< August 31	September 02 >

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Krash[edit]

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

Non-notable due to failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it appears that for some reason, this page was never listed in the appropriate deletion categories. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vaurie, the nominator is responsible for identifying potential sorting categories. That's why the form asks you to identify topical areas involving the subject of the article. It's important not to skip filling out this section of the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks Liz, but I'm not that clueless - I clearly included the categories "Music" and "United Kingdom" above when I nominated the article. However, I think that a technical issue occurred - I don't understand why the AfD didn't go into the categories. Perhaps I reloaded too quickly when I submitted the query with the XFD Twinkle thing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article passes WP:GNG as I can see the coverage on reliable and independent sources like this from The Fader, this from Clash (magazine), this one from Hypebeast (company), this from Culture Custodian, which is also a reliable website used in more than 500 wiki citations. There are many more independent and reliable articles identifying this artist, establishing its notability.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 18:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Businesspeople. Netherzone (talk) 18:55, 8 September 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!} 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armbian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Armbian

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

~~Reads like an advertisement, notability and verifiability thresholds not met. Pecopteris (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom, It is clearly not notable, a WP:BEFORE search delivered no usable sources. The article content is, at best, merely an WP:EXIST description sourced entirely from closely related web pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second it, as the guy who brought the article in question on Treehouse. I think that the article was hopeless to make it adhere to Wikipedia standards in the beginning. My alternate opinion was to make the article a redirect instead but I don't know if it's necessary. Signed, Lucss21a | Talk | Contribs 16:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources with significant coverage found: [1][2][3][4] 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look pretty decent. However, "Armbian Ubuntu 23.04 can now run on Lenovo X13S Arm laptop" looks kinda like a primary source because of its wording but I wouldn't toss it yet. (Who knew there were so many Linux websites) ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. LWN.net, which tends to be great, has an article too. DFlhb (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if somebody knowledgeable does something useful with the article. Otherwise, it should be reduced to an external link in the article on the ARM processor family... (The link mentioned would be to the project's main page.) Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that the article has been significantly altered. In my opinion, the current article, while in need of expansion, no longer reads like an advertisement, and meets both notability and verifiability thresholds by linking to multiple secondary sources. Perhaps this AFD should be closed?

I don't want to do that unilaterally at this time, since I'm the one who opened the AFD, but if nobody closes this or objects in the next few days, I'll probably go ahead and do so. Pecopteris (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pecopteris, the procedure you want is nominator withdrawal, but note that this requires persuading all delete supporters to change or rescind. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:2CDD:52B2:24E4:FE55 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article now means notability and verifiability thresholds, in my view. Thanks for relisting, @Liz! Pecopteris (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pecopteris, since you are the nominator, and your nomination counts as a Delete vote, it would be best if you crossed out your nomination statement (or part of it) and place this vote underneath your nomination statement. Right now, it looks like you voted twice so one of them has to be crossed out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 2 September 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!} 23:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arvo Mikkanen[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a failed federal judicial nominee. I suppose we could redirect this to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Oklahoma. Let'srun (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject was a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes, which counts as a national judiciary. BD2412 T 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @BD2412. Would meet WP:NPOL as a Supreme Court justice of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:01, 2 September 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 Durham Energy Institute#Geo-energy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems[edit]

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

Tagged for notability. No indication the references provide any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit, fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Durham Energy Institute#Geo-energy, worth having a couple sentences of coverage there. - Indefensible (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Fails GNG, SIGCOV; merge as suggested above. Ekdalian (talk) 13:42, 7 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago District Golf Association[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of any notability. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Golf, United States of America, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many mentions via Newspapers.com (more than 5 million) [5], [6],[7] and others Timur9008 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of them WP:SIRS? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nevermind. After looking way further those sources are about it. Timur9008 (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those 3 newspaper articles provide WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Indefensible (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not notable enough, as proven by the search for reliable sources conducted above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't have the requisite WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article, either here or elsewhere. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a suitable deletion argument. User:Let'srun 21:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strike vote, I assume this is going to get deleted. The organization is over 100 years old though, in-depth coverage from back then would be difficult to find. No one is contesting its history which should be enough to merit coverage, this is really more just a failure of referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 18:42, 8 September 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. Possible Merge or Rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of large aircraft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list has no encyclopedic value. "Large aircraft" are defined by aviation authorities such as the FAA and ICAO, and basically include all the airliners, transports, flying boats, bombers and oddballs of any significant size. The class of large aircraft is huge and this list will grow endlessly over time. But it has no cohesion other than a bureaucratic designation. These types are better listed (if at all) within the various more familiar classes I just mentioned, such as the List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight.

There is already an article on large aircraft, covering their characteristics, history and so forth. It includes a historical list of the largest built, so there is no mileage in repurposing this list article along such lines.

The previous AfD in 2014 got tangled up while these and other issues were being figured out, and failed to reach a consensus. Now that things have settled down for a few years, it is time we revisited the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Aircraft Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion.

The Aviation Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion.

Delete - potentially far too large and WP:INDISCRIMINATE a list to have any encyclopedic value. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Size of a list is not a valid reason to delete it. List of aircraft list dozens of lists of aircraft divided in alphabetical order. And it is not indiscriminate since it only list aircraft that US Federal Aviation Administration classifies as large, and which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 18:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NLIST per "Further reading" section in the article. Has very clear inclusion criteria (FAA and EASA definitions) of three types. In the current list, every item is bluelinked to an article about the entry, so even within the relatively clear and strict inclusion criteria, this list is far from indiscriminate. This informational list allows readers to compare length, span, maximum takeoff weight, and other characteristics, so meets WP:LISTPURP. I'd be willing to help split out the "Lighter than air" section as it sort of confounds this list, but it may be able to be included with some work. I think an editorial decision to merge the Large aircraft § Largest built section and this list would be reasonable, but it is not necessary as an AfD outcome, at the moment they are built differently and such a merge will require a deeper familiarity with the pages in question. —siro χ o 17:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I participated in the last AFD back in 2014‎. This article has far more things listed than the other article does, and more columns showing additional facts as well. There are hundreds of lists of aircrafts in Category:Lists of aircraft and its subcategories. This list has useful information, not just a list of names, so is more useful than most of those, and only list aircraft of a certain type. Dream Focus 18:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets NLIST per above, a valid topic for a list. I don't have any problem with a merge request, but this shouldn't be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with large aircraft, there is already a fair amount of overlapping. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to large aircraft per above. Neither article is particularly large. Referencing is needed (and bolding explained - most probably record holders) for the fixed-wing table, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OP here. I'd be happy to see a merge back in to the main article. The current "list of large aircraft" still only includes types which were largest in some way; neither its title nor its inclusion criteria reflect that, and those two things are what really need to be abandoned. But for the merge to happen, it needs to be recognised that the list of Largest built is going to dominate the criteria of what gets included and what gets dropped, and that will mean dropping role-specific stuff such as the heaviest military hang-glider, or whatever. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but change title to List of largest aircraft, (just like List of longest ships). - wolf 09:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely Encyclopedic value and whilst the list contents (correctly) overlap other existing lists, this article/list provides unique value for those searching for this information. I don't see the value in a merging with other (admittedly very related) articles, but perhaps a discussion on a examining if there is a better name for the list. (For my opinion, I agree with @Thewolfchild above, and then it would benefit from intro paragraph describing many different ways to quantify "largest" (the longest ships list is only about 1 aspect of ships: length), not sure what the most ideal word is here though (Record-breaking? Of exceptional size? Notable? (<- last one is not very encyclopedic) ) DigitalExpat (talk) 06:18, 6 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beerdarts[edit]

