  Jasper Brown had thought less of his son than ever since he had heard of his success as an inventor. Electrical meters and X-rays! What earthly use were such things on a farm? The breach between them had widened with John's progress. When the country doctor arrived, he announced that Mary had had a stroke. "Most likely, she won't recover," he said, gloomily.
  The next twenty-four hours remained always the bitterest memory of Jasper Brown's fife. His obstinate spirit was completely crushed. He began to see his sins as though he were facing his own end in the fate of his frail and lovely daughter.
  "I worked her to death," he muttered to himself. "Worked her like a horse—till I broke her back." He shuddered, recoiling from himself. At noon next day, John and the city surgeon reached the farm. John was pale and silent. Brown felt miserably that his son was judging him—worse, that he had a right to do so. The physician was making a thorough examination of Mary. It seemed endless.
  "With the aid of your son's X-ray instrument, and by using the most recent scientific appliances," the specialist said at last, "I have reason to hope all will be well."
  The words sounded to Brown like an incantation in a dream, "X-rays! Modern science!" Had he not exorcised these demons? But these things, the great man was saying would save her."
  About a year later, John and Rita were married and Jasper Brown's gift to them was a monument to his conversion—a new house, completely equipped electrically, even to stove and cooking utensils.
  A few days after the wedding, Brown took Joseph Miller for a drive in his own electric car. John had helped his father select the motor and had taught the old man how to run it. As they rolled comfortably through the beautiful Ohio countryside, comparing the prosperity of their gardens and orchards with much friendly rivalry, they came into view of the commodious cottage of the young couple. Brown heaved a happy sigh. And as though no word nor deed in this latter day could now shock him by its modernity, he muttered. "This is th' life!"
4. ""This Is Th' Life"". Electrical Merchandise and Selling Electricity. Vol. 13, no. 11. November 1914. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The article notes:
  The life electric has found its way into the movies with a vengeance. Under the title "This Is Th’ Life," the American Film Manufacturing Company of Chicago, offers a two-reel drama showing the advantages of electric service, or, to quote its Barnum-like poster, "An absorbing drama exploiting the advance of civilization—a transition from old to new, from ancient to modern, from perilous custom to immutable methods of scientific economy."
  The feature is offered in the regular way to photo-play houses and there is nothing to indicate that the film has any advertising purpose.
  There is a real story in the pictures, in which electric pumping for irrigation, electric utensils for reducing drudgery, electric therapeutics for alleviating suffering and electric table-ware are successfully shown. A real plot is developed in which a full cast of characters, including villain and comedian, play their alloted, parts. the climax being a wedding-breakfast for two. at which the heroine offers the hero four electrically soft-boiled eggs. Verily, this is th' life.
  We do not know the system by which moving picture films are supplied to photo-play theatres but any central station man who influences a local house to put this feature on its program will be doing a neat piece of advertising of a very good sort.
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. ""Flying A" Sidelights". Billboard. Vol. 26, no. 33. 1914-08-15. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The article notes: "The title of Converting Dad has been changed to This Is th' Life, and the subject proves to be the most apropos for the present age and state of development of industrial and sociological affairs. It is a two-reel subject and will be released August 24."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow This Is th' Life to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN per new sources found by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:29, 16 April 2023 (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 draftify.. ✗plicit 23:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bawaal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF, should be deleted or moved to DRAFT until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release. Asparagusus (interaction) 23:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Incubate in draft space. No guarantee it will be notable after release, but at least a draft could be developed to help try to establish notability. — Archer1234 (t·c) 03:24, 13 April 2023 (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 2023 Cricket World Cup. Non controversial close. The page creator himself redirected the article and the only keep voter has also agreed to the reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) RoboCric (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup final[edit]

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

Currently only source that can be shown is the date announcement of the last/final match (from Xth Oct to Yth Nov). Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it is notable. Even the full fixtures have not been confirmed yet (also the teams which qualify for WC or the final is not known), so the date of the final can be changed anytime. Any significant information has not yet been published regarding the final match, so no need for a seperate article. Probably should be a redirect or draftified, but that is no longer an option, since the redirect was contested. RoboCric (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. RoboCric (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been similar discussions like this- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Indian Premier League Final. RoboCric (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, pointing out that one similar article was redirected has no bearing on this deletion discussion. The World Cup final article will stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Frank Anchor I pointed out that discussion, since there was the same rationale behind redirecting the IPL final. I didn't say that IPL final didn't exist, so it also shouldn't exist. RoboCric (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for showing me that you did not take time to read the linked policy. The basic gist of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that voting to keep or not keep an article because articles on similar topics were dealt the same fate is not a valid reason. Frank Anchor 12:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  OSE is not a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates Spike 'em (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Frank Anchor First please be sure about the page you are linking. It is itself not a policy, rather an essay on deletion policy. I linked that discussion because I thought that I had failed to make you understand why the article should be redirected. So, I linked that discussion, because there have been a detailed rationale by many voters. And pointing to other stuff is not always invalid. There have been same consensus for all articles on final matches or any event. Both IPL final and WC final has been created way TOOSOON, so same criteria applies for both of them. Unless any in-depth coverage or sufficient information is available, what is your logic behind keeping the article (not redirecting) with the same information which is already present in the main article? RoboCric (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been an editor on Wikipedia for the past 12 years and I have just created this article a few minutes ago. This article is about the final match of one of the most popular sports event in the world watched by billions worldwide, the 2023 Cricket World Cup and Cricket World Cup in general as well. Also, this article is not about the final match of a hypothetical future sports event which will take place 4-5 years from now, but a confirmed multi-national World cup which is scheduled to happen in just a few months. I highly suggest that this article be kept because it has the potential to improve further and become a lot better and that can only happen when other editors are given a chance to edit and improve on an already existing article. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

one of the most popular sports event in the world indicates notability about Cricket World Cup, not the final match. Until details (in-depth) are found about the final or the confirmation of Finalists, article should not be created. Also see other similar discussions. RoboCric (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, the topic of this AFD needs to remain the 2023 World Cup final and only the 2023 World Cup final. Frank Anchor 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been confirmed: the cricinfo article linked says it is likely to start on October 5 and end on November 19 Spike 'em (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'emThank you for your comment. As per advice given by many other editors, I accept their useful advice and have come to the conclusion that for now, a redirect is the best thing to do so. Hence, this discussion can be closed by any closer as required. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. WP:CRYSTAL allows an article if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This event is notable as it is the world championship game of one of the most popular sports in the world, and by the presence of articles on prior Cricket World Cup finals. The event is almost certain to take place as the date (which is only a few months from now) and venue have already been announced and qualifiers for the tournament are already in progress. Frank Anchor 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral per above comments by Spike 'em. A redirect is acceptable based on the date being not as "certain" as I previously thought. Frank Anchor 16:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor, When the teams for the main tournament itself isn't confirmed, then how can you predict the finalists? If smaller details like finalists and in-depth coverage is not found about the final, then I see no point of making a separate page for the final. All the given information (Format=ODI, Tournament= CWC) is already mentioned in the main article. Plus note that until the full fixtures are not confirmed, the final match date can be changed anytime. And the other articles of this kind were created only when sufficient information was available or the match date came closer. RoboCric (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid argument to not keep. The date of any event can change at any time right up to the start of the event. You may remember something called COVID-19 that pushed back the date of many sporting events, sometimes mere days or even hours before they were to take place. WP:CRYSTAL even takes this into account by explaining that [d]ates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. Also, one user see[ing] no point of making a separate page for the final does not mean there should not be an article about it. Frank Anchor 16:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Indian Premier League Final and consensus reached from other related cricket articles. RoboCric (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoboCric: And you can please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pointing out that one similar article was redirected has no bearing on this deletion discussion. The World Cup final article will stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 18:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RoboCric (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main tournament article. Not enough is known about this match yet to write a separate article on it. Spike 'em (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE, we don't yet need a separate article that just repeats a few lines from what is currently the main one. I have no doubt that this match will receive significant coverage in its own right at some point soon, but has not done so yet. Spike 'em (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Cricket World Cup. Way WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article as there is entirely insufficient content to warrant a split. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main tournament article. There is not enough known information to warrant a separate article at this time, the details we do know (the ~~date and~~ location) will be in the parent article anyway. This article provides no additional information or benefit to readers at this time. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with the article in its current state I don't think we have any alternative but to redirect. If there was more of an article, perhaps I'd think differently. We can handle everything we need to handle in the competition article for now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Cricket World Cup. I had previously explained to TheGeneralUser that a redirect was the best state for the article title at this time. As you can see at Draft:2023 Cricket World Cup Final (note case difference on "Final"), TheGeneralUser seems to have a strange preoccupation with being "the original author" of the article. Although not 'huge' edits, the draftification of the original redirect has already obscured several other editors' contributions. Not helpful behaviour. --Hadal (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Per my note above, the closer should consider reversing TheGeneralUser's move at Draft:2023 Cricket World Cup Final and redirect this case difference as well, to restore previous edits. --Hadal (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a hist merge is in order, this is pretty petty WP:OWN behaviour. Spike 'em (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Thank you Hadal and Spike 'em for your comments. As I had mentioned before, I had only intended to create this article for the benefit of the readers and the encyclopedia, but I can completely understand the point of view given by you both and other editors. I never claimed ownership of any kind of article anywhere and my primary purpose has always been to improve the encyclopedia. Hence, I have redirected this article myself to 2023 Cricket World Cup and this discussion can be closed as required by any closer, so that everyone else can go ahead and spend time in doing the most important thing which is to improve other articles and Wikipedia in general as well. This article can be created when more information about the final is available in detail. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Cricket World Cup WP:TOOSOON. While the topic will likely be notable enough for a separate article in the future, there's no way near enough coverage as of now for the article to exist in mainspace. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sues[edit]

