< May 09 May 11 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Xbox (console) Other possible merge targets have been mentioned. If necessary, possibly changing to a different target can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Exhibition disks[edit]

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

The article's topic is of a nature that makes it very hard to identify reliable and verifiable sources, which creates an arguable case of lack of notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. In searching for mention of the series, there is next to nothing. Any mention tends to be under primary sources that lists their contents, or, as in the article, link to the disks on the Internet Archive. I can only find one secondary source that mentions the series in very minor passing from Kotaku, which I have included on the article. As raised on the talk page over a decade ago, plenty of platforms have demo disks; that they were distributed by Microsoft to market the Xbox may be better addressed on the page for the console itself. Grateful for your thoughts. Vrxces (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: SIGCOV is not a requirement for notability, it merely generates a presumption as to notability if SIGCOV can be established. Even without SIGCOV, I think GNG is met here. XBOX had a massive cultural impact, and as the Kotaku article notes, these discs were a part of that system's launch. Furthermore, they were the origins of what eventually became DLC. Additionally, these disks are highly prized by collectors, and that value as a collectable lends some strength to these disks being regarded as notable in their own right. For the above reasons I disagree that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps an individual article for each of these discs would be so; but in a collected list article like we have here, I think its fine and encyclopedic. I don't think a merge with game demo would be appropriate. What makes these disks notable is not the fact that they were game demos per se; but that they were part of the XBOX's launch marketing, the launch marketing for numerous notable titles, and remain prized by collectors. As far as individual demo disks go, this series of demo disks are about nearly as notable as you get. Jack4576 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a false interpretation of GNG policy. SIGCOV is indeed required for notability. Articles without SIGCOV are not notable or suitable for Wikipedia, period. "Presumed" means that even IF a topic has SIGCOV, it may still not be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 14:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're reading that policy wrong. Topics are presumed notable with SIGCOV, however, it is still possible for some topics to be assessed as notable outside of the aforementioned GNG presumption. Ultimately if SIGCOV is not met it requires a judgement call on the facts, engaging with what the subject of the article is, and what it is not, with an assessment made as to whether an entry would be notable enough to be encyclopedic. Jack4576 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of articles without SIGCOV where the subject of the article has been found through discussion to be otherwise notable upon review. See AfD discussions here, here, as examples; although with even a minimal amount of effort you can find more.
    For this case, there are verifiable characteristics of this subject that tend toward a conclusion as to its cultural notability. I've spelled them out in my previous comments above. Jack4576 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ???? The ones you linked are not even finished yet, so I'm not sure how you can use them as proof an article with no SIGCOV was kept. This unfinished essay is literally arguing your point should be implemented - the implication being that right now, it isn't. SIGCOV is required. Period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve never seen this essay before. I’m merely referring to the actual wording of the GNG guideline itself, which does not unequivocally state that SIGCOV is always required. For that reason I actually disagree with the premise of the essay you’ve linked.
    Yes the AfD’s I linked aren’t complete, but they’re practically at consensus; and if you can be bothered it really isn’t that hard to find other AfD’s where notability has been established without SIGCOV. Jack4576 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to spend less time arguing SIGCOV isn't necessary (long shot argument) and more on establishing its notability in any valid sense. Nothing you've particularly said has been backed by reliable sources or even represented in the article. It's just a barebones list of some games on some demo disks. This looks more like a trivial stub you'd see on an Xbox fan wikia or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If, the only reason that people provide for deletion is 'No SIGCOV' without actually engaging in a discussion as to a subject's actual encyclopedic notability; (which would actually require an assessment of what we can determine a subject is and what a subject is not); then, it is necessary to remind people that SIGCOV is not a strict requirement under GNG. This is not a 'long shot' argument. This is me calling out legalistic arguments that fail to engage in an actual assessment of a subject. Indeed, a frustrating legalistic argument, as it is an argument that is (wilfully?) ignorant of the actual wording of the GNG policy.
    Regardless, I have made valid arguments as to this subject's notability; if you were willing to engage with them directly.
    For example, the Kotaku article referenced documents that these demo disks were a precursor to the introduction of DLC. That seems to me a unique attribute about this subject that generates an argument that this subject is notable.
    If you disagree with the conclusions of that argument; feel free to do so. To my mind though, that unique aspect (the DLC precursor aspect) is enough to merit this article being a keep, albeit perhaps a weak keep. Jack4576 (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but the meaning you're extrapolating from a single passing mention in a Kotaku article is not even close to persuasive to me. Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, reasonable minds may differ Jack4576 (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say it again - you are straight up incorrect about the "actual wording" of GNG. It's not even a matter of opinion, you are just reading it wrong. Lower on the page under WP:WHYN, it states, straight up, We require "significant coverage". Continuing to ignore people telling you that has the potential to rise to WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even beyond that, the GNG is pretty clear about the multiple sources part too. They're not even clearing that incredibly low bar at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "multiple sources are generally expected" not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have...you historically found success in keeping an article with only a single reference that only mentions the subject in passing? I've been participating at AFD for over a decade, and let me tell you...I have not. I don't recall this ever working for someone without at least citing some other subject-specific notability requirement. This sort of interpretation would effectively render the GNG useless outside of subjects being complete hoaxes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that WP:WHYN states SIGCOV is a requirement.
    However, the actual general notability guideline as stated, articulates the notability issue in terms of the word presumption; if SIGCOV were actually a requirement, the GNG sentence would read:
    "A topic is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    Instead it reads:
    "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    Why would it read that way, unless implicitly, it was possible (in some limited and appropriate circumstances) for a subject to be notable even if SIGCOV was not demonstrated? What would be the utility of the SIGCOV presumption if it would always be required.
    I am happy to stop commenting about this and follow consensus if you wish to take this to an RfC. In the meantime, I am engaging in good faith, so your pointing to WP:IDHT is inappropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Higher up in WP:GNG it explains why "presumed" is used. Articles that fall under WP:NOT may still not merit articles, despite passing the first, significant coverage criterion. However, articles like WP:GOLDENRULE clearly state that SIGCOV is non-negotiable. Start an RfC on the subject if you wish, but it is likely you will be told the exact same thing. After all, not having a SIGCOV requirement would make almost anything notable, and the GNG would be pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 08:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GOLDENRULE is not policy. Jack4576 (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And your entire argument hinges on a single passing mention and your own unfounded assertion of importance that has persuaded zero participants thus far. Give it a rest. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    keep your comments in reply relevant please Jack4576 (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pointing out the irony of you complaining about an essay being "not policy" when your entire stance isn't rooted in policy, essay, or...anything at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 16 May 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 32nd Aviation Division. Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia)[edit]