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

One reference that is a website claiming to be the "official home of beer darts", and two books about drinking games that briefly mention "beer darts". Methinks this is not "significant coverage from reliable sources". Argles Barkley (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, this topic does not seem notable. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 6 September 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 XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vh1 Satellite Radio[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG, with a total lack of WP:SIGCOV for this defunct satellite radio channel. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As I said at the deletion discussion for the similar and related MTV Satellite Radio, this interview with XM's circa-2005 executive VP of programming that includes a question about why XM decided to drop these two channels (which is irrelevant for determining notability, of course) might be enough to warrant a brief mention at VH1 (and source the listing[s] at XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels), but the miscapitalization of "Vh1" [sic] leads me to conclude that retaining this title in any form isn't ideal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Miscapitalization"? I'm old enough to remember the era (early to mid-2000s) when this was the parent network's on-screen spelling. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The search function is treating VH1 Satellite Radio (and also Vh1 satellite radio) exactly the same as our title, so it has good functionality. StonyBrook _babble 04:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. As Wcquidditch said, this is similar to the MTV radio discussion (now closed as Redirect) since VH1 was a sister channel to MTV with similar programming. All I could find are passing mentions that mention it as part of the XM lineup without going into any significant detail about them. And since the target article now includes links to both MTV and VH1, the reader will understand exactly what kind of content the satellite channels rebroadcast, without any need for this article. But it is a redirect with history and therefore should not be deleted. StonyBrook _babble 03:58, 4 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion Road Trip[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2018 DonaldD23 talk to me 21:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by E!--the inevitable fate of many a minor show on such networks as regards WP:NTV, as my own past experience can bear out. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huff, Lauren (2021-05-05). "Watch casts of Scrubs, A Different World, and more reunite in Reunion Road Trip trailer. The new four-part series also brings together the iconic casts of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and All My Children". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "Reunion Road Trip kicks off on June 10 with All My Children fan favorites Rebecca Budig, Eva LaRue, Cameron Mathison, and Jacob Young, who come together at an exclusive Hollywood mansion to celebrate the show's 50th anniversary with surprise visits from former cast members Alicia Minshew, Debbi Morgan, Kelly Ripa, and Darnell Williams. The second episode, on June 17, features the Original Fab Five from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy — Ted Allen, Kyan Douglas, Thom Filicia, Carson Kressley, and Jai Rodriguez — as they reassemble in Los Angeles to give Rodriguez a makeover for his 40th birthday."
2. Beard, Lanford (2017-08-20). "'Jersey Shore' Reunion: What a Short, Strange Road Trip It Was". People. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The review notes: "Jersey Shore‘s Reunion Road Trip played out like a long overdue meet-up with all your friends from high school — only if every trace of your time together had burnt down in a fire. ... But mostly, this Reunion was about reminiscing over clips we couldn’t watch (™ MTV) and making sure The Situation feels as humble as possible before he very likely heads to prison. But hey! At least he was able to cushion some of his friends’ blows with the neck brace he scored when infamously ramming his head into a concrete wall during their inglorious return to their Italian homeland in season 4."
3. Fitzpatrick, Molly (2017-08-21). "Jersey Shore Reunion Recap: Gym, Tan, Laundry, Forever". Vulture. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The review notes: "This one-off special is a surprisingly candid, funny, and touching half-hour of television that reveals what happens when fist-pumping, binge-drinking gorilla juice heads grow up. ... The special opens with a Behind the Music feel as Mike — who through the years has also appeared on Dancing With the Stars, Celebrity Big Brother, Marriage Boot Camp, and Worst Cooks in America — recounts how high their highs were over six seasons of Jersey Shore."
4. Stanhope, Kate (2017-07-14). "'Jersey Shore' Cast Set for TV Reunion Docuseries at E! (Exclusive). Currently in Development, 'Reunion Road Trip' Will Reunite the Casts of Former TV Unscripted and Scripted Shows". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "Titled Reunion Road Trip, the unscripted entry will capture an epic show reunion as the cast drives down memory lane, making familiar stops along the way — sharing stories, revisiting hot spots and catching up on each other’s current lives. Viewers will follow the lifelong friends as they come together to gossip about each other’s lives, what has been said about them in the press, the juiciest moments and stories from behind the scenes that we never saw, and most of all talk about the pop culture hit that has bonded them forever."
5. Rubin, Rebecca (2017-07-14). "TV News Roundup: 'Jersey Shore' Cast to Appear on Reunion Docuseries for E!". Variety. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "The cast of the MTV reality show “Jersey Shore” are coming together again for a new reunion docuseries at E! “Jersey Shore” stars will be in the pilot episode of “Reunion Road Trip,” an unscripted development project that will reunite a variety of casts each week, a source confirmed with Variety. Producers are considering both unscripted and scripted series casts for possible future episodes, with “Jersey Shore” as the only group currently lined up. Greg Lipstone, Simon Knight, Adam Greener, Emily Mayer and Lauren Stevens will executive produce the series."
6. Hulbert, Hunter (2017-07-14). "Fist pump: The 'Jersey Shore' reunion is not as bad as we feared". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "The unscripted series will be called “Reunion Road Trip” and will feature the cast taking a trip down memory lane. They’ll visit their old stomping grounds, including Jenkinson’s in Point Pleasant Beach, as they reminisce about the original series and catch up on each other’s lives."
7. Jordan, Chris (2018-01-09). "Tell cast of MTV's 'Jersey Shore' where to go". Asbury Park Press. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "“Reunion Road Trip” was filmed primarily at Jenkinson’s Pavilion Restaurant in Point Pleasant Beach. The reunion wasn’t allowed to film in Seaside Heights, which hosted the series from 2009 to 2012. Cast members were arrested, got into brawls, and, as explained on “Reunion Road Trip,” relieved themselves all around town."
8. "What's new this week: 'Summer of Soul,' 'Forever Purge,' Lana Del Ray album". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 2021-06-30. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "This four-part limited series draws to a close with “Back in Scrubs,” an hour devoted to the cult medical sitcom that ran from 2001 to 2010, first on NBC, then on ABC. Leading players Zach Braff (J.D. Dorian), Sarah Chalke (Elliot Reid) and Donald Faison (Christopher Turk) embark on a quest to find Rowdy, the show’s beloved — if taxidermied — dog. As they look back on their “Scrubs” years, they run into other ex-colleagues, including Judy Reyes (head nurse Carla Espinosa) and Robert Maschio (Dr. Todd “The Todd” Quinlan)."
9. Stagnitta, Ali (2021-06-15). "Thom Filicia Teases 'Outrageous' 'Queer Eye' Reunion & Says the Show Was 'The Perfect Storm' 18 Yrs Later". Hollywood Life. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "Oh my gosh, they’re back again! Thom Filicia, Ted Allen, Carson Kressley, Kyan Douglas and Jai Rodriguez, aka the Original Fab 5, are reuniting to give one of their own a makeover in an E! Reunion Road Trip special. Almost 20 years after Queer Eye for the Straight Guy premiered on Bravo, the cast is coming together to celebrate Jai’s 40th birthday and giving him a surprisingly much-needed makeover."
10. Smith, Tymon. "Original 'Queer Eye' cast reunite — and spring a makeover on one of their own". TimesLIVE. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  The article notes: "Now, thanks to E! Entertainment's Road Trip Reunion series, the original fab five return to our screens for a heart-warming get-together in which they turn their gaze on one of their own, the youngest and only non-white member of the group, Rodriguez, for a surprise makeover on the occasion of his 40th birthday, filmed in LA in the midst of the Covid-19 epidemic."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reunion Road Trip to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to the plethora of sources provided by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:18, 5 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish-American communities[edit]

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

This list was a fork from Irish Americans in March, 2006, and as far as I can tell it's never passed WP:LISTN at any point since. The selection criteria are ambiguous, and only Boston is sourced. I don't think it can be sourced reliably without some kind of criteria, but editors have never reached consensus on that question. ~T P W 20:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 20:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not much is salvageable here. Many of them aren't even verifiable through sources on the blue linked pages. I could see a list here, but I don't think this is a starting point. —siro χ o 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list without clear/consistent/verifiable criteria. No indication if or how WP:NLIST would apply. Certainly no indication that the list members have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I mean, what do Fackler, Alabama and Burien, Washington have to do with each other? (Other than that the article on neither subject, as with many many others in the list, make any mention of any Irish connection or population? Of any kind?) WP:CSC issues are also a significant concern. As noted, this seems unsalvageable. Guliolopez (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless everything on the list has a reference calling it an Irish community, nothing can be done with it. Dream Focus 20:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The communities listed obviously exist and have notability, but they do not appear to be notable because they have an Irish-American community (see WP:SELCRIT, If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?). The answer in this case is clearly and emphatically, "No." Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:07, 4 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Metelits[edit]

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

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. No evidence of notability for this person. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Angola, Brazil, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, this topic does not seem notable. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently/automatically notable. Gnews comes up with a namesake (could be him) of a son of a woman who collected a lot of videos. Hardly a claim for notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 5 September 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 Love Sex Aur Dhokha. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Sex Aur Dhokha 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFF - not enough coverage for a film that won't be released for quite a while. Article was PROD'd, but removed. Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Sex Aur Dhokha until further development of this sequel of a very notable film is clear.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Sex Aur Dhokha per above. AryKun (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above, plus merge whatever is salvageable. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Sex Aur Dhokha and merge relevant content. Ekdalian (talk) 13:51, 7 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Sabirly[edit]

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

Seems like WP:PROMO, WP:REFBOMB can easily be observed. The fact that he is the first verified user in the region doesn't make them notable — Toghrul R (t) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Azerbaijan. — Toghrul R (t) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Foreign tourism expert" isn't a notable role. Having a verified facebook account is almost routine to the point of banality. I find no sourcing for this person. Fails ACTOR, GNG and whatever else he's claiming. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROMO. Literally the first link on his website is to this article, then the AZ-language version, then all his social media sites. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article's sourcing consists of promotional blurbs in clearly unreliable Azerbaijani websites, and passing mentions in slightly better but still probably unreliable Azerbaijani websites. As such, Sabirly fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo piece for unnotable person. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:36, 5 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Creek Fire[edit]

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

No sustained significant coverage, and no lasting effects as defined by WP:EFFECT. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Wyoming. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, no apparent lasting coverage or impact. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fall 2023 Auburn, Alabama Youth Soccer League[edit]

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

Unclear why a season for a local youth league would be a notable subject when the league itself doesn't even have an article and the best sources that may be expected are local bits of routine coverage. Fails our notability guideline. Current sources aren't independent. Fram (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Alabama. Fram (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are other sources, and the list will be able to continue to expand upon the season started.