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

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for 8 years; Google only throws up listings and associated official and/or fan social media accounts, then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete issues not addressed for 8 years; Google only throws up listings and associated official and/or fan social media accounts, meaning notable neutral sources are unlikely to be found, at most Redirect to Tokyopop as seemingly only notable attached page. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's ok to mass prod such unreferenced fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mass prod was my mistake, I forgot no-one could see that I'd checked to see if anything was salvageable beforehand and put through too many at once. I have been put gently right by some kind people, and hopefully will not have to do anything with that many pages at once again! =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ZERO sources used, I'm not wading through every Google mention with a person named Simon that sues people. TNT this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strongly agree with what’s been said above. This is a clear delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - literally unsourced and difficult to find anything. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2023 (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 List of Soulcalibur characters#Cervantes. ✗plicit 23:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cervantes de Leon[edit]

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

All of the references are primary or listicles. It is therefore not notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With List of Soulcalibur characters#Cervantes, I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV of him. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:GNG. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Cervantes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2023 (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 Mike Curtis (writer). ✗plicit 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katmandu (comics)[edit]

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

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for 2+ years, no proof The Comics Journal mention is in any depth, other links seem to be fan sites., then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per original prod, unable to see where it cane be redirected to, though furry comics are not an area I am particularly versed on. Nothing to suggest it's their Watchmen or anything, though. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mike Curtis (writer) as WP:ATD. The publisher of it seems like a relevant place to put the information, but it doesn't seem individually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Zxcvbnm.★Trekker (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete. We should not be removing sourced material from Wikipedia. I'm concerned that the nomination includes the text no proof The Comics Journal mention is in any depth. Burden on proof is on the nominator. Material is removed because it isn't sourced or doesn't reflect the source. Hiding T 08:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where it says "burden of proof is on the nominator"? WP:BURDEN states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which is the exact opposite of that.

Let's assume that the review in Comics Journal is WP:SIGCOV. The article still needs several extra reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. None pop up at all. You are free to bring them forward if you have them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we are talking about WP:BURDEN, looks like you have misunderstood what I have said. We are talking about the burden of proof on the nominator to support their nomination statement that doubts The Comics Journal mention is in any depth, otherwise we could simply doubt and remove everything. WP:BURDEN has been satisfied, there's the source, go verify it. Don't cast aspersions until that's done. I'm here arguing with the substance of the debate and trying to educate on the ideas behind Wikipedia. We don't delete sourced material without very good reason. Extrapolate from that what we would do with that sourced information and why we shouldn't be at AFD. As an aside, I also don't need a lecture on WP:GNG, I'm very aware of the intent behind the words I wrote on that policy page. If it helps, the burden of proof on the afd nominator is found at our guide on deletion; Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD. and also it might be worth refreshing on the editing policy, Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it can encapsulate, the better it is. Hiding T 09:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Hiding That makes no sense. For something like TCJ with no free online archive (or even widely available unofficial sources) you could just make something up and it could stick for years until someone notices. It could be a one-line passing mention; TCJ has carried listings at various points. If you're hanging a whole article on one reference on one source it needs to be verifiable, surely? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BoomboxTestarossa You seem to have misunderstood a very fundamental part of WP:AGF and peer review. The source is there, it's provided. Go show it to be wrong, don't assume it is wrong, because otherwise we simply remove everything from Wikipedia that we assume to be wrong. I'm not sure anyone is hanging a whole article on anything, certainly not me, so I won't engage with that part of the argument, thanks. Hiding T 09:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if an editor is struggling to source up an article they can just tag on a hard-to-verify but notable source and it's up to someone else to verify that? Nice, that one's getting filed for the next time I inflict pages on random Zenith background characters on people. Did The Comics Journal do an in-depth article on the Q-Bikes? Most people will never know that they (probably) didn't.

In all seriousness I get what you're saying but in the context of this debate where there's no other notable, significant coverage I think it's important that we have a reference that can be verified. I'm not propsing a fundamental precedent here, just noting in this particular case of an article already displaying notability issues what sounds like a solid reference might not be.

I apologise if my phrasing in the original post was ignorant, I can be a bit monkey-see monkey-do. I'll learn the lesson from that one =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor can pretty much make up anything on Wikipedia, that's been a feature/bug since day one. But when we remove or clean up stuff we have to hold to a higher standard. I don't delete or prod until I'm 100% sure the article can't be saved, and I'm also mindful that I'm collaborating. I'm even more mindful now that I'm collaborating with people who have died, so it's also important to be their voice in a debate as well. I get that there's a context in this debate, but I also get that these debates are people's first time, and that people are scared off these debates. I also think there's a place in Wikipedia for sourced information. That's what we are here for. I don't like the idea that we nominate for deletion through prod or afd, material that is sourced. Stubify it, merge it, redirect it, include it somewhere. Fix the issues, make them better, but that sourced information is what makes us better. Retain it somewhere. If it's a stub article that gets nowhere for 50 years, so what? Hiding T 10:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be my attitude too, and merging seems like a good solution.
The problem is that Wikipedia's guidelines are contradictory and applied arbitrarily, and I am tired of having to pore over multiple sources and deal with the agenda one of the new article reviewers when there's poorly referenced and abandoned crap like this littering up the place.
Yes, the person who put together this article could have died, become a busy pop singer with their own Netflix show, whatever. But no-one else has bothered to remedy the issues in the past two plus years and no-one is chiming in with a stack of sources now either. Letting it sit there like a depth charge in a public toilet is an insult to hard-working editors, and on the surface adds to the impression that any article made before a certain date is somehow sacrosanct whereas new submissions have to clear an incredibly high bar to even be considered. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if something I have said has initiated the rhetorical change in your argument. It's great that we agree on many things, and I think where we disagree is on the approach. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, and it doesn't really insult anyone if an article is in a poor state. I can't myself go down the path of negative emotions, I've had way too long a wiki break because of the lack of collegiate debate and the enforcing of viewpoints. Maybe the high bar that new submissions face is wrong. Maybe the rhetoric on AFD is wrong. Maybe editors are forced off Wikipedia by many different things. But what we're trying to do, what we're supposed to do, is work out what's best for this article, and this information. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I apologise for any offence I have given. I look at my own clean up list and think that two years is nothing. I could cite articles that reach double figures. We'll never get there, it's a founding principle of the endeavour. :) Hiding T 12:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god no, you have not offended me one bit and I apologise if I gave the impression you did. I am talking about an editor who is not currently involved in this discussion. And I am enjoying an educated, informative discussion with you. TBH your views are what I would consider an enlightened and sensible approach to Wikipedia, especially the strength of there being no deadline for salvage (assuming no-one is being slandered or whatever). It's just a surprise really when most other notability/AfD discussions I've had to get involved with take completely the opposite view, with an onus on rapid deletion without discussion, and insistence on instant verification of sources. It can be baffling to work out the consistency, or how exactly you can collaborate on a page if you're not even allowed to get it off the ground. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mike Curtis (writer).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Merge to Mike Curtis (writer) in order to aid consensus. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ruffner[edit]