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the regiment only existed for a few months after the end of WW2. Only source cited seems to be a comprehensive survey of the Yugoslav Air Force. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which part of this requirement do you think is not met? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Significant coverage” RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the airframes used, there is bound to be coverage in books on those airframes as well as Yugoslavia sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First we’d have to locate said coverage. Why would such a source cover the topic beyond a brief mention like “The Hurricanes were briefly operated by the 1st Fighter Regiment” though? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just note myself down as delete, as nobody seems to have produced further sourcing: I'm not at all convinced that a single source is enough for a GNG pass. While I'd prefer to merge, I don't know of a good target. Please ping me if further sourcing or a good merge target is identified. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan Another editor suggested 32nd Aviation Division RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm WP:AGF on it being a proper target, but merge to that sounds fine. Ljleppan (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 32nd Aviation Division.  // Timothy :: talk  04:15, 18 May 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 23:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rivka Ladin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Attempts to find sources for notability in WP:BEFORE came up empty handed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: also attempted WP:BEFORE and found nothing Jack4576 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 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. Withdrawn by nominator and all but one !votes for Keep. (non-admin closure)MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen University[edit]

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

This fictional university, as far as I can tell, fails WP:GNG. Additionally, it is made up of entirely plot summary, which is forbidden under WP:NOT. As for the previous AFDs, the last one was in 2010. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a plot summary, but it does need more references. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain where the article mentions Unseen University's real-life importance or reception. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the sources I posted in the second AFD a dozen years ago. Most of those links still appear live. If you'd prefer, it is well within the nominator's remit to do up a source evaluation matrix on them. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, but creates all sorts of SIZE issues. Fact is, we have a bunch of sprawling articles that could all stand to be tightened up, but being poorly maintained is not a deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens Jack4576 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey Quarterly[edit]

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

Not-notable, self-promotion, advert, out-of-date Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Being promotional (advert) or out-of-date are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. --Randykitty (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: the sources (particularly the Financial Times source) establish that this a highly influential magazine within its circles. The magazine meets WP:BKCRIT criteron #1 as it has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles independent of itself.
It doesn't matter that McKinsey sponsors this publication for its own ulterior motives; the magazine has still had a notable impact in its own right. The fact that the magazine itself is self-promotion; is a separate issue to whether this wiki entry is self-promotion. I've made some edits to bring it more in line with NPOV. Jack4576 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There surely is a self-promotion aspect to McKinsey's publishing this periodical, but nonetheless it gets sufficient outside attention to regard it as notable. It's not just your random run-of-the-mill company newsletter. SchnitteUK (talk) 21:06, 11 May 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. It seems to be snowing here, and nom has indicated a willingness to withdraw. There is no need to prolong this AfD. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Griffith[edit]

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

Only two sources are two footnotes which attribute quotes within the article, but do not source any biographical information. No showing of SIGCOV. More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. Moving for deletion on the basis of WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:51, 10 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudipto Sen[edit]

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

Has produced a notable film, related coverage all around (taking quotes, etc) but notability is not inherited and there is no significant independent and secondary coverage besides that of the film; fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E applies Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: was specifically profiled and interviewed in 'The Times of India', this amounts to SIGCOV, doesn't matter that the coverage / interview intersected with his film promotion, the SIGCOV means he is presumed notable Jack4576 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this interview? It's not a profile, its a short interview about the film. Interviews are also not independent coverage, and WP:TOI in particular often engages in undisclosed advertorials and pay-for-coverage practices, should never be used to determine a subject's notability on its own. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews aren't independent coverage? Even when that interview is conducted by an independent publication, regarding a topic independent of the subject? News to me. This interview doesn't necessarily look like its been paid for. Jack4576 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously claiming things the subject says are independent of the subject? Interview content fails independence and is primary (per OR, which lists examples of primary documents like original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage,... JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that a decision was made to interview him, is a decision that was made independent of the subject.
the fact that he was interviewed means he has been granted significant coverage by the media; even if the claims made in that interview can't be relied upon. Hence the existence of the interview article is independent, but the content of it is not Jack4576 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 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 23:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaghob Eissa[edit]

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

Played half a match of football then disappeared. Searching in Arabic (يعقوب عيسى) did not yield any WP:SIGCOV and all I can find were the database sites Kooora and Soccerway, both already cited. It would appear that this footballer fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and should be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC criterion 5, I could find no interviews, articles or other material that can provide WP:SIGCOV for the subject aside from basic statistics on their performance. The Night Watch (talk) 17:35, 11 May 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. (non-admin closure)Fats40boy11 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Mania[edit]

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

The article cites no sources and fails WP:GNG. I have not found any reliable sources for this video game, and most searches come back with Football Mania (known as Soccer Mania outside Europe) which released at a later date in 2002. Please let me know if anyone has more luck than me when looking for a reliable source. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 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 23:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 100th episodes[edit]

List of 100th episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic cross-categorisation and OR. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Indiscriminate trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ajf773: simply not encyclopaedic. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a notable cross categorisation even in the slightest. Where are the sources that discuss this group of episodes as a whole? This is no more notable than, say, a list of 50th episodes or a list of 200th episodes of random TV series. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many shows make a point of having a one hundreth episode as opossed to fifty or two hundred OLI 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would help is realizing television history didn't start suddenly in 1998; this article is heavily bent towards recent series and this article can't hope to capture so many 100th episodes of so many series. You not only can't catalog every one, but there has to be some filters (for instance, daily news and talk series, daytime, late night...the 100th episode of a reality series isn't celebrated because it's randomly in the middle of some season/production cycle).Nate (chatter) 23:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Im going to catalouge older ones I simply started by adding ones I know had 100 episodes OLI 14:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about it is converted into a catagory and will include several pages. I think this would be a good compramise OLI 19:06, 11 May 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 23:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Choir 2023[edit]

Eurovision Choir 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An event taking place at an unknown date in an unknown venue. Article cited solely to Eurovoix the Eurovision news site, and Twitter. Not currently widely taked about in reliable independent sources, possibly WP:TOOSOON or maybe not even notable enough for its own article and needs redirecting to Eurovision Choir? Sionk (talk) 20:29, 10 May 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 Pro Evolution Soccer. plicit 23:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Eleven Online[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I haven’t been able to find any sources that would help establish notability. However, if anyone is able to find any sources that would help the article to pass GNG, I would be willing to withdraw this AFD. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:05, 10 May 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 23:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kimbrell[edit]