Yoblyblob

Speedy Delete The creator of the article (Yoblyblob) is using Wikipedia as a way to showcase a random youth league; they are likely a parent or ref. Wikipedia is not a place to have your schedules and information shown. It is an encyclopedia that contains the research of reliable topics. There are no sources that provide WP:GNG to the article and I seriously doubt that there would be. There are plenty of free websites that one can use to show their rec league info. Conyo14 (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are websites and will be specific pages for results. For the record, I am neither a parent or a ref and do not live in the area Yoblyblob (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to provide sources that compliment WP:GNG (i.e. newspapers, books, scholarly articles) on this subject. But what makes this specifically notable? Conyo14 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seriously question Yoblyblob as their userpage indicates being a member of Project Football; this is not the kind of articles the Football project wants; go take a read into the project pages for examples. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the clearest WP:NOTWEBHOST violations I've ever seen. De-prodded and G11 seems closest for a speedy, but here we are. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was thinking G2 due to WP:NOTWEBHOST. It feels like a template that could have been made and kept in a sandbox for personal use. Conyo14 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that G2 does not apply because this doesn't seem to be a page created specifically to test Wikipedia. Regardless, there was nothing I could find that indicated notability beyond the local level for the youth league, much less the Fall 2023 season. Delete. for not meeting the WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage beyond routine material at the local level. The Night Watch (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom in whole. Non-notable youth sporting league User:Let'srun 20:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have been CSD, looking at the article. No evidence of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have speedy deleted this in NPP had I come across it in my reviews. This is someone using wiki for PROMO, or testing their wikitext skills. While I'm sure the dentistry crew playing the mushroom crew is notable in some small way, this is in no way more notable than any of the other hundreds of such league seasons in the US or Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable. Kante4 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, minor, local, youth league. Giant Snowman 20:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:39, 5 September 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. and Redirected to United Daughters of the Confederacy Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jinny Widowski[edit]

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

Reviewing the sources, not a single one is significant coverage contributing to GNG. The first few are primary sources that just mention her name, the next two are about her son, and the rest are mere passing mentions of her name in relation to her position on behalf of United Daughters of the Confederacy in that they released a statement (or in a couple, did not respond to emails). Could be redirected to United Daughters of the Confederacy, but there are zero substantive sources actually about the subject. Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ohio. Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Daughters of the Confederacy: Not notable except in connection to the UDC. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. No SIGCOV in IRS, most material is from primary/non-independent sources.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and redirect to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I didn't find anything substantial - just passing mentions.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted and redirect she fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. --hroest 15:25, 7 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VG sun cumbuco[edit]

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

Repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC for lack of notability, repeatedly created in mainspace. Time to decide once and for all whether this can stay or not. Article as it stands doesn't even make clear what it is about, and sources are promo pieces. Fram (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it's kept, it should be moved to VG Sun Cumbuco, the capitalisation used on the resort's website. Wikishovel (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO and entirely non-notable. I can only find listings either for sale or rent. Guinness records are non-notable and not acceptable for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, this topic does not seem notable. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 6 September 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!} 04:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Gold (company)[edit]

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

No reliable sources provided except for routine coverage and one interview, which is definitely not enough. Delete Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was international coverage at the time of the collapse (e.g. paywalled FT and Economist articles whose detail I cannot see). More visibly, there is a 2018 "Explainer: Amber Gold Affair" (TVP) summary, covering the collapse and its political implications in Poland. AllyD (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to The Economist, if anyone needs the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As well as the semi-visible coverage that I linked above and The Independent article now linked in the article, Wikipedia Library / Proquest finds a Wall Street Journal piece (SOBCZYK, M., 2012, Aug 15. World News: Gold Fund's Collapse Rattles Poland. Wall Street Journal. ISSN 00999660) saying that the company's collapse had "shaken confidence in the effectiveness of the nation's financial regulation, and is roiling national politics in the European Union's largest emerging economy" which is indicative of notability. (I did wonder whether this article might be better titled something like "Amber Gold case", as its significance is more in its fallout than in its active operation, but the crossover with the OLT Express article may be better under the present title.) AllyD (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Finance. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable for a very large corruption scandal. One could consider whether the company is notable outside that event and whether this shouldn't be rewritten to focus on the scandal instead, but probably both are notable. Here are some academic works discussing the company and the incident: journal, journal, [8] (Bachelor thesis), licenciate work, master work, there are others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 6 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR drivers[edit]

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

This list attempts to list NASCAR drivers for all series. It's become bogged down and is overly broad (WP:SALAT), with some sections not being updated for years. Additionally, it cites no sources (WP:LISTPEOPLE), which has been an issue for over a year per the warning template. Additionally, this info already exists and is generally kept updated on each NASCAR season's page. glman (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Motorsport, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. It's unencyclopedic to have a dynamic list only for the latest season. The list should then be split according to season so that the content would not be of a transient nature. However, we already have articles about seasons, which would make this restructuring pointless. Therefore, I lean delete.—Alalch E. 16:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair. If the list were a list of all NASCAR drivers, by series, by year, it would be theoretically better. That would basically be an entirely new page/pages though, and would likely also be massive, unless divided by season. glman (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. While a current list of NASCAR drivers is helpful as a research result, that information can be found in the current seasons Wikipedia page. I believe it would be more helpful to restructure the page into a list of all NASCAR drivers ever, as opposed to this current season only. The lack of sources and lack of updates in multiple sections is another issue with this article. Quantum7021 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's likely useful for readers as a common research ask. Incompleteness is a legitimate issue, but organic development of the list is naturally likely to favor inclusion of noteworthy members while tending to neglect the less noteworthy. Sandizer (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that the list is of the current season, past drivers are removed (theoretically) once the season is over. If the list were of all drivers, I think your argument is valid. glman (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opinion on the deletion of this list but it was created in February 2001 in Wikipedia's very early days by Jimbo Wales and some might find the discussion about it on his talk page interesting. Graham87 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing. Deep history there. glman (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig-ify I agree that the current state isn't worthy of keeping, so I propose making the page into a disambiguation page for lists of drivers by season/country/whatever consensus decides is most useful. Frzzl talk; contribs 10:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this change and be willing to help create new pages. EDIT: or would it fit better as a list of all notable NASCAR drivers of all time, as per User:Quantum7021's suggestion? The current listed then could be other lists. For example, "List of current NASCAR Cup Series drivers". glman (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change as well, with the inclusion that the list is changed to be a full list of all drivers to have competed in the sport, up to and including the current season. All seasons, beginning in 1949, have a section with information relevant to that season, such as the number the driver was in at that time, number of wins, top 5s, tops 10s, etc. Quantum7021 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I worry this would end up too long as well, as we already have a all-time wins list, and many drivers had multiple numbers. Having 75 sections seems far too long and broad for a list. glman (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not believe this should be deleted. An organizational scheme similar to the one present at Lists of National Basketball Association players would probably be better for aiding navigational purposes in this area (Note: List of NBA players redirects there and List of current NBA team rosters is a subtopic).
How we get there isn't particularly important, whether it's by moving this page and restructuring, or redirecting it once an appropriate target is in place, or through a more complex set of actions. Regardless, the title is not inherently unsuitable even as a redirect, so deletion isn't the right action here. I would hope that even if others feel otherwise, and do not believe the page title should exist in mainspace, they would at least consider userfying this or pushing it to some projectspace subpage given the history here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and (potentially) Split: I don't believe it's overly broad, and the list, while perhaps a bit long, can be split for easier maintainability. Secondly, while each NASCAR series season's page has a list of drivers, the way they present the two are very different with this article focusing on the statistics of the driver over simply listing the actual teams. The fact that it's unsourced as of right now is also not a reason to delete as membership can easily be shown by anyone with a search engine. Articles are kept on the existence of sources, mind you. Similarly, the fact that some sections are rarely updated is likewise not a reason for deletion. All these problems are fully surmountable, leading me to vote to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of bills in the 113th United States Congress. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 3584 (113th Congress)[edit]

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

Notability is highly questionable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, Economics, and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bills in the 113th United States Congress. It is certainly no more notable than most bills tabled in the US Congress. I deeply respect that amount of work that has gone into this article, but it just does not meet WP:GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bills in the 113th United States Congress: No content needed to merge and the bill is not independently notable after doing a google search to find sources. Lightoil (talk) 03:00, 9 September 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Sierra League[edit]

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

None of these leagues meet the relevant notability thresholds. It's likely that WP:NCORP applies, but even the lower threshold (in terms of source independence) of WP:GNG is not met here. In fact, none of them have any independent sources that provide significant coverage of the individual leages. Articles included in this nomination per WP:BUNDLE are:

Central Sierra League
County Metro League
East Sequoia League
East Sierra League
East Yosemite League
~~Hi-Lo League~~ Some coverage seems to have been found for this, likely necessitating an individual nomination.
High Desert League (Central Section)
North Sequoia League
North Yosemite League
South Sequoia League
South Yosemite League
Southeast Yosemite League
Southwest Yosemite League
Tri-River League
West Sequoia League
West Sierra League
West Yosemite League

I've taken these from Category:CIF Central Section; if there are any others that belong in this bundle nom, please let me know. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and California. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Yosemite Horizon League. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section: Most of these leagues do not meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. However, there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV about the Hi-Lo League due to the geography of the conference. [[9]][[10]]. Per the previous Afd, redirect all of the others to CIF Central Section. User:Let'srun 16:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California. It then sets a precedent to wipe out this type of content across all the other regions across the country. Each of these leagues carries an equal status of the qualification path to section championships. In theory, over time, eventual champions will be fairly evenly distributed. Some teams and perhaps their leagues will excel under certain conditions for certain periods of time but this includes all sports over an extended period of time, at a minimum this leaguing structure will last a few years but most follow similar structure for decades. Some of these schools have existed and played sports for over a hundred years. All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOV. How can I make such a statement? Because there are newspapers, broadcast media and sports specialty media everywhere in the USA. They want to sell their content. Sports is a staple of news content. Any media wishing to claim local significance has to cover the local high school sports teams, each of which will participate in these leagues across a variety of sports for championships year after year. The content has to exist. Under WP:N it would be called "presumed." Since I don't know this area well, I Googled a random league. I took Southeast Yosemite League. Here's [11] a Bakersfield Californian article about the relatively short history of this league and the long term build up to its formation. MaxPreps defines the league for football here [12]. Here's [13] baseball coverage, cross country and track coverage [14], basketball coverage [15]. And here is the wider metastasis. A kid from the league goes to college and plays in Missouri, so they mention the league in which he was a leader [16] and note this is from a previous incarnation of the league with different team structure. There are pages of results under the league name which can be found with very little effort. WP:BEFORE says before you delete, put in the effort to look. It's there. If you don't feel there are enough sources in each article, use your editing skills to put it in for your own satisfaction, rather than taking an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understand. I suggest this entire nomination be removed. Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackinfo That Bakersfield Californian article looks like WP:SIGCOV to me, but it's not enough to meet WP:GNG on its own. Your comment suggests to me that expanding the content at CIF Central Section with that source and splitting into a stand-alone article if additional coverage is identified in the future is a very reasonable path forward. Can you say more about why you oppose a redirect here? Suriname0 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section I agree with Let'srun that these don't meet WP:GNG, except possibly for Hi-Lo League which has significantly more coverage. As such, Hi-Lo League should be considered separately, but nothing is lost from redirecting all the others. If any of the others are found to meet WP:GNG in the future, they can always be recreated then and only then. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the redirect arguments are technically correct, I'm finding Trackinfo's IAR argument very compelling. I am not recalling the specifics, but we had a similar discussion about athletic conferences in a Great Lakes state several years ago that closed as a Keep. Google isn't the end of the available information as we all know. High school athletic programs in general are subject of great interest to the general public (at least in the US and Canada) and are generally covered very well in local media. Conferences are the framework of most of the competition. Things like foundation, termination, schools joining and leaving are going to be covered in some depth by the local paper and in most cases will get a mention in the state athletic authority's newsletter or blog and may even be the subject of a short blurb in USA Today or The Sporting News. In a practical sense, having articles on athletic conferences allows us to report athletic history in individual school articles more completely without cluttering them up with what are in the worldview minor information. We can just link to the conference article for that. In almost every case, it is possible to provide the readers with considerable verifiable information on, for example, yearly championships referenced back to the conference's website.