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

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for 10+ years, no evidence on Google that subject is any more notable than numerous other comics colorists who have a small number of professional credits, then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Comics and animation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO sources for this person found. The name is too common. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly no evidence Ms. Ruffner is notable even within the undercovered field of comic colourists. Not even really a standout association to redirect to IMHO. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2023 (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 . Aoidh (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Citrus[edit]

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

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for nearly 7 years; promotional character, only 'source' is created by interested party., then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete as no notable independent sources, probably even tenuous to link it back to Not That Ralph Macchio unless that page somehow contextualises a random mascot within his career. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the announcement in 2014 received a lot of coverage, particularly in Florida but also in some national media like WSJ and adweek: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Most mentions post-2014 are very passing mentions: [19], [20]. However, there are a few multi-paragraph mentions [21] and at least one entire article: Bouffard, K. (2015, Mar 30). 'Captain citrus': OJ sales fall more slowly; is it heroic? The Ledger Retrieved from [22]. And, perhaps surprisingly, a paper, although not very cited but still a published paper: Promoting Commodities through Comic Books: A Framing Analysis of the Captain Citrus Campaign. Journal of Applied Communications. 2016. I was going to vote delete probably but this is significantly more mainstream coverage of a comic book character than normal, even if it was mostly an ad-push, there was still some following on coverage. Skynxnex (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's good stuff! I wonder what I was doing wrong to not see that. It needs an overhaul but yes, definitely salvageable. How do I go about changing my vote? Do I edit the first one or just post Keep? =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa WP:DISCUSSAFD has some instructions but generally: Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <del> and </del> after the *, as in "• ~~Delete~~ Keep". I've also see people strike their vote and then do their new vote in a different comment. Skynxnex (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex thanks, appreciate the patience! =) Keep per sources listed, apologies all around. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the revision of the page as my penance for the premature nomination and as a thanks to @Skynxnex for the sources. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2023 (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. Kinu ^t/_c 15:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan J. Porter[edit]

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

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with concern issues not addressed for 8 years, also clearly written by subject, then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, England, and Texas. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotion and seemingly no particular notability within field. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything in this bio on how he meets WP:NARTIST/WP:NBIO. I did my own BEFORE and got nothing (tiny bios on some fandom pages and like). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage,fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2023 (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 List of Soulcalibur characters. While there were comments arguing for keeping the article, these comments were largely addressing the fact that a GA was taken to AfD instead of another venue, or did not directly address the concerns about the sourcing issues that the merge rationales presented. Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astaroth (Soulcalibur)[edit]

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

I hate to nominate a GA, but there is no notability here, nearly all of the sources are primary. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm sorry, but this is flat out absurd. If you feel notability is an issue tagging it with the appropriate templates would have been better or taking it to a GAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GAR does not deal with notability. And AFD is definitely a system to debate notability, that is why 90 percent of AFD nominations are made. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GAR can absolutely deal with notability if you feel an article does not meet sufficient standards and you have issue with the sources used and feel they aren't up to current standards. Additionally cleanup tags exist for a reason. As it stands personally while I feel the article is weaker, it has enough material and courage to stand fine on its own, and the recent trend of using AfDs to force discussions (i.e. Reptile (Mortal Kombat)'s is troubling to say the least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "recent trend" has nothing to do with removing GA articles. It is just because fighting game characters who do not meet guidelines get noticed. Additionally, the Reptile one was not a problem, just a discussion on notability that decided that the article was notable. I do not believe this is notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion here if you do not believe me about GAR and notability concerns. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in your assertion that GA standards and notability are unrelated. That said, this is a relatively detailed article, so a vague "it's not notable" nomination is less than ideal. You should be more detailed in explaining why it's not notable, what's wrong with all the sourcing present, etc. You're not likely to get much input when you put all the work on everyone else to wade through all that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My specific problem is that most of the references are primary, which does not contribute to notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself, but you've failed to persuade the first 3 people to read your nomination. You'd think that's not a good sign... Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: The withdrawal has been undone. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Notability seems to have already been vetted, and independent sources clearly exist, even if primary sources are somewhat overly relied upon. BD2412 T 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. I missed some sources when I originally looked at the reflist. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Sorry. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth. Contrary to the previous arguments which give no evidence, GA articles can in fact be subject to AfD, I have done so multiple times. GA has nothing to do with notability and standards change over time, with this article having become a GA in 2009, fairly early in Wikipedia's lifespan when fictional cruft was still welcomed. Right now it only has trivial coverage and lacks secondary sources with significant mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the reception section pases GNG. Problems with "fiction cruft" (which I assume means 'in universe' information) isn't relevant when there is clearly other things in the article that show coverage.★Trekker (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all reception sources are passing mentions in reviews, which is the sort of typical thing for a list of characters, but can't support a page. There's one mention in a book, but I can't access it - I doubt it's major though, considering it's used to cite only a single sentence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth. Sourcing standards have greatly increased since this GA was listed in 2009. No, GA criteria has no bearing on notability. I'll affirm the above assessment that the majority of sources are primary, showing no external notability for the character apart from the series. In the remaining sources, I don't see what can be construed as significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, nevertheless out-of-universe coverage. Insert Credit's Tim Rogers stated "It takes a certain kind of gamer to prefer Astaroth". Australian GamePro noted his size gave the character great reach. These are passing mentions that do not confer notability of the character somehow removed from the game itself. The standard alternative to deletion in this case is to merge to the existing parent list's section on the topic. czar 04:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth, focusing on what reliable, secondary sources have written about the character. I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources to meet the GNG. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Soulcalibur characters. This is a tough one but the reception just isn't there. The NY Times source is particularly a letdown, as it's a miracle for characters of this ilk to even get that kind of coverage, but alas Astaroth has only a passing mention. Plus, it was GA'd way back in 2009, which is practically a lifetime in Wikipedia years. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to List of Soulcalibur characters per Czar. The reception is built on WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, and there isn't enough to support an article once you remove those. I say "weak" only because WP:GAR would have been the preferred channel to start, but I don't put much weight on GAs from 2009, when the review process commonly ignored major issues. Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and we don't let procedure get in the way of a consensus about content. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge The standard has increased unlike before. Thou, the article is not poorly written, the reception was full of trivial. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the other keep !votes. I know that notability is technically not required for a GA, but as pointed out, this probably should have gone through GAR first. But other than that, the sourcing does seem to cover important aspects of the character. MoonJet (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GAR. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realize the GameRant articles aren't considered 'bueno' by some editors, but they are at least giving feedback on the character. That said also added another study by Rachel Hutchinson discussing his design and reactions to it. I'm digging through for more at this time while I wait for FGO to update.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was mentioning to Moon in the Quan Chi discussion that it's rather frustrating sites considered situational like Game/Screen Rant are sometimes the only ones who will give the time of day to lesser known VG characters. Any legitimate character coverage from these sites should be considered admissible in establishing notability, as long as it's not under something like "12 Worst Hangnails in Gaming." sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the rare times I agree with you in these AFDs, Beemer69. The weird thing is that discussion on these sites was already leaning towards "they can be used for notability, so long as they aren't from listicles," so I have no idea why the person who opened the discussion concluded that the consensus is that these sites are not to be used for establishing notability at all. MoonJet (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I feel it something is being said and citeable, and not a passing mention, they should be used from a source like that. Question is with them and the new study, how is Astaroth looking to folks?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate reason is that these sites are content farms. These articles aren't the product of subject matter experts writing within their field or even a nuanced study of something they've researched for weeks. They're just content pumped out to feed algorithms. We shouldn't trust it (because there's no regard for fact-checking or accuracy) and we certainly shouldn't reward it, either. Woodroar (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Man I wish there was more out there in terms of viable reception, but it’s nonetheless looking much better; good work. ~~Not sure how much time is left but I’m contemplating changing my vote.~~ 'Fraid I'm sticking with merging after further investigation. I appreciate KFM's efforts in adding the document but the pre-existing sources are the roadblock. The content from Tim Rogers and the NY Times add nothing, while one paragraph is devoted to his gameplay than the actual character. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Game Rant, Screen Rant and The Gamer all have fact-checking policies. MoonJet (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nobody is debating that GameRant/ScreenRant/TheGamer check their facts. That's why they're situational, not unreliable. The main issue is that, being content farms, they write about everything. The notability guideline usually relies on the fact that news sites have a minimum threshold of noteworthiness, so it's impossible to tell if something is notable just by having been written about there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, in this particular instance do you feel it augments the other references to provide enough notability or not? I really feel it should pass with the second Hutchinson study added there also.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth - While there are tons of sources cited in this article, the majority of them are primary (posts/interviews on the official Soul Calibur or Bandai Namco websites, official twitter accounts, etc) or things like product listings. And the non-primary sources are not significant coverage on this character in specific. Many are, as noted by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ above, just brief mentions of the character in general reviews of the games as a whole, and some are literally nothing more than the character's name mentioned once. When a couple of listicles that have short dedicated entries on Astaroth are the best "sources" included, that is not a great sign for notability. And searching for additional sources outside of what is already in this article does not produce any better results - outside of routine coverage of character announcements and game guides, there is no significant coverage on Astaroth outside of mentions in general coverage of the games as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2023 (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 Philip K. Dick bibliography is done, with the history preserved per the discussion. However if consensus emerges that Philip K. Dick is the better target, that can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Time for George Stavros[edit]