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

Apart from a couple of listicles, I can't find any independent biographical sources about this subject. Most of the superficial referenciness is taken from directories or "About" pages of groups he is part of. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no reliable sources at all Jack4576 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 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 ‎ closed as article has been speedy deleted by another administrator. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renná Bruce[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a writer and artist, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for writers or artists. As always, neither writers nor artists are "inherently" notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because their work exists -- notability has to be supported by evidence that the person has received external coverage and analysis to validate their significance, such as major literary or arts awards and/or the reception of enough media coverage about them and their work to pass WP:GNG.
But there are just three footnotes here, of which two are online bookstores that are not support for notability at all, and the third comes from a minor niche publication that would be fine for use if there were better sources alongside it, but is not significant enough to singlehandedly get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only secondary source on the table.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 10 May 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 The Picture of the Last Man to Die. plicit 23:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond J. Bowman[edit]

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

US WWII enlisted soldier. WP:BIO1E, known only for being the subject of the notable photograph The Picture of the Last Man to Die, and insofar as I can tell not substantially covered in reliable secondary sources for other reasons. Some of the content could be merged to the article about the image, but not the overly elaborate infobox, etc. Sandstein 18:45, 10 May 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 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bassline Boys[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 10 May 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 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warbeat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 10 May 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, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Barzeh car bombing[edit]

2023 Barzeh car bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, such attacks/incidents have become commonplace and are not worthy of a separate article. One death and a few injured is not global news. So I recommend deleting. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article should stay up though be removed from current events page 71.184.221.103 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i personally feel the page should not be deleted as it is an attack within the capital which are considered rare ever since the government was able to claim back the city from rebels in 2018. Dubstar44

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Ecrusized (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These events are common in Syria, even in government-held towns. An event that may be considered rare as it is in SAA-controlled territory is still common for the country. Although it is a saddening event as in the conflict overall, it still doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. CutlassCiera 13:22, 11 May 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, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Debate And Speech Association[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE search only produced sources related to the organisation giving awards. I do not believe that it fulfils WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 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. Cunard's extensive search apparently fails to convince the other editors here (or even convinces them that available sourcing is insufficient). Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Sanabia[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG notability requirements, with a lack of high-quality reliable sources and significant coverage. Recent news articles about her, which include her being in a parade or holiday season projects in late 2022, have been simply mere mention or in such a way that she's not shown as prominent. Even a Billboard article talking about Tanya Tucker's A Nashville Country Christmas [4] gives Sanabia only a mere mention.

She may barely pass WP:NACTOR, with her more notable projects in Just Add Magic and Coop & Cami Ask the World, but recent, successful AfD's I've seen for a couple of other actresses who would technically meet NACTOR (e.g., Abby Donnelly and Lauren Lindsey Donzis) are indicating that the more important guidelines for notability are the general ones above, and the current sourcing in this article, plus what I could scrape from searching, are insufficient in establishing that.

Sanabia doesn't meet the WP:NSINGER requirements. Three songs listed, none of which have articles and none of which have made a presence on a national music chart that isn't WP:SINGLEVENDOR (so Spotify and Apple are excluded in this criterion). Even if she were to meet NSINGER, like she does NACTOR (again, barely), there must be significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources to establish that and overall notability. As of right now, however, WP:TOOSOON on NSINGER.

This has been made a redirect before, to her main project Just Add Magic. Because she is main cast in Coop & Cami... as well, redirect isn't feasible at all. I might have thoughts of placing this in draft space instead, but I can't say her acting and/or singing careers are expected to blossom big in the next couple of years. So I'm favoring deletion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University Scholars[edit]

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

This is a gifted-and-talented programme offered by Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. I don't think the programme has stand-alone notability; and a redirect to the charter school wouldn't be appropriate because there are many similarly titled initiatives at other institutions. Cheers, gnu57 15:22, 10 May 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 to allow @Kingsif: and the editor they identified time to sort out the athlete from the French officer. Star Mississippi 01:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Viguier[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and a WP:BEFORE gave not much more. A French general military officer with the same name seems to exist Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, I am continuing to search to check on the relation, there's enough military info it should be possible to determine. But the book author would appear to be the fencer, surely, which is likely grounds for a keep anyway. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: French Wikipedia has an article on the most famous soldier of the name, a highly-decorated pilot in both World Wars. I don't think someone born in 1893 (as the pilot was) is going to be a fencing master in 1900; I also don't think they're going to be a military master-of-arms in 1910, either. The Toulouse military and fencing Armand Viguier is not going to be the decorated pilot Armand Viguier, I'll separate the sources by year. Kingsif (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More an assumption that if you were important enough in the sport to write about it a century ago, you'd be passing GNG nowadays. But honestly, the pilot (easier to separate sources as aviation and infantry are fairly distinct) is less of an issue in determining which sources are about the fencer/master-of-arms than Sartre having a character of the same name (in The Reprieve) that people won't stop critically analysing is. Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we put assumptions and assertions to one side, what sources do we have about this particular individual? wjematherplease leave a message... 23:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest, the sources for this AfD are not my priority, and having to exclude is making it worse. I have an advantage with the other French fencer in an identity crisis just because I know about the Olympic movement guy. But even that's not my priority. I may suggest a wait, extending the time on this to gather sources while we (I?) clarify. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given ongoing research
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:02, 10 May 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 14:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Media Watch[edit]

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

Pretty much zilch sourcing or sign of significant coverage in independent reliable media sources. Seems to pretty obviously fail WP:CORP. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:50, 10 May 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 Isle of Wight NHS Trust. Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust[edit]

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

Low-content article, no references, not much value, defunct organisation with no notable history to keep Elshad (talk) 13:49, 10 May 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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 17:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PerdutaMente[edit]

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

New article that fails Google test. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:22, 10 May 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 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours[edit]

List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may very well be unverifiable, especially the "Top videos" (videos that are not film trailers or music videos) section.

The "Top videos" section has very imprecise-looking figures that look like estimates, such as 400.0, 200.0 and 100.0. It also has notes that say:

"Reached 158 million views in three hours"

"Reached 100 million views within the first hour"

"Reached 100 million views within the first four hours"

which means they probably got more views in the first 24 hours than what is listed, and that this is not an accurate ordered list, yet are still listed as number 4, number 6 and number 7 respectively. There's also no explanation of where the sources got those figures from; they could be making them up!