So, the TLDR version of the above is: there's a weak Keep argument based on presumption of local coverage and a compelling IAR argument based on utility. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I carried out searches for these nominations, but I also based this nomination on 1. the deletion of the referenced previous AfD and 2. my assumption that the situation would be substantially identical for all these cases. It's already been shown that at least one of the nominations shouldn't be considered with this nom, so I struck that out in the list above. I weighed the benefits of individual noms against the very high workload that those individual noms would have put on the limited resources of AfD. If it turns out that there is substantial difference between these leagues in terms of notability, individual nominations may be necessary, though.

I'd also like to address what Trackinfo said.

This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California.

I don't quite understand the accusatory tone of this. Large swaths of articles on inappropriate topics are frequently created (primarily by new editors) and often subsequently deleted if the community finds them to be inappropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory. The argument that All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOV directly contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and editor analysis that a subject will certainly become notable in the future is unverifiable. Calling this nomination an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understand is unduly accusatory and hardly civil. I understand your argument, and the bundling of these nominations may not have been the best way to go. But it was well-intentioned, and I would appreciate some civility as we figure out how to proceed with this. Thanks for your work and your time. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I am adding sources to all of these articles. Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know when you are done. So far I don't see any WP:SIGCOV on any of these articles. Let'srun (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 1 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trkaj[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I can't find much significant coverage. Maintenance tags since 2010. Qcne (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sustained coverage in the Slovenian language article, which could be used to improve here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b A09 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 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 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Sutton[edit]

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

There is no independent significant coverage that meets the requirements set out at WP:GNG. All I can find is, he was twice caught in the news. First, for his involvement with some land deals that reached litigation that just happened to involve a football club, which is what the news was actually interested in. And second, when it was found that a block of flats that had gone viral for its "squalid" conditions was owned by him. I feel silly having to say this, but neither one, nor both together, should be enough to qualify a person for an encyclopedia entry, even one as inclusive as ours. Also, we should not be creating an article about otherwise non-notable people to list out bad things about them which were not severe enough to make them famous and result in massive court cases that find them guilty. And he is otherwise non-notable. Remove those two incidents, and we are left with zero secondary sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:23, 1 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Monde[edit]

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

Merge with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_in_the_Netherlands Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Arts, Journalism, News media, Photography, Entertainment, Health and fitness, Products, Fashion, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Netherlands. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given why this sourced article should be destroyed or merged. The Banner talk 13:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also procedural keep. I can hold and express both positions as the outcome will be the same. No valid reason for deleting was provided. User has a history of nominating articles without rationale. The article is at start status and no article on Pijper Media exists. The list of magazines in the Netherlands is really for outgoing links, and only a last resort for incoming ones. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I disagree with Gidonb's rationale and the idea that the nom must have been inappropriate, but the sources seem okay (I can't read Dutch) and the fact that the article has seen recent interest and improvement (from Gidonb, good job) leads me to think we should give it some time. I'd like to see things about its circulation and cultural impact. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 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. One critical source seems to be about another person entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed El Amine Hammia[edit]

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

No evidence of wp:notability under eiother GNG or n:sports. Sources are just database listings. Tagged for this since May. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - this source offers significant coverage in Arabic, and other coverage can be found here, here, here, and probably a whole lot more in Arabic-language sources. He has made hundreds of appearances in top-level football in Algeria, clearly a notable figure in Algerian football. Resounding keep. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then why don't you put those sources into the article? North8000 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the sources in the article is completely irrelevant and I have no obligation to waste my time for an article you nominated for deletion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the sources to demonstrate the subject's notability, here, in the AfD discussion. I have shown you the sources that make the subject pass GNG. I don't have to add them to the article. You can do that if you want, but I have no such obligation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still say "If so, then why don't you put those sources into the article?" That what Wikipedia is all about, editors put in sources and build articles from them. North8000 (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is also about editors doing a proper WP:BEFORE instead of wasting other editors' time with an AfD about a footballer who made over 300 top-level appearances. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the main purpose and thing of value being created. Not one of the other 5,000 things in guidelines, essays, suggestions, policies. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that making demands of people who disagree with the deletion of an article one has nominated for deletion is a bit rich when one hasn't performed due diligence before nomination. Paul Vaurie has as much of an obligation of adding the sources they found to the article as you do – that is: none. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything about obligation except you two. Wikipedia:VOLUNTARY applies to all, including to my suggestions.North8000 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think most English-speaking people would not read then why don't you put those sources into the article? as a mere suggestion but as accusatory. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My last post was basically responding to your post which said that I said that it was an obligation and I basically was saying that I never said that. My post said "suggestion"; you added "mere" in describing my post. It was a suggestion that instead of criticizing the volunteer who reviewed it and claiming that there are sources in Arabic, it would be better to both settle it and help the article by putting the sources that they described in rather than giving me grief. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that Echorouk Al Yawmi article is about a different Mohamed Amine Hamia ([17]), and I don't believe it would be in-depth coverage if it did actually cover this footballer as it just names the leading goal-scorers through 11 rounds of the 2016-17 season with very little background. I found an interesting article in Al-Ahram ([18]) that is essentially a match report/match preview, but it's not simply routine coverage as it shows an competing club paying attention to Hammia in the 2018-19 CAF Champions League group stage. I suspect there's more to find, but I'll have to dig a bit. Jogurney (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I checked the other three articles you linked and they are also about the other footballer (not the Hammia who has played most of his career with JSS). @GiantSnowman you may want to reconsider your !vote since none of Paul Vaurie's linked sources above cover the subject of this article. Jogurney (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show (AGFing here) notability. Also I will add the sources in, it's not difficult... Giant Snowman 20:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jogurney's re-analysis. Giant Snowman 21:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Clealry singificant figure in Algerian football, almost 300 appearnces in the flly pro ALgerian leagues... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know that making 300 appearances in football matches doesn't provide a presumption of notability (check WP:NSPORTS2022 if you need a refresher), so why are you mentioning it? Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem we have enough sourcing to demonstrate the player meets GNG. I'd expect there might be something else out there, but until I see it, I'll stick with delete. Ping me if anything else emerges. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 13:39, 8 September 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, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Zavhorodniy[edit]

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

No content or evidence of wp:notability under either GNG or N:Sports. Tagged for this since July North8000 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - slight coverage found here, but I could find nothing else online, tried searching his name in Ukrainian too. However, he did play in the second tier of Ukraine, so I would like to see if more sources can be found by Ukrainian users. From what I can analyze right now, weak delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie, that source is from a governing sports org of the subject and so isn't independent anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, this topic does not seem notable. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:47, 5 September 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 Disambiguate.‎. There is consensus that converting this to a DAB is appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-person adventure[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not really a distinct genre. During a short interval in the early 2000s it appears that this phrase circulated a little bit, but overall, nowadays, such games are categorized as action-adventure games. The notion of this hybrid genre named in this way this also conflicts with how a game like Myst is not a "first-person adventure" (a game of this hybrid genre, i.e. a first-person action adventure), but at the same time it is a first-person adventure (a first person adventure game, and it is often described using those words). Sourcing is lacking. Fails WP:GNG as a term. —Alalch E. 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to walking simulator - from the sources I've seen, most uses of the term are to describe such games, not Metroid Prime-like titles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: what do you think about this dab proposal:

'''First-person adventure''' refers to the following types of video games:
* First-person adventure as an [[adventure game]], played from a first-person perspective
** First-person adventure as an adventure game of the [[walking simulator]] subgenre of such games, played from a first-person perspective
* First-person adventure as an [[action-adventure game]] that combines first-person shooter elements with adventure game elements

—Alalch E. 16:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not mind that either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: Commenting to say that the verbiage used in the proposal does seem to be veering on the side of WP:OR. How did you assess the DAB list entries? Would those pages make mention of the genres being "first-person" adventure games? As it stands, none of those three articles really highlight the first-person aspect, although there is a "Category:First-person adventure games" which could possibly come in handy. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Would those pages make mention of the genres being "first-person" adventure games? The DAB proposal doesn't call "First-person adventure" a genre, as it isn't a genre. Player perspective (first-person, third-person etc.) is not a defining characteristic of a genre when adventure games are concerned. Two of the three dabbed articles do say as much, mentioning the attribute "first-person" to say that there are such games in this player perspective, among others (emphasis mine in examples):