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

Article fails GNG with sole citation being a minor note in a biography. It's also an unpublished failed attempt at a book that didn't survive beyond a short synopsis, making it highly unlikely to ever achieve notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could the information be merged into the main article on Philip K. Dick which has sections on his early writing and the various phases of his career? Elemimele (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text could be transposed. A lack of notability for an article on a subject doesn't prevent information within it being used on a page for a notable subject, and the requirements for an in-line citation or consensus on adding the line is significantly lower than requirements for a subject to have an article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT #5, and per my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Nicholas and the Higs.~~ Could possibly be merged into Humpty Dumpty in Oakland, since according to this Humpty Dumpty is a very close rewrite of George Stavros; or could be merged into a new article "Lost works of Philip K. Dick", as I suggested at the other AfD. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to not-yet-published books". A Time for George Stavros was unpublished (and never will be), and has no ISBN or catalogue in a national library, therefore Bookcrit #5 is irrelevant. I think merging into the Humpty book would be a good idea and would improve that article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, struck my keep !vote. I'm hesitant to formally propose a merge to Humpty Dumpty, since I think it would be less a merge and more a total rewrite of that article; so instead I suggest redirecting to Philip K. Dick bibliography for the time being, with no prejudice to the content being incorporated into another article in the future. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 12 April 2023 (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 . After two relists there still does not appear to be a consensus on whether to keep or redirect the article. Aoidh (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Liu[edit]

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

Moved to draft, pushed back into mainspace, redirect reverted, notability tags removed. A page patroller's dream, really. Subject is not notable, does not pass WP:GNG, does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, either in the article or upon search. Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Law, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like there's enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The guy's also a co-founder of LegalZoom, so it seems like he passes WP:GNG. Correct me if I'm wrong. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 07:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LegalZoom, the coverage appears to focus more on the company than Liu himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He meets WP:BASIC which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Please note that he has a lot of coverage. I have also found some new coverage in law360.com and law.com, both behind paywall but you can still read with the free trial. Royal88888 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LegalZoom as it's borderline WP:BIO1E. None of his other ventures even have articles, and sourcing is routine press coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69 Actually you are wrong about that. All his ventures have at least 1 or 2 citations. The Overture one did not have these law360.com and law.com which I stated above, but I just have added them. Both are behind paywall but you can still read with the free trial.Royal88888 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He has coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and not primary.Pershkoviski (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legal Zoom, he's mostly known for that and doesn't seem to have met GNG as a law person alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree bSee my comment below to @SWinxy Royal88888 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Weak redirect to LegalZoom. His other ventures cited in the article are not about him per se (and a good amount of those refs are not good sources). A good amount already is or can be on the LegalZoom article. SWinxy (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SWinxy per WP:BASIC when full articles are not about him, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Plus several sources are not about LegalZoom and are about his other ventures. I would have agreed with you if he was only "known for one thing," but he has also launched multiple other companies and there are independent sources about them, such as law360 and law.com. Royal88888 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I guess they can be combined. I'll change to a weak redirect. SWinxy (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've heard of him, and he appears to be borderline notable, but the evidence of notability is slim. I could go with either keep, merge, or redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2023 (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 12:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Stefansky[edit]

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

I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Internet, Israel, and New York. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - not a single reliable source. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2023 (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 . Star Mississippi 14:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Santiago[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources seem to be mostly interviews, blogs, or glancing mentions. According to her personal website, she joined the State Department after the material covered here, but I'm not sure if this helps with notability either: I joined the Department of State in 2011. I am a Public Diplomacy Coned Officer who served in Brazil, Belize, Cuba, Jordan and Tel Aviv. I currently work in Islamabad, Pakistan, managing the largest alumni portfolio in the world. I will join US Embassy Warsaw as the Cultural Attache in 2022, after a year of Polish language training. I speak Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew and Arabic. Note: Emmy awards mentioned here are regional, not national, and do not confer notability. This is typical in broadcast journalism. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Florida. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, weakly In addition to the Emmy (which seems uncited) she has another award. She co-produced a film, there is more than glancing mentions, arguably significant coverage: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-08-28-0108280021-story.html I think maybe enough to satisfy WP:BASIC CT55555(talk) 11:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per #1 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 of WP:ENT. Some references (like #15) IMO do not satisfy WP:RS (per WP:UGC). A09 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears she won a local Emmy, which we don't count for notability. Rest appears routine coverage/confirmation of where she works or by-lines on stories she's reported. All routine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2023 (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 an argument for WP:CREATIVE was made, it was a viewpoint not shared by any other participants, and consensus otherwise appears to be that the article fails relevant notability guidelines. Aoidh (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oakley Kown[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR, sources contain mostly trivial mentions. The third source [23] is written by the subject herself. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A corresponding article simple:Oakley Kwon was deleted two days ago, created by a different user, however, the contents are exactly the same. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple fact that Oakley KOWN isn't a person and non-notable. Kwon might be, but you can't use a spelling mistake to try and keep your article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award might be notable, but "neighbour" and "nurse" aren't. Random person in a scene doesn't get you ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film received the award, not specifically the actress. The fact is misrepresented here. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So ZERO notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, her name is spelt wrong, according to this https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/chapter-and-diverse-sbs-s-hungry-ghosts-goes-all-out-for-authenticity-20200810-p55kak.html LibStar (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Oaktree and LibStar. Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think she is the star or a star of Hungry Ghosts and therefore passes WP:CREATIVE C3. To pass 3, she needs to play an important role in something that got multiple independent reviews. Sources that support that follow:

I see that the article was deleted, but not because anyone said it was not notable, but because the machine translation was flawed. So I don't think this recreation with typo in the title has been done the right way, but that's not the question we need to answer at AFD. CT55555(talk) 04:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE 3 says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." If you have acted in a film it's not the same as co-creating, WP:CREATIVE applies more to film directors/writers/producers. Oakley needs to pass WP:NACTOR. The Guardian reference above makes no mention of Oakley. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starring in a work is co-creating it, I don't see how starring in something can be seen as separate thing from creating it. The Guardian reference illustrates that the work receive critical acclaim, which is a necessary part of C3. It's about her work, not about her, which is what I needed to show, to argue that WP:CREATIVE was passed. CT55555(talk) 04:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#WP:CREATIVE_point_3. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your right to disagree with me and seek other views on that, but I also think I've made a reasonable assessment. If your disagreement with me is informed by policy or guidance, I hope you will say so. CT55555(talk) 04:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE doesn’t apply. She took part in the film’s production as an actress, which is different from the sense that she co-created the film. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article with ((Undisclosed)), given that the page creator admitted to be working for Oakley. See Special:Diff/1149494659. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lean delete, doesn't look like there's enough here to meet WP:NACTOR. Also, looks like someone has created the page with the correct spelling - Oakley Kwon.-KH-1 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does change things for me. We should probably redirect this one to the correct spelling. However, expecting someone will propose that for deletion, I'll hold off for now before changing my !vote. CT55555(talk) 23:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected Oakley Kwon to this page with the incorrect spelling. I also started a discussion at COIN, concerning activities by several paid editors/SPAs promoting Oakley Kwon. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 02:09, 14 April 2023 (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 . Aoidh (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitanate of Kyiv[edit]

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

This article is now redundant. It has been superseded by the following articles:

Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus' (988–1441)
Metropolis of Kiev, Galicia and all Rus' (1441 - 1596) established in the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland following the division of the original metropolis.
Metropolis of Moscow and all Russia established in the Tsardom of Moscow in 1448 following the division of the original metropolis.
Metropolis of Kiev, Galicia and all Ruthenia (Ruthenian Uniate Church) (1595–1805) erected in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1595/96 following the Union of Brest.
Metropolis of Kiev, Galicia and all Rus' (1620–1686) - metropolis of the Eastern Orthodox Church that was re-established in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1620–1686)
Metropolis of Kiev (Patriarchate of Moscow) - this metropolis transferred from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Patriarchate of Moscow (1686-present) Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Ukraine. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of a bunch of subordinate and related articles is not a rationale to delete their main-topic article, nor is the current quality or POV of the content.

The lead concludes with a description of the significance of this subject: the proposal above doesn’t address it at all. How are readers supposed to even make sense of the list of subordinate subjects above without a main article? It’s as if this deletion proposal were the culmination of a scheme to make the entire subject more opaque and completely scattered.

Does not serve the readers. —Michael Z. 13:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although this article might be repurposed as a parent for the various child articles stated, that is a content discussion and not a deletion reason. I am particularly concerned that the most obvious article that this one could be associated with is Metropolis of Kiev (Patriarchate of Moscow), created 22 March this year. Deleting this in favour of that would appear to be privileging a WP:POVFORK. If any article should be here for deletion, it should be that one. I note that this article exists on the most concise common name. No deletion policy reason pertains here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The two articles cover very different time periods. The Metropolis of Kiev (Patriarchate of Moscow) goes 1685 to the present whereas the nominated article goes from 988 AD to the present. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Sirfurboy. The Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological situation in Ukraine is not an easy one for Wikipedia to effectively discuss encyclopedically and this article has some very significant deficiencies. However, it is a notable concept that warrants retention even if its in-depth coverage should be passed on to other articles. The POVFORK concern also seems legitimate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Out of politeness, i refrained from supplying other deletion criteria. But now that the above two contributions have let the genie out of the bottle, I can confirm (1) it uses poor quality English (unlike the daughter articles above); (2) most of the content is unsourced ((unlike the daughter articles above); (3) It is very pro-Ukrainian POV and seeks to right a WP:GreatWrong (unlike the daughter articles above); (4) I have already deleted some of the worst grammar and repetition from the article to make it more readable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are policy reasons for deletion. A large amount of text was used to start Metropolis of Kiev (Patriarchate of Moscow) but no edsum shows where this came from (see WP:COPYWITHIN). Was that all your own work or did you copy any of it from existing articles? Deletion involves the deletion of the edit history of this page, so if any of the content was forked from here, the edit history would be lost. That is why the correct course of action would be to fix the issues on this page, rather than create a new page and seek the deletion of this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 2 Why spend time fixing an inferior article? It's lack of sources alone would be grounds for deletion. I ask you to find a significant, sourced fact in this article that cannot be found in the appropriate daughter articles (that are based on jurisdiction / chronology). Laurel Lodged (talk)
Note 1 The creator on this article (User talk:Jafaz) has been indefinitely blocked from editing on the topic of eastern Europe and Ukraine. So it's not just me that noticed POV-pushing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's probably neccesary to have an overview article with the other articles as "main article on this topic" links. The current state of the article though shows how difficult it will be to maintain, with the first paragraph contradicting the second. Jahaza (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the above list of articles is not comprehensive as it doesn't have an article for the current Orthodox Church of Ukraine metropolitanate or the one under the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Jahaza (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I interpreting you correctly: I can totally skeletonize the nominated article just leaving a load of "{Main|Foo}" articles behind? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per criterion 3, no policy-based deletion rationale has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is obviously notable. The current state of the article is not an acceptable deletion reason as it can be improved by normal editing processeses, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If any article was to be retained as an overview article, it should be Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus', not this nominated article. It is quite succinct and uses lots of "{Main|Foo}" articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting article, a useful overview of some related topics and has corresponding articles in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian luanguage. I see no reason to delete it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- This provides an appropriate overview. "Metropolis" refers to a city, so that an article on a superior bishop (which is what this is about) should not be called metropolis. The title is Metropolitan, so that my preferred target would be Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'. WP has to treat every change in the boundaries or constitution of a state as constituting a new state, when it is better to treat it as a continuing state with changed boundaries or a new name. This should apply equally to positions such as this. Throughout the metropolitan cathedral (i.e. where the formal seat is) will have been in Kiev. At times his spiritual authority included Galicia; at others perhaps not. However it has been a single see throughout. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary gives a third sense: “a metropolitan bishop’s see,” but has no entry for metropolitanate. This article’s subject is the metropolis, not the Metropolitan of Kyiv.

I don’t know about that business of “new state,” much less applying it to something that’s not a state. —Michael Z. 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Peterkingiron: Actually no. "City" is just one definition; the other sense — the one that is pertinent to this discussion — is explained in Metropolis (religious jurisdiction). "However it has been a single see throughout" - actually no. It has been divided between west Rus' and east Rus'. It has also been divided between different patriarchates — Constantinople and Moscow.Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created in 2021 by a now banned user. It is not, as one might suppose, an article of long standing. The dab page does its job better. Leaving this article in place is just asking for a mess of contradictions. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2023 (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 12:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Kuzevski[edit]

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

Was moved to draft, then declined twice at AfC. Then was simply moved back to mainspace. Not a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable, secondary source. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Football NSW source is good, not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. The football NSW source is no good because it isn't independent of Kuzevski. Dougal18 (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG, BIO. Nothing in article or BEFORE shows any notabilty. Source eval:

Interview with subject, not IS RS :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d ""I love the club, and this is where I want to be" – Sasha Kuzevski ready to earn his stripes". Central Coast Mariners. 6 July 2022.
Fails IS :: 3. ^ "Kuzevski has eyes on clinching the double". Football NSW. 30 August 2022.
Interview with subject, not IS RS :: 4. ^ "Mariners triumph over Sydney at Our Paradise". ccmariners.com.au. 17 December 2022. Retrieved 7 January 2023.
Scholarship accouncement :: 5. ^ "Kuzevski's scholarship extended, Bayliss and Hong secure new scholarships". Central Coast Mariners. 18 January 2023.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare delete it. It's clear he is a professional football player in Australia's top league. Why on earth would you delete it completely, surely leave it in draftspace until it's ready? Matt jobe watson (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it?? Just leave it in draftspace until there's a more major article on him? He's a current football player in the top tier professional league in Australia. What harm does leaving my work in draftspace do until he gets a bit more media coverage? Matt jobe watson (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2023 (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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Studia Islamica[edit]

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

unsourced since years. If it needs inclusion it needs to be improved from scratch with valid sources. Can't be there in mainspace in such a poor condition. Maliner (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of such journals. Maliner (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the oldest, most authoritative and widely-cited academic journals in its field. Mccapra (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2023 (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 GameTrailers. czar 21:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Allies[edit]

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

Does not meet notability for own article. Described as website, however main output appear to be videos and livestreams. Only notable source is blog Kotaku, which mentions former GameTrailers staff. Merge into GameTrailers subsection may be viable. IgelRM (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Video games, Companies, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, while somewhat notable within the context of GT, I don't think it merits its own article for the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nom's rationale seems sound - there are few sources online about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2023 (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 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mellor[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Can verify he is the writer of books, but there is no significant coverage of him. CNMall41 (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP for over 12 years. Possible promotional. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While lack of references is not a reason to delete (it is a reason to find RS and expand the article), searching Newsbank database I found 7 articles mentioning Mellor from 2000-2004, mostly in Sunday newspapers. None of these are sufficiently substantial to reach reliable source status in my view. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2023 (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 . Aoidh (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Maximus[edit]

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

Cannot find significant coverage of this artist. There are mentions and his art is listed for sale in some places, but nothing that talks about him. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Unfortunately, I cannot close this myself due to another delete vote so would request an administrator do so when reviewing. At least two editors have found significant coverage to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it's perfectly understandable that you'd not find the coverage identified during this AfD: in my experience, Google really dislikes showing Finnish results unless searching from within Finland, machine translation continues to be abysmal for Finnish and the largest Finnish newspapers have their archives pretty tightly locked :) Ljleppan (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article in Helsingin Sanomat seems to be significant coverage, for example. There are also articles like this one. He's also been presented as artist of the week in Lauantaivekkari on Yle. I've also found shorter articles, like "Bruno Maximus ställer ut verk om Sibelius" in Hufvudstadsbladet in 2016 (perhaps not online?) in the Swedish media archive, an exhibition which also got some coverage elsewhere. These results after a quick search for Swedish and Finnish sources convinces me that our threshold for notability has been reached, and that someone who speaks better Finnish than I do and has better access to Finnish sources should easily be able to expand this article. /Julle (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to add these by chance? Of course you are not required but it would be a big help since this was originally tagged as an unreferenced BLP. I find plenty of this in English as well which doesn't show notability. The others likely do but I cannot read the language and they are behind paywalls. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see this reflected in the article, but it would really be better if someone else did since my Finnish is abysmally bad; I know there are Finnish-speakers who keep track of Finland-related AfDs who should be able to do a far better job than I would.

The point of the page you link to isn't the remaining text content, but that it's presenting the Yle programme Lauantaivekkari; it's not about the page but the installment of Lauantaivekkari which focused on Bruno Maximus. /Julle (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you knew the language was Finnish means you understand it better than I. lol. If someone is able to add to the page and confirm they also feel it suffices for notability I will happily withdraw the nomination. Main goal was to deal with an unreferenced BLP where I couldn't locate anything useful. Thanks for the help. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ARTIST. He hasn't been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. The article has no references and I cannot find anything to back up the basic biographical information. The only thing of note I found was a page on Helsinki Capital Partners (HCP) https://www.hcp.fi/en/portfolio-item/bruno-maximus/, but unclear if they are a management company for his work. Certainly not a RS. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Finnish language sources identified both above and added by myself into the article. Coverage is both broad (from multiple outlets), lasting (spanning decades), and sufficiently in-depth to reach WP:GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! /Julle (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2023 (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 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buffie Carruth[edit]

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

A non-notable individual. There is no significant coverage in third party reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in details. Current sources are unreliable, passing mentions, interviews etc. but non providing indepth coverage. I tried to find sources as per WP:GNG but can't find any. The subject fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG. In2020 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Health and fitness, and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable Actor/Modal. Fails basic WP:GNG no in-depth coverage. Person in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia.--- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin/CheckUser on Commons)} 09:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks indepth coverage ,fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lutz[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be coverage of his work in independent sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — His work seems to be notable and significant in his field, which is enough for WP:NACADEMIC. PopoDameron ⁠talk 07:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa and Kansas. TJMSmith (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His works have been cited a respectable amount. Through elicit.org, I found that quite a few of these papers either build upon or critique (but don't discredit) his hypotheses, so they'd be quite usable here. I won't link them all, but for example, a Springer textbook (Algorithmic Randomness and Complexity, 2010, Downey & Hirschfeldt) provides significant coverage of his ideas across multiple chapters. — DFlhb (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's not a lot that we can source and put in his article beyond his basic career details and the concepts he's credited with, but I think those are enough. If it were only based on citation counts my keep would be weak, but putting a name to the concepts credited to him, and the (justified) existence of separate Wikipedia articles for those concepts, makes the case stronger. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, a mix of PROF-C1 and being credited with significant concepts in the field. --Mvqr (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, passes NPROF-1. --hroest 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first two references cited do not pertain directly to the individual subject. The other sources are not independent of the subject. The Google Scholar page does indicate some significance with the total citation count, but it is weak. There are no honors, awards, or past chair designations in organizations either. There should be more for this article to be useful to the academic readers of the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be evaluating this article based on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG. This is a case for WP:PROF, not GNG. For PROF notability, we still need claims to be verifiable, but as long as the claims meet at least one PROF criterion and the sources that verify them are reliable, there is nothing requiring the sources to cover the personal life of the subject in-depth nor to be independent. And in this case we do have independent sources covering the subject's research contributions in-depth, which is exactly what one would expect and hope for in the case of someone supposedly notable for their research contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misunderstood the commentary; it did not pertain to WP:GNG. For the notability criterion of WP:PROF, the subject nearly does not meet any of it. The significance of the individual's research work should be demonstrable through multiple reliable, independent sources, which it lacks. Furthermore, there are no honors, awards, or chair designations. The role of director in a low-scale university laboratory is questionable. The citation count on Google Scholar is not high. And the remainder of the references originated from the subject, the subject's colleagues, or the subject's employer and do not indicate a strong impact on his profession. Multi7001 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11 publications with over citations each is quite high, for this theoretical area. Beyond that, we have works directly attesting to the significance of the topics Lutz has developed and explaining them in depth. The remainder of the references are not intended to establish notability, only to verify the details in the article. And multiple PROF criteria are not required when one is passed. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of his research work is debatable, which is why I am not either in favor of or against this AfD process. What should be noted is that the Wiki page for Lutz's resource-bounded measure has no functional references. And any search for them does not yield any indication of a significant impact on the profession, aside from a few mentions in peer-reviewed journals. Regardless, most AfD participants will likely agree that the research work has at least some importance that merits consideration. Multi7001 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, passes NPROF-1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. WP:SIGCOV demonstrated during discussion after WP:OFFLINE sources were brought to light. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Rules[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NCORP - notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG) and there are insufficient sources about the company specifically. The only WP:SIGCOV I could find was this article (not included in the article, ironically) that says it's an interview, but is more like a profile. However, one source does not notability make. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, first off, thanks for providing that article. Hadn't found it yet at the time. I've added it to the article as a reference, and from what I understand (am new here) it counts as WP:SIGCOV, not least because it doesn't look like it's written like PocketGamer.biz's actual company profiles (eg. [24][25][26]) or published by a sponsored guest author, even tho it's not written in dialogue format like many interviews.