There's also the problem that there are too many websites to collect view data from. One would have to combine views from not only YouTube, but literally every other website on the entire internet, which makes this article impossible to verify.

There might also be an apples-to-oranges situation going on here. A "view" on YouTube might not be equatable to a "view" on Instagram, for example. The "Top videos" section has an entry from Instagram and an entry from YouTube, but on YouTube you would have to go to the video's own unique page to view it, while on Instagram, you might only need to scroll down through a feed with many other posts, and thus inadvertently view the video in question. If this is true, the view counts cannot be compared in this way.

If action is to be taken on this article, I would suggest removing the "Top videos" section and keeping the "Top music videos" and "Top trailers" sections. 123957a (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting would require overturning the AFD that caused them to get merged in the first place. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can that merge be overturned in this discussion? I don't have a strong opinion on the trailers. Having one page for something like "most viewed music videos and trailers in 24 hours" seems awkward, however. Yannn11 18:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of members clubs in London[edit]

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

This page and List of gentlemen's clubs in London are essentially interchangable and thus the one can be deleted and redirected to the other. The information is in a slightly different format but I don't think there's much which is left to merge or would be lost with a redirect.

I'm nominating this page because it has an orphan hat whereas the other is arguably better linked and integrated. However I think there's an argument to say that the candidate for deletion should be List of gentlemen's clubs in London on the basis that there are clubs in London of this type which, strictly speaking are not and never have been for gentlemen such as the University Women's Club - but that doesn't seem to currently matter as it appears in both pages! JMWt (talk) 11:59, 10 May 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. While certainly the count is heavily towards "keep", I am not finding a strong, unchallenged argument to do so. There is disagreement regarding the strength and depth of available coverage, therefore I find no consensus to this discussion. Before renomination, it would be recommended to look closely at each source listed to see if an encyclopedic-ally useful article can be built upon them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hieronymus Schlick[edit]

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

Notability. Czech WP, while slightly longer, cites one genealogy source and nothing else. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:09, 10 May 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 Procedural close‎. Article has been moved to draft space by author. If the draft meets WP:DELREASON then the correct venue is WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kayes Arju[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR fails WP:NSINGER 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:01, 10 May 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. (non-admin closure)Dr vulpes (💬📝) 02:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Carvalho[edit]

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

I tagged this article with a BLP PROD since as of this nomination it has zero references. @Simione001 asked that this be moved to AfD so here we are. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the article is improved to include at least two sources. Normally this kind of behavior at AfD isn't appropriate. We never hold articles hostage to improve them. But when it comes to living people we have a higher standard which includes citing sources for out claims. That's a really easy standard to pass and it matters. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 09:32, 10 May 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 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christine M. Rose[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG considering mainly weak sourcing, still reads as WP:RESUME, and the only point that's debatable per WP:AUTHOR is that their work has won significant critical attention via invitations to Cons. I don't believe that meets the criteria.

Noting SPA page creator. 30Four (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Old SPA-created article that is basically a CV. There is no credible claim to notability (eg being lauded at conventions) and sources are almost all ephemeral, obscure, or the subject's own webpages. Rowan of the Wood is held by a paltry 24 institutions (WorldCat). These are the sorts of articles that make WP look like a directory. 128.252.154.3 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Rose appears to have won an award, but it does not appear to be significant. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 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 Procedural close‎. Withdrawn by nominator, as noted below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rugg v Ryan[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Article to be merged instead of deleted. Jack4576 (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This page is for a proposed litigation that was settled before it arose, and so refers to a court case that does not exist. Due to its settlement, the outcome of the court case was legally insignificant, and the case itself is not notable as a separate entry per se. I propose that content of this entry be deleted and reworked into the Wiki pages for Ryan & Rugg as persons; perhaps as a paragraph remarking that they litigated against each other. Jack4576 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Starting a 2nd AfD so soon after is only really acceptable if it was closed as 'no consensus' due to lack of participation. If the close was unacceptable then contest it at User talk:Guerillero, the admin that closed it. If not happy with their response then take it to WP:DRV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd urge you to assume good faith LibStar.
The AfD was a week ago, but situation has changed two days ago.
This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
Hence the nomination now. The arguments for keep under the previous AfD no longer hold. Jack4576 (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the previous close was acceptable; it was a good decision based on what we knew at the time.
Hence it seemed more appropriate for a new AfD on new facts; rather than re-opening the old one.
Thanks Spiderone. Jack4576 (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to LibStar's comment: "once notable always notable" - this case never happened. The subject does not exist. It was a prospective litigation that settled.
Before it settled it was prospectively notable as a legally significant employment law case. There is no prospect of that now, hence no notability.
re: 'Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole'; obviously when I made that comment, I was not referring to nominations of this kind. I would implore you LibStar to avoid randomly quoting out-of-context sentences from my other AfD threads like this. Its not constructive.
Besides, I am proposing to Merge, not delete. Jack4576 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The last AfD was only closed a week ago"
As I've stated above, the AfD was a week ago, but situation changed two days ago.
This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
Jack4576 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are proposing to merge, please do not waste the community's time with this deletion discussion. Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole. Please follow the instructions at WP:MERGEPROP. This AfD should be closed as a procedural keep, as even you as a nominator are not even seeking deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. Tone. Sure, happy to close as procedural keep and merge. Jack4576 (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The initial deletion discussion and this discussion could have all been avoided if a certain overzealous editor wasn't so keen to create an article for purely political purposes (after previous politically biased edits were rejected by 3rd opinion on another page) on a case where a trial hadn't even started.
The potential for this to fizzle into nothing was quite high and if the 'disagreement' wasn't notable enough for its own article now (which it isn't), then it never truly was.
I hope all involved learn a valuable lesson from this, particularly the creator of this article. Simba1409 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 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 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demetris Spyridakis[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. No appearances in senior fully-pro leagues, no GNG-satisfying media coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: 2nd reference appears to be an independent reliable source. He appears has been signed as a player within the highest division of that country's national league, I think this lends weight to notability. As Spiderone has pointed out the sole source appears to draw from information that is self-published and neither reliable nor independent. Delete. Jack4576 (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Wikipedia needs 2 reliable independent sources under WP:SIGCOV to be notable. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a strict requirement under SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the second source is probably too small to be compliant with the "significant" part of SIGCOV. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's two sentences in length so definitely doesn't meet the 'significant' requirement of WP:GNG. It does then link to a Facebook page which is self-published and neither reliable nor independent. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%cf%85%cf%80%ce%ad%ce%b3%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%88%ce%b5-%ce%b5%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b3%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%cf%8c-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b2%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%bf-%ce%bf-%ce%b4/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No His employer No No Press release about signing a contract No
https://www.24sports.com.cy/gr/sports/podosfairo/kypros/b-katigoria/meap/meap-meta-ton-asimeno%E2%80%A6-firmani-kai-gia-spyridaki Yes Yes No Has 2 sentences of prose altogether No
https://www.alphanews.live/sports/epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-me-tin-omonoia-o-dimitris-spyridakis No Mostly a copy of the press release in #1 Yes No As per #1 No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/eidiseis/a-katigoria/omonoia/ypegrapse-epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-o-dimitris-spyridakis?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No As above Yes No As above No
https://goal.philenews.com/podosfero/kypros/a-katigoria/omonoia/omonoia-ypografes-symvolaion-kai-diloseis-apo-ton-spyridaki/ Yes Yes No One sentence of prose then a link to video published by his employer No
https://themasports.tothemaonline.com/Article/796437/spyridakhs---o-mpomper-ths-omonoias-k-19-gia-ton-titlo-kai-ta-gkol-toy Yes Yes No Quote pulled apparently from Omonia's website with zero third party analysis No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/articles/akadimies/798765-niki-me-spyridaki?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Mentioned once No
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CE%B3%CE%BD%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%AE%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B7-%CF%83%CF%80/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No Q&A from his employer published on employer's website No No Zero third party analysis No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:41, 10 May 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 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Kyriakides[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC BlameRuiner (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: He appears has been signed as a player within the highest division of that Cyprus' national league, I think this lends weight to notability. Jack4576 (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't lend weight, I'm afraid. Only meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC does. In fact, even before WP:NSPORTS2022, signing a professional contract wouldn't be sufficient on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG only establishes a presumption; its absence does not prove a subject is not notable
In my view for the reasons stated earlier the subject is prominent enough to be nevertheless notable
Hence week keep Jack4576 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%cf%85%cf%80%ce%ad%ce%b3%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%88%ce%b5-%ce%b5%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b3%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%cf%8c-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b2%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%bf-%ce%bf-%ce%bd/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No His employer No No Press release about signing a contract No
https://www.alphanews.live/sports/epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-ston-nikola-kyriakidi-apo-tin-omonoia No Almost entirely copied from press release above Yes No Press release about signing a contract No
https://balla.com.cy/2022/05/27/epaggelmatias-kai-o-nikolas-kyriakidis-fotos/ No As above Yes No As above No
https://goal.philenews.com/podosfero/kypros/a-katigoria/omonoia/omonoia-edese-kai-ton-nikola-kyriakidi/ No As above Yes No As above No
https://www.kerkida.net/eidiseis/a-katigoria/omonoia/epaggelmatias-stin-omonoia-o-nikolas-tha-toys-apodeixo-pos-axize-ton-kopo Yes Yes No Very little prose and then has a link to a video made by his employer No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/eidiseis/alles-stiles/akadimies/omonoia/o-nikolas-kyriakidis-sholiazei-tis-proponiseis-tis-u19?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Quote from him with no analysis No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:33, 10 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Udini Square[edit]