Graphic adventures are adventure games that use graphics to convey the environment to the player. Games under the graphic adventure banner may have a variety of input types, from text parsers to touch screen interfaces. Graphic adventure games will vary in how they present the avatar. Some games will utilize a first-person or third-person perspective where the camera follows the player's movements, whereas many adventure games use drawn or pre-rendered backgrounds, or a context-sensitive camera that is positioned to show off each location to the best effect.
— Adventure game#Graphic adventure
Comment: This was the target of the former redirect; the links to the redirect in articles directed players to the content that explains the classic adventure genre, as was intended, but this was broken with the restoration of the content usurping this relationship and causing nonsensical linking, see my comment further down

They are distinct from graphic adventures, which sometimes have free-moving central characters, but also a wider variety of commands and fewer or no action game elements and are distinct too from text adventures, characterized by many different commands introduced by the user via a complex text parser and no free-moving character. While they share general gameplay dynamics, action-adventures vary widely in the design of their viewpoints, including bird's eye, side-scrolling, first-person, third-person, over-the-shoulder, or even a 3/4 isometric view.
— Action-adventure

/no mention of "first-person", but it should be added/
— Walking simulator.
Comment: It is not original research to say that walking simulators may have a first-person perspective. The article fails to mention this, but it should really be mentioned, as it is more of a prominent characteristic of walking simulators then of adventure games in general and of action-adventures. The games the article takes as examples are adventure games with a first-person perspective: Dear Esther (that article: "Dear Esther is an adventure video game" /fails to mention the first-person perspective/), The Stanley Parable (that article: "The Stanley Parable is a story-based video game /vague about the genre/ ... The player has a first-person perspective, ...), Gone Home (that article: "Gone Home is a first-person adventure video game"), The Vanishing of Ethan Carter (that article: "... is a 2014 horror adventure" /fails to mention the first-person perspective/), Firewatch (that article: "Firewatch is an adventure game played from a first-person").
Sources that discuss the first-person and the third-person perspective in walking simulators:
Kunzelman, Cameron (29 March 2022). "Behold the birth, and resonance, of walking simulators". Washington Post.
Penabella, Miguel (27 October 2015). "Why are we so afraid to walk?". Kill Screen.

Cheers—Alalch E. 10:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: Hello! Firstly, I didn't intend that "first-person" was included in the genre. To my understanding, the genre is "adventure games", and "first-person" is the modifier.

When I bring up the current WP:OR, it says in the proposal that: First-person adventure refers to the following types of video games. I'm mainly just asking the question of: is there any evidence to suggest that "first-person adventure" is what ANY of these types of games are referred to as, and whether this referral has any basis beyond "it's an adventure game that is in first-person, therefore it's a first-person adventure [game]". None of the articles refer to any variations being described as a "first person adventure", nor is there any coverage about the significance of an adventure game BEING in first-person besides passing mentions that they can be [in first-person], which is akin to most other game genres.

In the first source you linked for the walking simulator portion, "first-person" was only brought up once as a passing mention. In the second source, it is talked about a lot more extensively, but it calls this topic a "first-person walker", which is at least specific for walking simulator games and could possibly exist as a redirect. Still though, my concern is that none of these adventure game articles really cover the "first-person" nature apart from passing mentions tucked among a collection of camera angles and perspectives. Would there be a difference between this and third-person adventure, or side-scrolling adventure, or 3D adventure? (3D adventure happens to already have a dedicated subsection at the adventure game page). In any event, my point is that I don't think a DAB page with this title is going to be very useful for finding relevant content, because it's not a topic that is really discussed in detail on any of these pages, nor is there much to suggest that "first-person adventure" is a significant description of anything beyond an adventure game with a first-person perspective. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article was recently restored after the conclusion of this RfD which closed yesterday (September 1st) at the time of writing. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay, Steel1943, A7V2, 2NumForIce, J947, Pppery, Jc37, Freedom4U, Skarmory, CycloneYoris, and Edward-Woodrow: You have participated in the RfD which restored this article over the redirect, and the article is now nominated for deletion (which was also suggested in the RfD, but note that all participants have been pinged), so you may want to weigh in on deleting or keeping the article; other options include finding a better target in this AfD and converting the page into a DAB.—Alalch E. 15:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should also be aware that restoration introduced multiple entirely inappropriate links to articles about adventure games played from the first-person perspective such that the reader is informed that, say a game like Amerzone is a first-person shooter–adventure hybrid when it has nothing whatsover to do with shooters (see also this diff; and another example; and another). So the RfD made a mess. —Alalch E. 15:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment. If no one has any objections I will withdraw this nomination in cca 24h and will boldly perform the edit that changes the page to a disambiguation page according to the above proposal (and if someone should subsequently oppose that, it will be handled outside of AfD).—Alalch E. 18:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DAB sounds good to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned the article to its roots. After doing some research I was able to definitively conclude that this was originally a fan-POV article about one tiny aspect of Metroid Prime. See the original revision from 2004. It was due to sheer confusion and name ambiguity that editors began editing it as if it was about anything else, which is when it mutated to be about nothing really. Seeing that it was truly terrible, it was redirected and this redirect was semantically repurposed to target an entirely different topic (a mention of the first-person perspective in our coverage of classic adventure games), but the RfD nominator, participants, and closer, not understanding that the redirect was somewhat justifiably repurposed in this sense, seeing its more recent history whereby the blanked content was about a supposed genre, and seeing how this supposed topic did not match the topic at the target, restored this terrible content over the redirect, reinstating the article. Erroneously, as what resulted was a bunch of wrong links, which I cleaned up. Now that it's clear what this article's subject actually is, a non-notable phrase, I as nominator stick to my initial deletion nomination, but, a redirect to Metroid#2002–2009: Metroid Prime and Game Boy Advance games (contains the following mention: Nintendo stressed that it was not a first-person shooter but a "first-person adventure".) could be a valid ATD. I no longer intend to pursue proposed DABbing, but I am not against it either. —Alalch E. 14:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What it originally was has less than zero bearing on what should be done with it now. Many pages on Wikipedia were originally something else. It's preferable to move the original and start fresh if the page was a legitimate subtopic of something, but this was not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support dabbing. igordebraga ≠ 16:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: I'm actually surprised that walking simulator discusses this category of games, and the content doesn't appear here. It strikes me as an error as this is the name for the genre that doesn't carry negative connotations, as per WP:NPOV and WP:ARTICLETITLES. But instead of fighting for several moves/renames, disambiguation is a good first step. I'd expect this to give me the information seen at walking simulator, and there may be some people who expect it to refer to more action-adventure games that are played from first person. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate or redirect in the alternative. There is at least one secondary source, but it's not significant coverage. There is potential for ongoing use, so I would not delete outright. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Is the obvious choice here. No meaning itself but several implied meanings. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:02, 9 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ojirehprime[edit]

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

Article fails the notability guidelines for corporations the sources available are most paid sources. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Reading Beans (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://techcabal.com/2023/07/10/ojirehprime-partners-with-onfido-to-improve-customer-onboarding/	The author "Partner" indicates that it was paid for	~	✘ No
https://techcabal.com/2023/07/10/ojirehprime-introduces-new-savings-feature/	ditto		✘ No
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/ceo-who-slept-on-lagos-streets-set-to-complete-21m-funding/	?		? Unknown
https://nairametrics.com/2022/04/20/ojirehprime-launches-digital-bank-with-interest-free-loans/	The author "N.M. Partners" indicates that it was paid for.		✘ 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)).

Delete: Google turns up around a dozen of news articles about Ojirehprime, more than half of them being from TechCabal and TechInAfrica, two seemingly paid news. The Blue Rider ✉ 11:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reading Beans' source analysis.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, this topic does not seem notable. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:48, 5 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edoka Idoko[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the general notability guidelines for living persons. First sources is an interview, second is a paid press release (Partner at TechCabal is for paid articles), the others from Business Day relies solely on what he said AND they were written by the same author, so, I don’t know make out whatever you can. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, This on Nigerian Tribune is obviously a promo piece. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reading Beans' source analysis.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the TechCabal source is a paid promotion, the Business Day sources are PRs leaving the article with no source to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo piece for unnotable person. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:49, 5 September 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) Reading Beans (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Yadav[edit]

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

I don't find this person notable. The article doesn't speak for itself. I previously moved the article to draftspace so that the creator can develop it undisturbed. They removed the AFC tag, moved it back to mainspace and pretended as if it was accepted via AFC. To avoid a move war, I am bringing it here. Citations also don't look reliable. In a nutshell, it fails WP:GNG Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide me for the this article from your end, [[19]] added multiple numbers of independent sources to improve this. --ServerCSS (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You made the right call by coming to AfD after the draftification was contested. The subject passes WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator. The sourcing is a little rough, but I don't see anything too bad to the point it warrants a WP:TNT (WP:DINC). Curbon7 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article should be moved to Pawan Kumar Yadav, which is his WP:COMMONNAME; that title is currently blacklisted due to sockpuppetry from many years ago, but seems fien for use now. Curbon7 (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article, should look much better now. Curbon7 (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 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. Other than the nominator, there was a single delete vote, a single redirect vote and 3 keeps. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigrannies[edit]

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

Nominated here because PROD was contested.

Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion apply to articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedians as much as any other. As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of. The PROD was removed entirely legitimately but only (I assert) because a PROD can be removed for any reason – the explanation given included It's a very notable group that plays great role in promoting Wikimedia Movement and Wikimedia Values wolrdwide. More over, this effort counters the m:Gender Gap which is one of the biggest tasks for the movement, which clearly points to a COI and a non-neutral point of view – those are not of themselves valid reasons for retaining the article.