As for further sources of the company specifically, I found a couple more articles (in German) that may qualify towards establishing notability (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). There's also a ~one and a half hour long video interview that goes over company history and developments, as well as a range of in-depth interviews/articles with developers of the studio about their games (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

While the company itself isn't the main topic, some of these do include a summary of the background/history of the company up until that point, as well as other company details . I'm not sure if any of these contain enough info to constitute "significant coverage", as the WP:SIGCOV doesn't specify what's "more than a trivial mention" and how detailed the topic needs to be addressed, which is also why I included several of the ones I found for evaluation and further discussion, tho I am aware of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Scarfront (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical any of those are secondary or significant coverage besides the Die Presse one, which does seem like it's good enough. (The criteria for a secondary source is that the writer of the publication gives their own synthesis or interpretation of the information, rather than just asking questions to an interviewee). A lot of them seem like they'd be better off in the Development section of the game in question, like Gibbon: Beyond the Trees (which, ironically, is exceedingly notable, but has no article yet). But if you can find a source that devotes a significant amount to the writer's own views on the studio, like the aforementioned two, let me know since it's fairly close to passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some fair points. I didn't know quite as well about some of the criteria, so thanks for clearing that up. And I agree, many of those sources would better serve articles about the games, Gibbon especially.

Anyway, I did find some additional sources about the studio that I think qualify.

One is an article about the studio in the November 2022 issue of Edge (magazine), pages 94-97, written by Niall O'Donoghue. The issue is available both in print and online, yet behind a paywall, tho there's a preview of sorts. I also have a PDF file of the article.

The other source is an in-depth German article about the studio in the April 2019 issue of the lifestyle magazine of Diners Club Österreich (Austria), pages 44-48, written by Angela Sirch. I couldn't find it anywhere online, but I have a PDF file of this article as well.

I can provide the PDF files if they can be of any help or if you have need of them. Not sure how exactly this is usually handled here tho. Scarfront (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources seem perfect. I'm not exactly familiar with how scans are sent on Wikipedia, but I assume it would be via some kind of file-sharing service. Still, the Edge one seems like significant coverage and that alone would easily put it over the edge. The other magazine would just further establish its notability. Since I'm almost certain SIGCOV exists now, I will withdraw the AfD and give you a chance to get the scans posted on the talk page of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Gaines[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. No sources other than a link to the artist's personal website, and I am unable to find any reliable sources or any WP:SIGCOV of this artist. Tagged for notability since 2010. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also don't see any coverage.

— Moriwen (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2023 (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 . While there isn't any "AHA!" argument, and it is clear that many of the sources presented don't help notability, neither is there any strong statement refuting ACADEMIC or GNG as presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Emer[edit]

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

BLP of a plastic surgeon, dermatologist and skincare brand founder who doesn’t seem notable to me. Promotional in tone, this bio has been moved to draftspace and returned to mainspace by its creator. The refs are unreliable sources, PR and pieces the subject himself has written. Mccapra (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC he would qualify. Check his research articles here. In addition, per WP:BASIC he would also qualify with numerous articles and specifically this one in Allure Magazine . @Mccapra I did a recent edit on this page, that is how I noticed this nomination. What part of the verbiage sounds promotional? If that is an issue, that can be easily fixed and not a reason for deletion. 66.207.184.34 (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I just tried to make the intro of the article less promotional in tone and have revised it. If you see anything else that sounds promotional please specify it. 66.207.184.34 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Him posting stuff on researchgate categorically does not show a pass of WP:NACADEMIC. Mccapra (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra Check the section under "Specific criteria notes" which states: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." I would say 1012 citations is a substantial number and these citations are all from scholarly publications. 66.207.177.64 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 1012 citations (that is the overall total, not just for one paper) is not many in this field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already plenty citations in the article, but if more are needed, check these: TMZ, Fox News, OK Magazine,TheBluntTimes, Dermatology Times, Cosmopolitan Middle East, OK Magazine, TZR, WWD, First India, HAPPI.Outdoorsjim (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same stuff. PR and unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a few of these might be unreliable, but definitely not Dermatology Times, Fox News, HAPPI and Allure magazine. OK Magazine and TMZ report on a lot of Gossip, but these stories are not gossip and should be considered reliable. 66.207.177.64 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of citations in the article that make it notable.Justwatchmee (talk)

Thanks for dropping by. Mccapra (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Based on WP:NACADEMIC and WP:BASIC he should qualify.Pershkoviski (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment: Most of the refs fail IS RS with SIGCOV. However in [27] it states, "Dr. Jason Emer has been featured in numerous news articles and magazines over the years, including TMZ, Inside Edition, Entertainment Tonight, ACCESS Hollywood, The Doctors, The New York Times, PEOPLE, The Hollywood Reporter, InStyle, Cosmopolitan, Allure, Martha Stewart Living, ELLE, and Self. In addition, he was recognised as a “Top Doctor” by Los Angeles Magazine." The source here is IS RS and it lists a number of sources I didn't look up, but I assume some combination of these articles would show SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 09:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TimothyBlue, this seems to be a tricky topic. Looking at a few of the sources mentioned above, none of them seemed to be both reliable and providing in-depth coverage of Mr Emer. Therefore it might not be safe to assume that these are qualifying sources based on what is written in the Blunt Times article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I switched above to comment, I will look up the sources. // Timothy :: talk 11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tracked down a few of these sources:

InStyle first article

InStyle second article

TMZ

Access Hollywood

ET

NY Times - behind paywall, I could not access

GQ

The Hollywood Reporter

Also here are new additional citations:

The LA Fashion

OK Magazine

Per WP:BASIC if there are not many indepth coverage, you can also combine all his coverage to show notability. Also just the fact that he has been featured on so many TV shows and publications, makes him notable.66.207.178.220 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed references, especially from more experienced editors, would be very helpful here. For some reason, editors with very little experience seem to be frequently commenting here, which while not disqualifying always raises one's eyebrows.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in analysing the proposed references in this AfD debate (that discussion needs to go to the article's talk page) . By WP:NPROF, he's notable if his papers get cited. On this, Wikipedia is hoist with its own petard. He is quite highly cited, so he's quite notable. Some of us may be suspicious of his commercial approach to medicine, some of us may feel it's not right that medical businesses get free advertising through Wikipedia, but we have to remain even-handed in how we interpret NPROF. Promotional material unsupported by secondary sources can and should be removed, but the article itself cannot be wholly deleted. Elemimele (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons given by User:Elemimele there doesn't seem to be a lot of point going item-by-item through the citations -- he's getting regular coverage probably because he's so self-promoting, but it's not vanity press and self-penned local magazine placement stuff. And he has a number of scholarly papers, of which 6 are at 98-170 citations. Taking User:Phil Bridger, who has taught me a thing or two about WP:NPROF, at his word that this isn't a lot for his field it's still a factor. The article is a steaming pile of WP:PROMO but that's different from notability and can be easily excised. Oblivy (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the only AFD left open for this day (April 12) so I'll chime in. I suspected this would be a self-promotion type article, but I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion, just maybe some improvement.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warehouse (Dave Matthews Band)[edit]

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

Article has lacked citations for over 14 years and currently reads as an advertisement for the service along with WP:LC with specific musical releases. Subject lacks independent notability. If appropriate citations can be found, suggest merge and redirect to Dave Matthews Band. Failing that, suggest to simply redirect to Warehouse (song), although this may be the wiser option for redirect, regardless, to avoid confusion. Skipple ☎ 03:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. Skipple ☎ 03:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Purely an unsourced advertisement for a fan club. How it's stuck around for that long is truly baffling. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is blatantly just a puff piece by a fan club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsatiableOne (talk • contribs) 09:56, 13 April 2023 (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 UniverSoul Circus. After the relist, consensus appears to have shifted to that alternative to deletion. Aoidh (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shuckey Duckey[edit]