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

Last AfD was 5 years ago, however I'm not convinced this shopping centre meets GNG. The Malay version of this article is poorly sourced. A look at the existing sources:

LibStar (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SIGCOV is not a requirement for assessing notability; it is just one factor in a general process that requires careful judgement. The size and location of this shopping centre, which appears to be established by the sources, suggests that this mall is a notable entity in its local area, and to enough people generally to make it worthy for inclusion. Jack4576 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The size and location of this shopping centre" are not criteria for notability. Nor it being "notable entity in its local area". It must meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are looking for GNG evidence that the shopping centre is a notable entity.
The sources, that show the centre is likely (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area; all suggest to me that this article merits its own article.
The issues with the references are not so defective as to prevent one from establishing the above. GNG is met. Jack4576 (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area" Again, please point to the notability guideline which gives shopping centres notability on the basis of these criteria you name. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG satisfaction gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable.
It is not a requirement that subjects pass GNG to be assessed as notable.
The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people, this subject is notable, and thus it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people". Again you are inventing your own criteria for shopping centres. LibStar (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not appealing to GNG criteria, I am appealing to the meaning of notability in the colloquial sense.
As I have stated earlier, independent of the GNG guidelines (which I note, establish a presumption and are not determinative of the notability issue per se); I think there are reasons this subject are notable.
I think the observation that notability is established by:
(1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area
is inutitive, and grounded in common sense Jack4576 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you consider "grounded in common sense" may not align with meeting notability in Wikipedia. You are welcome to start your own online encyclopedia based on your "intuition". You could then include all shopping centres that are (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am curious to know what are your intuitive thresholds for large by floor space area, and how many visitors makes a large number. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided reasons for my notability assessment, free to disagree with them.
I do think those reasons align with the Wikipedia threshold for notability. I think its fairly arguable that this an important centre for a large number of people, based on my reasons provided above, based on the geography, building size, and the photographs and images that show the centre's size and location. (None of which are issues that are in dispute).
Given the above tends towards the view that Udini Square is a keep, it would seem to me it is entirely unnecessary to start another encyclopedia. The guidelines for this one are fine as it is, usually.
I have contributed my views, and my reasons, and my opinion remains keep is appropriate. Feel free to engage and provide counterarguments if you wish; but maybe it would be best to invite other editors in an RfC if consensus cannot be reached here. Jack4576 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfC's are for content disputes, not deletion discussions, which are supposed to be here. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack4576: This is the first time I've heard this. You need to make it clear why you think this article should stay on Wikipedia, and article need to meet SIGCOV as a requirement to be on Wikipedia, which this one definitely does not. To be clear, my vote is Delete unless someone can find sources or restore the dead links. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject is notable
Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV. With respect, I think you need to re-read GNG more closely. Jack4576 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV', only true if it meets one of the accepted notability guidelines like WP:NPOL for politicians , WP:NACTOR for actors etc. There isn't a shopping centre notability guideline that gives notability for " (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area". LibStar (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. You are confusing guidelines that give rise to a presumption; they are not a requirement. This goes for all of the policies you have cited.
I accept that this shopping centre doesn't meet the guidelines so as to give rise to a presumption. Nevertheless, I think taking a step back, the evidence we have available to form a view as to what this shopping centre is; tends toward a conclusion that it is notable enough that it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't demonstrated how it meets GNG? Did you actually search for sources? Or WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly providing reasons, and so my argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE
My reason is grounded in an empathy for the persons in this local area, coupled with an intuitive judgement as to what would be notable to people and what people would reasonably expect to be in an encyclopedia.
GNG establishes a presumption that an article is notable. it is not a requirement for notability; and as I have stated above, this subject has multiple inherent characteristics that I think warrant its inclusion for notability. Feel free to disagree. Jack4576 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we're talking about how this article fails GNG, not about the presumption of notability? This argument makes no sense, nor does the "empathy" for people in the area, because this is a notability discussion and not about the local community, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the fact this article receives just 9 average page views daily, most of which are probably editors. Your arguments, here and on other discussion, devolve into WP:POINT votes, including on an RfA (which you, thankfully, withdrew after extensive discussion), and numerous WP:ITSNOTABLE votes. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:38, 15 May 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 00:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soundhog[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. This piece in North Wales Live is the only piece of non-SPS coverage I can find and does not demonstrate notability. An AfD in 2004 demonstrated a consensus to delete (IMO) but was never closed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this piece also, but it doesn't look altogether independent and notability doesn't appear established Jack4576 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 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 06:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Khachatryan[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. No evidence of national team debut, despite multiple bench appearances. No GNG-level coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I'm unsure whether a football player needs to have actually have debuted for the national team to be notable. Surely having been signed is enough. In any event, there aren't enough sources here to establish much. Jack4576 (talk) 07:01, 10 May 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Jeffries[edit]