Notability is neither inherent or inherited. For the group to be notable, significant, independent and reliable coverage of the group itself is required. What I see is riding on the coattails of Wikipedia’s notability. The article should therefore be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see references from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Komsomolskaya Pravda, among others. I think the references already present in the article are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Free Europe article appears to be about someone who has created an automated Bashkir language poetry generator and which briefly says this group was asked to help. The Pravda article appears to be describing an initiative by the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs (Russia) to preserve Russian languages and I think it is recognising the Bashkir Wikipedia and this group as part of that. I agree these are both reliable sources independent of the subject, which is part of the WP:GNG requirement. Neither of these articles is about this group and I certainly do not see evidence that the first is anything like the also-required significant coverage. I had also discounted the second but maybe a Russian expert could help assess it better. Even so, WP:GNG says that multiple sources are generally expected and I am not yet persuaded that the group itself is notable. And given the inherent WP:COI, notability has to be beyond doubt, IMO. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is an urge to attack grannies? Wikimedia Movement values urges us to be generous and to develop Wikimedia Movement. Wikipedia has no firm rules and Wikipedia is not in favour of gaming the system. You are trying to delete grannies no matter what (despite ~20 sources present in the innocent article). You are trying to fetch all possible rules just to delete, delete, delete -- this totally contradicts with WP:SPIRIT of Wikipedia. I have a feeling that you treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD which is strictly prohibited. ssr (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm supposed to be neutral but this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very bad that we have users that produce such nominations instead of normal creation works for Wikimedia Movement. -- ssr (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - if possible to the page on wikimedia 1 JMWt (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an encyclopedia article while this is an encyclopedia article as it should be. -- ssr (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm glad groups like this exist, but the coverage is not significant enough to meet the bar of the general notability guideline.~T P W 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there IS coverage, and more than once and more than twice. This is fairly enough for creation work and there is no need to fight that. There are legitimate articles with only 1 source, and here we have ~20 sources. As a Wikipedian, you should support and praise that. This is for the goals of Wikimedia Movement. By putting efforts into deletion of it you and others go against global Wikimedia Movement. Why do so? Why go against global Wikimedia Movement and struggle to remove? To save server space? To punish me? To punish grannies? -- ssr (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you remain civil. An article existing because "it's a part of a global movement" isn't a reason itself to keep the article, nor is the 20 sources (WP:NOTEBOMB, WP:MASK, quality over quantity).

I'm remaining neutral, but As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of... seems 'silly', almost like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human. Nobody is being "punished" here, we're attempting to achieve consensus. NotAGenious (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As user Liz said above — "this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD". Bringing this to AfD was really silly, so we have to talk silly talks here. I would recommend cacelling the nomination so we are not forced to silly talks. 20 sources is a very sure reason to keep the article. "Quality over quantity", you say? That's excellent, let's work on quality! But we have to keep the article before that. -- ssr (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A conflict of interest to be aware of"—no doubt. Well, we are aware. But this is not a reason for deletion! Some fixes? More text? Point me out all the issues with the text so we can work on it. But the article should be kept in any way. Promoting Wikimedia Movement is a goal for ALL OF US. This kind of activity is (and should be) encouraged by the commnuity. Conflicts should be fixed, but movement should be promoted in any possible ways: so that keeping the article is a way to promote movement (article is notable and sourced enough), and deleting the article is a way to harm the movement. Why should we harm the movement? I won't do that. -- ssr (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Liz evaluated the case absolutely correctly: this was really "a silly subject to bring to AFD". User:Dorsetonian did really a silly thing. Please keep the article and ask him to do no more things like this. All this is counter-Wikipedian activity. This should be stopped immediately. Please do it. --ssr (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I might support having articles like this on the project, that highlight the work of groups of editors, I think think this was a good faith AFD nomination and Dorsetonian did nothing wrong. I can oppose the deletion of an article while still acknowledging that AFD is an important part of reviewing articles to determine what we think should be main space material. As I have my own opinion on this one, I'll let another closer handle assessing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not fame or noteworthiness. Notability is a construct. This group gained media attention because of their association with Wikipedia. They inherited noteworthiness from Wikipedia. This led to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This coverage means that the subject is notable. It doesn't matter why it's notable, once it's notable it's notable. See Category:Wives and girlfriends of association football players to see how it works.—Alalch E. 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One more solid piece of IRS SIGCOV would be sufficient for me. Here's my source analysis: 1. encyclopedia.ru: passing mention in what appears to be a group blog. 2. resbash.ru: some background on the topic, but most of it is an interview with a member about Bashkir wiki-volunteering in general. 3. zdf.de: video that throws an error code. 4. bashgazet.ru: about editing Bashkortostan Wikipedia in general, no apparent mention of "Wiki-Grannies". 5. udmdunne.ru: announcement for a Ural wiki-seminar, no mention of topic. 6. chaskor.ru: passing mention. 7. kp.ru: mentioned in half a sentence. 8. ru.wikinews.org: not independent. 9. gosvopros.ru: substantial coverage. 10. gosvopros.ru: coverage by the same outlet and author as #9. 11. prufy.ru: mostly interview material. 12. bashinform.ru: passing mention. 13. ru.wikipedia.org: not independent. 14. kazanfirst.ru: Q&A interview, not independent/secondary. 15. bashinform.ru: mention in a quote, not secondary or SIGCOV. 16. idelreal.org: mention in a quote, not secondary or SIGCOV

JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis. ZDF video appears to be broken, but it existed. Maybe there is a way to get that video. There are probably also Russian and Bashkir videos from VGTRK, but I so far failed to search them (they are from on-air TV). As for "8. ru.wikinews.org: not independent" — yes, not independent, but reliable and original. It was written directly in English (and Tatar/Baskkir) by Farhad Fatkullin, who is not independent, but is very familiar with the subject and is realiable as a source because he can be trusted in terms of factual accuracy and other types of relevance. -- ssr (talk) 09:54, 7 September 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. Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Horcones[edit]

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

Massive number of footnotes, but only one of them covers the subject directly in any detail. The article is full of excessive detail about Skinner's work, which allows for many more footnotes. This was previously proposed for deletion, or I would have gone that route. ~T P W 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 1 September 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 Kushwaha. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kushwah[edit]

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

This is just another pronunciation of Kushwaha. And a long surname article exists for that, with a few reliable sources that a social group uses that surname in India. That article aso contains the four individuals listed here. Hence it needs to be deleted.-Admantine123 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kushwaha. Jay 💬 06:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 6 September 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 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W35DW-D[edit]

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

Another DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with no significant coverage anywhere, and not much to speak of in general (despite the attempt to represent the 2011 CP grant date as its "sign on", it was only licensed in 2021). (This is another station that was part of the failed bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate station articles that intermingled stations like this one with facilities that may have, if not more notability, at least more substantial histories.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This station is a complete waste of electricity, engineering, tower construction resources, and filespace on the FCC's servers, and it's doubtful the public hasn't spared a thought about it (it now carries only one channel full of infomercials because two Ion stations carry Grit and its parent company killed its affiliation). Nate • (chatter) 22:35, 3 September 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. Limited participation after 3 relistings means this is closing as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Vine[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. The only sources I could find were his own website and a British Music Collection biography of him, the rest are mirrors. There were also 2? reviews from The Guardian, but at least the other one looked like a passing mention only. Perhaps a redirect to Royal Northern College of Music under 'Notable alumni' or 1974 in British music under 'Births'? NotAGenious (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. NotAGenious (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't remember why this person is on my watchlist, but here I am, not involved in the article writing. I found a review of a concert in Wigmore Hall (!) - possibly the one you allude to - which tells me the person deserves an article, and the suggested redirects make little sense to me. I won't have time until next week to look further. I added the review and another and the usual places (Discogs, AllMusic, IMDb) to the external links. Feel free to use. - I found now why he is on my watchlist: because I added a link to an ensemble in 2012. - Please add invitations to projects Classical musi and Composers if you haven't already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Might meet criterion 1 for notability of composers. "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Seems to be the case with Radius (see Guardian review of the piece, currently on the page). Also works with the London Sinfonietta (see here) (NB-the same link was provided in the nomination above) (and this).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC) PS-Redirect to Royal Northern College of Music#Notable alumni may also be OK, I suppose. Just added a source there.[reply]
Keep based on the commissions for the London Sinfonietta and ensemble recherche, favorable reviews from The Guardian, and passing coverage in a collection of other sources. However the article has a promotional tone and the original creator might have WP:COI, so it should be updated if possible. - Indefensible (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the available reference material would be helpful. Discussion of what the person has done is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 1 September 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. I'm closing this as No consensus as I don't anticipate more participation happening here. Still some unanswered concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Pokémon Journey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep / Keep Seems to be in line with other "Ciao" / Japanese manga articles and is a manga from a major series. Does need to be cleaned up and potentially have references added - I'm assuming that the language barrier has prevented some citations that would otherwise confer notability. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previous 2 AFDs were closed as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the 2 sources discussed in the previous AFD. Merging this into Pokemon (manga) or another target would probably be more work for little benefit frankly. - Indefensible (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 1 September 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 Boko Haram insurgency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Toumour attacks[edit]

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

No sustained significant coverage. Two disparate events as part of a larger conflict. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for this to have an article split off from Boko Haram insurgency or List of massacres in Nigeria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boko Haram insurgency: No need for this article to exist. This was a one time event that did not have much/none at all media coverage. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boko Haram insurgency. Functionally a stub for something that does not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:SUSTAINED. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boko Haram insurgency: News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Parham wiki (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Washington, D.C., block party shooting[edit]