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

Despite changing search terms as many ways as I could think to ("Shuckey Duckey", "Shucky Ducky", "Cecil Armstrong", combinations thereof, etc.), I surprisingly found no usable coverage for this article. Given the prominence of the catchphrase, I would've thought there'd at least be more discussing its originator, but I didn't see anything. Without that, I think this article mostly falls under WP:NOTDIC and I don't see much point in it staying. Unless someone else finds all the coverage I somehow couldn't. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of notability is tenuous at best and there is hardly any coverage to suggest that WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dosen't meet WP:GNG requirements 1keyhole (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is one publication which has some coverage of him according to its index, Darryl Littleton. Black Comedians on Black Comedy: How African-Americans Taught Us to Laugh. Applause Theatre & Cinema Books. p. 316., but unfortunately that page is not available for viewing in google books and it is impossible to assess the quality of that coverage. I did find one review from James Madison University's paper dating back to 1996. I would imagine that there are more reviews in magazines and newspapers from the pre-internet era. Has anyone looked at newspaper.com who has access? I did find that some of his artifacts (programs, posters, etc.) are part of the collection at the University of North Texas Library. I suspect that this person is notable but that the majority of evidence to prove it is going to be either offline or behind a paywall. Anyone with subscription access or access to the archives of the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Observer or Fort Worth Star-Telegram would probably be able to find some good coverage, and I would think other newspapers from his touring would have reviews. ~~To be clear I am not offering keep or delete opinion here; but a general comment on where sources are likely to be found.~~ Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Here are reviews from the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, North Dallas Gazette, and Buffalo News all relating to his work as the ringmaster/comedian of the UniverSoul Circus. The coverage is more than in passing. I voted weak keep because other than the JMU review above, the reviews are of a larger production and not just him. 4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - based on the sources found by 4meter4, I'm leaning a keep. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After assessing the above sources, my !vote remains unchanged. I'm still not seeing enough about Armstrong himself outside of mentions in context of the circus to be able to justify a BLP article. On another note, some of those sources would be useful for improving the article UniverSoul Circus. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is the same. There's only so much being said about the man in these pieces. I would be fine if they were used for a brief profile in the UniverSoul page though. Just doesn't seem like you'd get more than a paragraph total out of them all. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere and Kinu Perhaps, a redirect to UniverSoul Circus per WP:ATD? There is certainly enough coverage in these sources to add some coverage of him into that article as Kinu stated.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that works. Could always be split back off if more coverage is located later. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect is a reasonable outcome as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:09, 12 April 2023 (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 Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology#Library and digital resources. ✗plicit 06:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KNUST Library[edit]

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

No coverage to meet WP:ORG. 6 of the 7 provided sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ghana. AllyD (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm. There are some studies. [28] [29] Suitskvarts (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Library Orientation and its Impact on Students' Academic Journey" in Library Philosophy and Practice. A redirect to Kwame_Nkrumah_University_of_Science_and_Technology#Library_and_digital_resources could be a reasonable outcome here? AllyD (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 12 April 2023 (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 03:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Civil Engineering Symposium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ICES - International Civil Engineering Symposium

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

Looking at all references on this article (older version before I reduced puffery), none of the listed references qualify as a WP:RS.

Googling was a bit trickier, as multiple events of this exact name exist, even in India. But having gone through all search results I found, there is no RS to support WP:GNG here. Soni (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Soni (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable event unless independent coverage is found. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking independent coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2023 (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 . Aoidh (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furze World Wonders[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2019.

PROD removed with "try AfD" and zero improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Canada, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a before search, topic appears to fail WP:NTV. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I added these sources to the article:
1. Camacho, Melissa (2022-02-26). "Furze World Wonders TV review by Melissa Camacho, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.
  The review notes: "This energetic, kid-friendly series features Colin Furze figuring out how to create larger-than-life builds for activities like BMX competitions and music concerts. With the help of a team of expert makers, he's able to build and test prototypes in an effort to produce a result that's both functional and impressive. ... Nonetheless, tweens may still be drawn to Furze World Wonders thanks to his high energy, sense of humor, and edgy inventions. As a result, kids may not realize that what they are watching are practical applications of science and engineering principles to DIY projects. It's more entertaining than educational, but there's still something to be learned from it."
2. Thompson, Avery (2017-09-28). "Colin Furze's New Show Is Great DIY Fun". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.
  The article notes: "Furze World Wonders premiered Thursday, September 28, and features Furze touring the world, visiting fans in need. Each episode has a fan with a problem, and Furze solves that problem with lots of welding, hammering, and pyrotechnics. The show is a welcome change of pace for Furze, and not just because he's building things for others. Each episode is longer, around 21 minutes, which means more time to feature Furze's thought process surrounding his builds. Furze also works with a crew of builders, which ends up shaping each build in a different way and increasing the scale his absurd machines can grow to. ... While this show is great fun with excellent pacing, it might leave something to be desired for fans of DIY builds. While there's lots of focus on planning and delivering the builds, the actual build process happens mostly behind the scenes. The best thing you'll get is a few timelapse welding shots and Furze explaining how the finished product works."
3. ""Furze World Wonders": la serie de YouTube protagonizada por un inventor extremo" ["Furze World Wonders": the YouTube series starring an extreme inventor]. El Comercio (in Spanish). 2017-09-27. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "On Thursday, YouTube Red will launch a new series called "Furze World Wonders" starring Colin Furze, extreme inventor and YouTube superstar who has more than 5 million subscribers on his channel. ... The 37-year-old YouTube star will give life to this new production that will have 10 episodes and will premiere on September 28. Colin will put his invention skills to the test in order to help other people."
4. Matthews, Kayla (2017-11-13). "10 YouTube series that are just as good as real TV shows". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.
  The article notes: "Colin Furze is an inventor with quite a lot of brainpower to spare. As such, he bestows fans with his smarts to help them achieve their goals, whether they’re traditionally inventive or not. For example, in one episode, he helps a group of indie musicians try to become “rock gods.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Furze World Wonders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Colin Furze. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at least two of the references provided by Cunard are specific and relevant to meet the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Layer Piano Cakes[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:BAND, even after I removed the peacock terms cited to primary or unreliable sources (and those that were completely uncited). The "music project" does not seem to be signed to any label, much less a major or notable indie label, and has no charting songs. Most of the remaining sources are very borderline. Overall, the article is loaded with puffery and seems to be suffering from WP:REFBOMB. Bascially what we have here is a vanity article about an attorney who has made some music in his spare time. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2023 (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 00:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most prolific porn stars[edit]

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

Difficult to impossible to do a BEFORE search on, but is mostly sourced with database listings. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 00:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Lists of people. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 00:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is really no usable definition for what constitutes "most prolific" in a field where there are no strict definitions of what constitutes an individual work. BD2412 T 00:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary, meaningless criteria for a list. Zaathras (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These kinds of lists are almost by definition OR. No objection to replacing it with a List of people identified as most prolific porn stars in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Zaathras. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 08:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. A quick googling shows a handful of individual performers being described as "one of the most prolific porn stars", but little coverage of the topic as a group or set. The current list is pure WP:OR based on WP:USERGENERATED sources anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC) edited 08:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As BD2412 indicated, we don't actually have any usable definition for "most prolific". This is clear OR and it fails WP:NLIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am sure this list is of interest to many, but there's no way i see it fitting into wikipedia with this lack of sourcing. Interestingly, the only "most prolific" article I found that we currently have is related to a redirect for Most prolific serial killers; nothing for non-pornographic actors. So no real precedent for it even with sourcing. According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count only 164 wikipedians currently have written more articles than pornographic films Yui Hatano has allegedly appeared in (3,129). Slackers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:44, 18 April 2023 (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.