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

This article is sourced entirely from the pages of comic books, i.e. primary sources. No showing of real-world notability. Reads like a fanpage. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources can be used in articles, but WP:SIGCOV makes it very clear that at least two sources have to be "independent of the subject" to quality for notability, which this clearly isn't, nor is there any online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the 'at least two' from? Can't see that requirement under WP:SIGCOV. The singular secondary source, paired with the numerous primary sources suggest to me that its more likely than not that this subject is notable Jack4576 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the guideline uses plural sources, "at least two" is the most mimimalistic interpretation of "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources". Sources, not source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"multiple sources are generally expected", is the guideline, not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine Question - how can a Marvel handbook be a secondary source? It's an additional fiction created by the same company that created the comics, it just has a different format. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The handbook documents and describes a fictional subject, but is not itself an instance of the fictional subject. Hence secondary. Marvel being the publisher for both doesn't matter. (I note the authors for both texts are different anyway) Jack4576 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's crazy. Unless they've changed drastically since I last picked one up, they're written in-universe and often add extra fictional information (e.g. abilities never seen in comics, such as strength levels, or retcons like labelling Iron Man's armours). Marvel being the publisher for both really should matter as everything ultimately comes under the same editorial vetting; they're no more (or less) valid than a profile printed in a comic itself. Same goes for any of the heavily-vetted Official DK books and the like because it's all fiction licenced by the publisher and a primary source. A useful primary source, but a primary source nonetheless. It's no more valid in a sense of third-party notability than a YouTuber making a guide about themselves; they are not independent or objective. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:43, 11 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden[edit]

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

PROD rationale: Per a comment from RJP98 on the talk page from March 2021: "Firstly, "Haaglanden" does not officially exist as an urban area anymore (only as a safety region, which doesn't mean much). Secondly, Haaglanden was never known for its eccentrically tall buildings in the first place. It also lists only one source, which is quite dated (2014)." I can't find any fault with this argument, nor any sourcing indicating this list meets WP:NLIST/WP:GNG.

De-PROD'd with edit summary: could be recast as List of tallest buildings in The Hague

Not a finger has been lifted to actually attempt to do so, of course, and that's notwithstanding the GNG/NLIST issue requiring SIGCOV of the topic as a whole. ♠PMC(talk) 05:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:41, 14 May 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 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dunnerstick[edit]

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

Clear WP:GNG fail. Was already deleted by a unanimous delete decision in 2011. No theoretical objection to a redirect to his sole film, only a practical concern: this film's entry was also deleted in 2011 and was also recreated over our community decision two years later. If Matt Dunnerstick is deleted again, please also salt. gidonb (talk) 05:31, 10 May 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Madan[edit]

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

Chandan Madan

Stub biography of cricketer who does not satisfy cricket notability or general notability. There is nothing in this stub that describes significant coverage in a reliable source. The only reference is to a database source, and does not provide secondary coverage. The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide secondary coverage within seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the links provided by Blue Square Thing. Appears to be a notable cricketer, evidence shows that they have played at the highest domestic levels. Playing for U19 indian team particularly persuasive as to notability. Jack4576 (talk) 08:00, 10 May 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. plicit 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift (2007 TV program)[edit]

The Gift (2007 TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing reliable found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed because it "may" meet WP:NTV, which is an essay not a policy or guideline. It did air 2 seasons, but I found nothing substantial for either season that would pass even WP:GNG. Sending it here for others to weigh in. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two seasons on Channel 9 at 9pm I think is sufficiently high profile that this subject is likely notable. Issue to me is the lack of references establishing those facts. In the absence of references my view is delete Jack4576 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a possible reference: https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/the-gift-series/25904 Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 09:25, 10 May 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 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viral Hog[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 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 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Sander-Staudt[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. No significant coverage, fails WP:NACADEMIC Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are three well-cited papers, after that not much. Looks like a WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I'd hazard a guess that her field is a low-citation one overall, but even taking that into account, I'm not seeing any indications that she stands out, rather than being an academic doing an academic's job. Philosophical Inquiries into Pregnancy has been reviewed [11][12][13], but that was a co-edited anthology. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:26, 10 May 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. It may be useful to have this title or something similar as a redirect for search purposes, but multiple targets were suggested in the discussion with no takers. RL0919 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivor (American TV series) winners[edit]

List of Survivor (American TV series) winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have wondered whether the creator of this list is aware that I tried a failed attempt to create a draft of a (partial?) finalists list, which was rejected as "too arbitrary". Furthermore, I even asked the one who rejected the draft whether the finalists list's scope should be narrowed to only winners. Unfortunately, I was told that the list already exists at Survivor (American TV series)§Series overview. In other words, implicitly, a separate biographical list of winners isn't needed.