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

No sustained significant coverage. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Washington, D.C.. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks long-term significance. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean no disrespect for the people who suffered from this tragedy, but no long-term significance resulted from it. Perhaps once the perpetrators are finally caught and convicted, however, the article could be recreated. TH1980 (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TH1980. At the very least, it is WP:TOOSOON to tell whether it has lasting notability. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:41, 4 September 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 04:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Schläffer[edit]

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

I initially only tagged this for notability, but then I realized that this article is entirely created through two single-purpose accounts. I'm now more confident no reliable sources will be turned up. ~T P W 17:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 17:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all sections of this article are supported by reliable sources. the deletion discussion should be closed. Verify.now (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is better than some professional profiles we get, but not by much. There is a specific claim to notability buried toward the end: "In 2007, Schlaeffer was recognized as a "Young Global Leader" by the World Economic Forum." so I might be swayed, but overall, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siro χ o 04:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, this topic does not seem notable. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:52, 5 September 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 99% Invisible episodes[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Article was redirected after PROD, but no content was merged nor mentioned at the target. There was also an unsuccessful attempt at WP:BLARring the page in 2020. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination and WP:LISTN. Nothing to suggest any of these are notable, or as a group, as generally podcast episodes aren't. The external link provided contains all this anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773, I'm curious where you get the idea that a list of podcast episodes isn't generally considered notable. I expect readers of the encyclopedia would likely disagree. Is there a policy or previous consensus specific to this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: there was a RfC on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting/Archive_12#RfC_on_podcast_episode_lists. However, the discussion had low participation. I've intended on opening a new RfC, but I haven't gotten around to it. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It looks like the only thing accomplished in this discussion was a determination that if a list of episodes fits in the article, that's where it should go. In this case, the list is clearly too large so we have to rely on WP:LISTN which, by my reading, would indicate a list of episodes for any podcast that is distributed on the standard platforms is notable. You find these lists on Spotify Apple, Google, etc. which I would consider reliable sources for this purpose (not necessarily for the information in the lists but for the fact that a list of episodes is something important to report for these podcasts). One could make a WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument but I don't have a clear understanding of how WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN interact. I'm still undecided but that's enough Wikilawyering for me today. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:NLIST's general guideline [20][21][22]. Also please note that even beyond that, per NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and this is an informational list that is split out of the main article. I don't see a need to delete this list. —siro χ o 04:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with siroχo's argument Newystats (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I lean toward delete for most podcast episode lists, especially if the podcast doesn't have an overarching storyline. Personally, I've interpreted WP:NLIST to mean that reliable secondary sources have to actually discuss the episodes as a group rather than simply listing them like Apple Podcasts or other syndicating platforms. There are some sources that do this for 99% Invisible such as Podcast Review and Timeout and there are others that comment on the number of episodes such as this piece in The Guardian. There are also individual episodes that appear to be independently notable. For instance, the episode about missing-children milk cartons called "Milk Carton Kids" has coverage in The A.V. Club, The Atlantic, and PodCastle.There are various other episodes that have also received coverage such as "The Sound of the Artificial World" in Slate, "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out" in The A.V. Club, and "The Known Unknown" in IndieWire. However, I'm not sure if two sources discussing the episodes as a group, one episode that is arguably notable, and a few other sources about individual episodes is really enough to warrant a list for over 500 episodes. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:LISTN per my rambling above and examples provided by Siroxo. ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Bbb23‎. (non-admin closure) Lightoil (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morris–Putnam point[edit]

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

This looks like a hoax to me. Before requesting a speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, I would like to have a couple of opinions and probably share some good laughs. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the 2 external links at the bottom of the article pretty much tell you everything you need to know.

The image file on Commons says it was produced by Chaze Michael Michaels - a possible relative of Chazz Michael Michaels?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with above, hoax, nice find. —siro χ o 04:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow, not caught for 14.4 years! So many funny lines in there too. This one belongs in the WP:HOAXLIST for sure. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps even funnier is the number of editors who made minor revisions to the article, presumably without looking too long at it. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winibian Peralta[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least 14 caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a lack of GNG-passing sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Bally[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above, unfortunately the person is not notable on their own. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:54, 5 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReVanced[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, the only reliable coverage I could find is [23]. The article should be redirected to YouTube Vanced, as it is only barely notable as Vanced's successor. Yeeno (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Probably) - As an independent app I agree that it has essentially no real "coverage" (many apps don't, and many apps also don't get wikipedia pages). I'm unclear on if the "ReVanced" app is developed by any of the same members, as if it was it might actually make more sense for the "YouTube Vanced" article to be renamed ReVanced as it would essentially be a name and logistical change of a continuous project. However if none of the developers or team have any stake in this new app, then I would consider it a functionally separate entity in terms of dictating article notability and thus agree to delete this page.A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Mino already said, for programs in general there are few "news" articles, unless there is some controversy surrounding that topic. For that reason I believe that the standard of what counts as a source for significant coverage should not be as high set for software as it might be for more traditional entities. After all, Wikipedia isn't meant to just be a mirror or collection of "news" articles.

I think notability is proven by the roughly 3 million users this project currently has and by the astonishing amount of copy-cat sites that attempt to impersonate ReVanced for monetary gain or malicious interest. I see value in having Wikipedia as a trusted source to affirm what the actual website is, as it is more accessible and readable than GitHub.

As for the heavy reliance on primary sources: This is essentially unavoidable as any publication could also only ever rely on ReVanced as the primary source for information like the size of the userbase for example. Taku1101 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taku1101: There is an essay detailing how the notability guideline can be applied to software at Wikipedia:Notability (software); the criteria it uses still depend on the existence of reliable third-party sources, because WP:Notability applies to all articles, and it says: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Unfortunately, there really isn't a way around this, regardless of how you think things should be. Notability also isn't determined by a WP:BIGNUMBER, nor is it WP:INHERITED from Vanced, so we need reliable third-party sources to determine notability. While I understand the concern about fakes, Wikipedia isn't the place to solve that issue, as, again, we are dependent on what reliable independent sources say; per WP:SELFSOURCE, primary sources are only used for self-descriptive information such as an app's website or version number, and cannot be used to support notability. Yeeno (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and accept the arguments that you have presented above but further reading on WP:RS and specifically WP:QUESTIONABLE leaves me confused on the matter of what is actually to be considered a reliable source. More specifically, you mentioned the article by TF to be the only reliable coverage you could find. But what makes that coverage by TF a reliable source compared to the coverage by gizchina or tarnkappe.info? Taku1101 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taku1101: What makes a source reliable is mostly detailed on WP:SOURCE, and editors regularly discuss the reliability of sources based on these criteria; the results of such discussions can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In this case, TorrentFreak was noted for it often being cited in mainstream media, i.e., other reliable sources. On the other hand, most blogs are not cited in other reliable sources for various reasons, so it would be harder to treat them as reliable sources of information. Yeeno (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well on that matter, I'd probably start a discussion on a site like tarnkappe.info as it seems to me on first and second glance to fall into the reliable category. I'm somewhat less sure about gizchina. I don't know as to how this would be handled then, considering that WP:RSPMISSING denotes that the absence of the source in question on the list does not make implications in regards to it's reliability. I cannot find further guidance on how this would be treated in a discussion about AfD on the basis of a lack of WP:RS, given that it is the central point in favor of deletion. Taku1101 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see a single RS with coverage of this subject, TorrentFreak, [24][25], and even those two articles together don't offer much SIGCOV. I slightly disagree with the nom's proposed redirect, as it's a separate piece of software, and separate project, but I cannot think of a better WP:ATD and there's brief coverage in the target article. —siro χ o 05:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I don't feel like TorrentFreak is reliable, but if it is, still not enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:22, 1 September 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!} 03:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behind Closed Doors (book)[edit]