Seems to me this list is a response to recent individual AFD nominations on winners, like Bob Crowley and Natalie White. I can't help wonder whether this list meets WP:SAL and WP:BLP, and I wonder whether WP:BLP1E applies. Preferably, should be either deleted or draft-ified or redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants or Survivor (American TV series). George Ho (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC); expanded, 03:14, 10 May 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. This does not preclude editorial discretion from being applied to move to draft, or rewrite. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian architecture[edit]

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

This article had an AfD nearly two years ago, which was closed with no consensus due to the possibility of there being non-WP:SYNTH information related to the topic. I am here to once again argue that no such information exists, and that this is better off being a redirect to fascist architecture or a disambiguation at most. As it exists, the page basically just argues that "totalitarian architecture" is an architecture that involves big buildings made by "totalitarian" governments. Practically all the sourcing is simply tertiary mentions, with no elaboration on what exactly this field of architecture is supposed to be. After these issues were brought up, the article was subject to a WP:REFBOMB, which did little to prove notability. Given that all the original issues of bad sourcing and synthesis exist, and that attempts in the past two years to prove notability have failed, I'm suggesting a redirect once again. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed previously, this would just be refbombing. You can find perfectly similar sources on architecture and black Americans, architecture and democracy, architecture and feminism, etc etc etc. None of these would indicate that such things as Black Architecture, Democratic Architecture, or Feminist architecture actually exist as their own independent disciplines. As with any other art form, architecture is often viewed in the context of its creation (or creators), but that doesn’t mean it can be verified as its own discipline. This is always just a synthesis play that ignores the context of sources and ends up making an incomprehensible slurry of unrelated info. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument that the title is wrong, not that there is no notable subject here. Of course Architecture and feminism is a notable topic; so many sources discuss it, and I hope to see that redlink turn to blue. When one encounters an article about the intersection of architecture and feminism, but objects to the title of "feminist architecture", the way to change that is to make a move request, not to try to delete the article for failing to have a perfect title. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feminism and modern architecture is the page, for the record. And this isn't simply an issue with the title- the entire article as it exists is arguing that a specific architectural style of totalitarian regimes and therefore a school of architecture is extant. If we were to make a page on architecture and totalitarianism, it would have to be an entirely separate page, because the content of the page as it exists is bunk. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, reference works (listed below) do make use of the term totalitarian architecture. The article as it currently stands does not reflect at all how the term is used in sources. So, in true totalitarian style, I propose we completely bulldoze this article and build a grand article in its place.
I think this is a good point - there's a general feeling in the article that suggests totalitarian regimes build Brutalist architecture - and possibly leaves open the suggestion that Brutalism is an indication of fascism and/or totalitarian thinking.
I'm no historian of buildings, but that seems to me to be far from true. Maybe the concept is just too difficult to write neutrally about (unanswerable questions including what counts as totalitarian, which buildings are examples of that etc). JMWt (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article just uses word "brutalist" in one example because one of the sources uses such word, but it does not claim that Brutalist architecture belongs to totalitarian architecture because it does not. I just removed this single word from the page. It did not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be true that totalitarian architecture is not a distinct architectural style, but it should not be. We need to have a distinct subject described in multiple RS. A subject could be anything, not necessarily a style. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT argues that if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. There is non-trivial well-referenced useful content in the existing article, so I think that the appeal to TNT as a basis for deleting the whole article entirely is wholly self-defeating. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I basically don't think there is anything useful to keep (bar a handful of sources) so my logic is fine. As other editors have noted, when you start actually reading the sources (not just the titles) and comparing it to the text they support, it falls apart. Sources are often of dubious reliable (Psychogeography, a paper on Nazi Architecture from a Materials Sci & Eng conference, political org websites), don't properly reflect the text they support and are taken out of context (eg sources about Nazism or Communism & architecture are used to make statements about all "totalitarian architecture"). It will take ages to sort through the current article and likely very little will be retained. Whereas starting afresh will generate an article that reflects reliable sources and is more likely to attract someone like me to work on it.
Seeing the conversations above, I think a move to Totalitarianism and architecture would be productive and a better reflection of sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am 100% sure this was a topic in my high school study books, and those were, all things considered, not exactly the most inclusive of sources. I don't for a moment believe too little has been written about this topic to support an article on it, and a swift google books/scholar search does seem to support that conclusion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly suggest you review the arguments above as to why Google scholar hits of the words “totalitarian” and “architecture” can get hits without actually demonstrably being its own architectural style. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I don't think it needs to be a style to be E, but I agree with you that it's not a style, and the lead part of the article is currently about a style. So there's a bit of an incongruence in my !vote. The body is a discussion of how the sources use it again, in contradiction to the lead, but it does so in a manner that is very much WP:SYNTH.
I concur. TNT it is, per Vladimir.copic. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, references #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 28, 31, 36 and 37 on the page are about the subject of “totalitarian architecture”, not random hits of words “totalitarian” and “architecture” in Google. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adam - On the whole, the architecture of the Third Reich closely followed... the architecture of the past... by no means exclusive to Germany or to totalitarian systems, it was the official style of many countries
Sablin - If we were not talking about an article, but a concise response to a question (posed during a survey of some specialists or just enthusiasts) that is placed in the title - whether architecture can be totalitarian at all, I would probably limit myself to the statement that there was definitely no specific architecture of totalitarianism and there couldn't have been. (ChatGPT translation).
I removed two instances of apparent original research that weren't supported by the cited sources, but the overall state of the article leaves an impression that it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, first source is RS and it says: "In 2017, just before a Polish law came into force banning monuments that “symbolize or propagate” totalitarianism...", hence the connection to the subject of the page is clear. Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. Sablin [14] criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", any valid criticism of the term too belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sablin criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", but this is not what the text referenced to Sablin that I removed from the article was saying.
Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. is original research. I couldn't find a single mention of demolished buildings or totalitarian architecture in either of the sources. This argument is exactly the kind of synthesis other editors expressed concerns about: "because there are monuments, and some monuments are memorials, and memorials are buildings, therefore monuments are architecture; monuments build by totalitarian states are therefore totalitarian architecture". PaulT2022 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, this source [15] provides a number of specific examples. Sablin - agree with removal, but simply because this is strange source with broken link. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Making "draft" will be equal to deletion because the creator of this page is no longer active and no one else will be working with the draft. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to work on a draft. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it was you who nominated this page for deletion. Does it mean you are changing your opinion to "rewrite"? My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if that is the consensus, I would be willing. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia main building, one of seven enormous Stalinist piles in Moscow
It would be helpful to provide a source that supports this point of view directly.
In the sources I'm aware of, the Seven Sisters, which are being used as as an example, are inevitably described as being distinct from the "easily-recognisable approach to architecture":

The government decree issued in 1947 to start construction ordered that the buildings look uniquely Russian. So the décor is Russian baroque, even if various American landmarks heavily influenced the architects, including the Wrigley Building and the Tribune Tower in Chicago, as well as the Woolworth and Municipal buildings in Lower Manhattan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/29/world/europe/russia-stalin-moscow-seven-sisters.html
Is there indeed a source that would argue that this is the same style as, say, Fascist architecture, which Wikipedia currently describes as "Fascist styles often resemble that of ancient Rome, but can extend to modern aesthetics as well. Fascist-era buildings are frequently constructed with particular concern given to symmetry and simplicity"? PaulT2022 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an interesting point. I wonder if it impacts on the viability of this article.
The article as it stands defines totalitarian architecture as being architecture associated with totalitarian regimes.
I'm not sure if this is your point or not, however it appears that the term (or closely associated terms) can refer to something else in general use. Maybe the "totalitarian" part can refer to a particular type of building wherever it is in the world. Or perhaps it can refer to a type of architect mentality as per this article. Other refs which do not seem to fit with the thrust of this article include 1.
I don't know how to parse this. Can one have "totalitarian architecture" in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio? If the answer is 'no', what's the difference between this article and Nazi architecture or whatever? JMWt (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. I didn't suggest deleting only because of the Red-tailed Hawk arguments in this discussion: there are sources that indicate that such framing might be notable, and a few non-trivial sources are referenced in this article.
For example, Ward (1970) discusses the purpose of totalitarian architecture and the role of an architect in a totalitarian country. He discusses parallels in how totalitarian architecture seeks to subdue and how totalitarian approaches to architecture are present in democratic societies, which is echoed in the Guardian column you found. There are various discussions of the 'totalitarian' role of the architect, and indeed, Corbusier's ideas. Then, there are sources that discuss the top-down approach of Haussmann's renovation of Paris (although most, I think, stop short of calling it totalitarian), and how these ideas were borrowed by totalitarian urban planning - see Cavalcanti (1992) referenced in the article; also, Urban planning in Nazi Germany.
I think the sources can be used to write a good article discussing the motives and purposes of totalitarian architecture, the role of the architect, approaches to urban planning, and so forth. Unfortunately, none of this is in the article, which mainly advocates for the existence of a supposed "style", a notion not supported or explicitly challenged by the referenced sources. I've proposed draftifying because the current content of the article is primarily synthesis and it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to cited sources and the page, this is a specific type of architecture in totalitarian states. Therefore, no, anything in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio would not qualify as such architecture. Accordingly, this page does not mention anything in London, Sydney or Columbus. Le Corbusier is indeed important for this page because of his Moscow projects, i.e. he was one of creators of such architecture. But it does not mean that all architecture by Le Corbusier was totalitarian. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing with you but I offer the following from the reference I found above
    - “Oslo, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Algiers, Port Said, Rio or Buenos Aires, the solution is the same,” Le Corbusier maintained, “since it answers the same needs.”
    JMWt (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "solution" he is talking about? Does he call it "totalitarian architecture"? I am sure he did not mean that. Saying that, we do have page Le Corbusier in the USSR, which does belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As about the article not giving "the impression... that the concept is contested" - yes, this is true. This is simply because there are few to none RS where the concept was contested. If you can provide such sources, then they need to be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 17 May 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. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impose (magazine)[edit]

Impose (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To quote my rejected PROD:

Apparently non-notable. The Flavorwire page mentions Impose but mostly talks about Evers separately from his work there, the New Yorker EL is an ad for a concert, and the KC Pitch (archive) might not even be a reliable source. Found no other coverage about the magazine itself.

PROD was rejected due to the number of incoming links but I don't find that a particularly compelling case. Just because a source is used in 500 articles doesn't mean it is itself notable. Notability and reliability are separate standards, no? Same argument from before still applies entirely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:45, 10 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir[edit]

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

Non notable Youtuber. Didn’t received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of sources are interview (primary) or passing mentions and also promotional. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you. Hrksmp (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, some celebrity coverage in RS, I think there's enough for a notability !vote [16], [17] and [18] Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:DAILYSTAR in relation to 3rd link. DhakaTribune articles demonstrate notability though. Jack4576 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not enough sources to support notability. Sources found are very weak. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles from Dhaka Tribune from Oaktree b pursuade me as to notability. Jack4576 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Urbina[edit]

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

Article about a former football player which fails WP:GNG. No sign of notability from a google search Thesixserra (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy:, See above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesixserra:, GiantSnowman provided some above... not to mention that there are many many others besides those ones... clearly was significant figure in Mexican football with 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney:, [21] ("Yair Urbina was signed by Dorados de Sinaloa in the recent DRAFT, but he will play with a double record in the Mexican soccer affiliate system, this is how Urbina will seek to start the season in competition with Adrián Zermeño, who in theory would be the first option to replace Saucedo at the start of the season against Atlas. Urbina, 30, was in Veracruz last season, before that he was key with Neza for his consolidation in the Promotion League. Reflexes, maturity and security in the exits characterize this goalkeeper who will receive an opportunity in the First Division after passing through Tigres and Morelia not to mention some First Clubs") and [22], among many many more Spanish sources should easily push him over the line. Clearly was significant figure in Mexican football with 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for coverage, but let's not confuse people about the level of this footballer's career. He's played just 5 minutes (1 substitute's appearance) in Liga MX. Most of his play has been in the Ascenso MX and Copa MX (far lower profile competitions). Jogurney (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 10 May 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. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Society Moonstones[edit]

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

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham. A WP:Before search wasn't very helpful to find GNG-level sources. There were a couple of attempts to convert this to a redirect, but they were reverted. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham; emphasis on the lack of encyclopedia-worthy sources, copyvio issue, and gallery-like format/structure, looks like a page more fit for something like TripAdvisor or a travel blog. Spiritual Transcendence (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until appropriate sourcing is added to the article or put up for consideration in this AfD, the policy based ground for deletion is that the article doesn't pass any notability guideline. Rupples (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 10 May 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 01:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bible College NIT[edit]

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

A search for sources could not find any indepth coverage in third party sources to meet GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 May 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 01:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Effingham-Teutopolis Christmas Classic[edit]

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

Don't see how this "High School holiday basketball tournament" meets GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 10 May 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.