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

Behind Closed Doors is not something that is needs an article. Every animated production has drawings like the ones seen in this book. Anything between Popeye to Rugrats has had vile pictures drawn by staff, this is just another to add to the pile. Not only is it unncessary, but it also lacks sufficient documentation. Only one reference to this book (might I add without any details) has been discovered that predates the book's leak by YouTuber LSuperSonicQ. Every other reference is written about that video, and no new information comes from them because of it. We don't know enough about this book to be given proper coverage, and again, even if it did, it does not stand out from any of the other books and artwork of its nature. With this logic, the Rugrats storyboard jam "Incredible" (which is of a very similar nature and includes vile drawings of children's characters) should also have an article. This is only been given social significance due to its falsified popularity online, and in reality has no actual historical significance outside of any other animated production. Ziggycashmere (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, and Sexuality and gender. • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD rationale does not make sense, "other stuff exists" isn't relevant, if something has coverage that meets GNG it doesn't matter if its one of a thousand similar works.★Trekker (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seconding StarTrekker's comment, several reliable sources have covered Behind Closed Doors. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with questions how does the recency of coverage and/or the source of the release affect something if it is covered in reliable sources? In terms of the former surely it isn't our job to decide what is a flash in the pan that will be forgotten about in 3 months time and what might become - for want of a better term for a book of dirty cartoons - a lasting point of interest? I do agree with StarTrekker that the likelihood that most other shows also have such books made by the staff somehow makes this one non-notable; follow that line to its' logical end and it's "why bother having an article on Pelé when there are loads of footballers?". If Behind Closed Doors sparks off some weird slew of animator-made porn books getting notable coverage, well I guess Wikipedia would cover them too. But that's a theoretical situation, and as it stands this one seems to have for whatever reason attracted reliable reportage. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think the deletion rationale is sufficiently focussed on policy. The broad question of whether this needs an article is an interesting one. I'd be inclined to agree that this kind of information could be placed in the Spongebob article itself, except in this case that might be to the detriment of that article. Should the information be covered at all? That is a matter of coverage in secondary sources, and while the secondary coverage here is not extensive, I think it crosses the line for independence, reliability and in multiple sources. I also cannot see an argument that it does not meet the significance threshold. The article itself is not great, and a rewrite, perhaps a move would all be possible, but those are not really AfD matters. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. We usually require sustained coverage by reliable sources under our notability policy; a short burst of news coverage is generally not enough to meet this requirement. With one exception, all of the sources I've found covering this article are pop-culture grade sources published in the four days following LSuperSonicQ's video. While there is a 2012 Hogan's Alley interview in which Osborne discussed Behind Closed Doors in some detail, Hogan's Alley did not provide any information on the book or even directly ask about it. This interview is a purely primary source from someone involved in the creation of SpongeBob/this book. As such, it does not contribute to notability. Given the lack of sustained coverage, I believe that this article should be deleted (I'm also fine with merging or perhaps transwiki-ing to a more SpongeBob/lost media centric wiki). Note that I did not take the existence/non-existence of similar articles or the perceived need for this article to exist into account as neither of these are relevant to notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough sourcing to satisfy me that the subject is notable. It's a little disturbing, but WP:NOTCENSORED. I appreciate Ziggycashmere's embracing the subjective nature of this filing. My answer is different from Z's but "Do we need this article?" is a valid question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maynaguri High School (H.S)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources in the article are primary, database, government. BEFORE showed database and primary, some ROUTINE news, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack references to support notability, although I found this https://eisamay.com/west-bengal-news/jalpaiguri-news/two-teachers-of-maynaguri-high-school-name-seen-in-west-bengal-board-of-primary-education-list/articleshow/96462310.cms. - Indefensible (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete no RS hits on Google News and Google News Archives. I got a mention from a directory in Google Books but that's it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but I suggest carrying on with the AFD, especially as another sock has just popped up to remove the AFD template. Article has been created by previous socks as Maynaguri High School, but the school's own website uses this spelling. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator subject fails WP:GNG.— TheWikiholic (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- There appears to be ample RS coverage of a school called Maynaguri Shubhasnagar school, is there any chance that both are the same school ? -- Sohom (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta, can you post some ref examples that you found? - Indefensible (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 6 September 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 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ramirez[edit]

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

Subject appears to fall into WP:BIO1E from winning a beauty pageant. Not enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is neither inherent to the position, nor otherwise supported by sources. BD2412 T 01:10, 5 September 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 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiaraliz Medina[edit]

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

Subject lacks a sustained amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Cunningham III[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NJUDGE. "References" (actually external links) 2 and 3 are broken and the 1st is his highly unofficial "profile". IncompA 03:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed the broken links and added some more references. He seems notable not only as a high-profile judge whose rulings are often in the news but as someone arrested by the UCLA police for "driving while black" and winning a settlement from the university. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Eastmain. There are in-depth sources about him: [26], [27], [28], [29]. 129.222.136.103 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article and sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yes, there are sources, but I don't see how they would be particularly noteworthy compared to other judges in large cities. In terms of the police brutality incident, he attracted some attention. I'm leaning towards WP:1E applying here, however. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:BASIC per sources we have available. I do not believe WP:1E applies, as the subject has coverage for multiple things presidtion of police commission of a large city, superior court judge of a large city, victim of police brutality. I believe the subject is not excluded by WP:VICTIM either due to the nature of the settlement. —siro χ o 06:07, 1 September 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 Robbie Williams. Just another reminder, if you are seeking an outcome of Redirect or Merge, please specify the target article you believe is most appropriate so the closer doesn't have to guess what you are thinking. Failing to do this will likely cause the discussion to be relisted until a target is specified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Radar Volume 3[edit]

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

This page was recreated multiple times from 2019 to 2021 with no notability demonstrated since then. It only has three sources, and two of those are to Williams's website, and the other is YouTube. I don't see any convincing coverage of this from a Google search, and while the first two volumes have a bit more out there on them that might make them notable, I don't think this third volume does. Williams having released notable recordings before and since doesn't mean this compilation is notable as notability is inherited, and so I'm requesting this be redirected so that there's consensus against another editor restoring it. Ss112 00:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robbie Williams is a highly popular and significant recording artist. Wikipedia has comprehensive coverage of his discography. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable public source of knowledge, this album ought to be included in the artist's catalogue. Whether or not this particular record is 'notable' isn't really germane: Robbie Williams' entries on Wikipedia will be incomplete if this article is deleted. 81.174.241.92 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited to each of an artist's recordings just because an artist themselves is notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). We do not have an article for every single thing Williams has released, and the album will still be listed on his discography—it just won't have an article because there's nothing that has been demonstrated to be important about this particular recording. It absolutely is "germane" whether or not this album is notable because this is WP:AFD where we decide if articles themselves (and thus, their topics) are notable enough to keep. Ss112 03:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely redirect. It is not essential for this article to exist as is simply because it's a Robbie Williams release. The only applicable sources provided here refer to his official website and YouTube channel. A quick Google search gave me virtually nothing of encyclopedic substance, merely the usual retailer and streaming offers. If anything, the bit of information on the album can be moved to his main article. Lk95 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robbie Williams: Found a few announcement pieces ([30][31][32]) but nothing of substance. As SS112 already explained, notability is not inherited, so just because this is a release by a very famous musician doesn't mean it is automatically cleared for a place here. Disclaimer: I was invited to this discussion by SS112 (although I do keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs on my watchlist so I would've seen it when it was first posted anyway). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article has barely any reliable resources/references to support its existence on wikipedia. I would recommend researching and compile as many reliable resources and articles to justify the notability of the album. Once you have done that, we all can surely revisit this discussion. For now, I am unison with other members regarding the deletion of this particular article. KARANSUTTA (talk) 02:09, 6 September 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: Withdrawn by nominator. HenryMP02 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duffy-Herreshoff_watertaxi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Duffy-Herreshoff watertaxi

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

Sources are not independent: they are press releases. Couldn't find significant coverage elsewhere. Therefore, this article does not meet the general notability guideline. HenryMP02 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator after User:A. B. found new sources (especially the Salon article) that establish notability. HenryMP02 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - HenryMP02 is right about the current sources. I found several others that should work:
- Shephard, Jeff (24 April 2003). "Duffy, Millennium Cell, and Seaworthy Making Hydrogen Boat". EEPower. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
- "Fuel Cells Weigh Anchor". Wired. 22 April 2004. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
- Mieszkowski, Katharine (23 October 2003). "Hydrogen, ahoy!". Salon. Retrieved 1 September 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: Wow, you're absolutely right. Those sources should do it. I'll withdraw my nomination. HenryMP02 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, California, Transportation, and Environment. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:52, 1 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Sauvin[edit]

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

The Subject has only won "multiple medals" in Karate which does not constitute wiki notability for WP:NKICK. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSPORT. Lethweimaster (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and France. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NKICK is the correct criteria, more appropriate would be WP:MANOTE. Coverage in English of karate events from 50-60 years ago is going to be hard to find. However, a bronze medal at the world championships and 3 medals at the European championships means it's likely that coverage exists, if you have access to French newspapers and magazines from that long ago. There's coverage in English sources of the results and I think that level of accomplishment deserves the benefit of the doubt concerning notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANOTE is an essay on notability, it does not supersede WP:NBLP. There are so many people who won "medals" in tournaments. There are countless tournament even to this day. Some even only have 3 people per division and they win "bronze" 3rd place our of 3 participant (example). Its especially common for Karate or Tae Kwon Do. The references on the French article also insufficient (archives):

forum Not reliable, forum, no mention of the subject N
akdtm.com non independant, blog N
World Championship 1972 Results Fight results, non significant N

I dont see anything that would satisfy notability even for WP:MANOTE. Bronze medal Lethweimaster (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No argument on the relative importance of the criteria. However, MANOTE can be considered and he clearly meets "repeated medalist ... in significant event". The WKF is the world's leading karate organization and is so recognized by the Olympics. He didn't finish 3rd among 3 entries in some minor event. There were only two events at the 1972 world championship (men's team and individual kumite) and 220 competitors[33]. He also won two gold and a silver medal in individual events at European championships. In addition, he was part of the French team that won gold medals at both the 1972 European and world championships. The current article links to the detailed coverage in Black Belt magazine of the European championships and has multiple pictures and prose of Sauvin. Papaursa (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After further thought about his record, I believe his accomplishments merit inclusion in WP. Four medals at European championships (3 of them gold) and two medals (1 gold) at the world championships seems notable to me. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per career results, some additional refs found online: https://www.karatechambray.fr/2021/02/02/guy-sauvin-sensei-nomination-au-grade-de-9eme-dan/, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wHlaDeQRwggC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=%22Guy+Sauvin%22, https://www.academia.edu/download/76571432/000869339.pdf, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1152035715/C9EE7FBAE9C34C49PQ/, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1658793086/C9EE7FBAE9C34C49PQ/. - Indefensible (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess source brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources from above are a message of congratulations to Sauvin from a local karate club's blog website (not RS), a passing mention in a book, two sentences in a master's thesis (not RS), two sentences of independent detail plus quotes in a newspaper, and another ~two sentences from the same outlet a couple years later. These are not enough to establish GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on French martial artists from pre-internet times (it was over 50 years ago) are difficult to come by, although the article mentions a few. It's reasonable to expect that there was coverage, especially in France, of a world and European champion at the time. Papaursa (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT explicitly requires a SIGCOV source be cited for an article to be acceptable in mainspace, with no exceptions for historical athletes. JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/keep Looking at the best sources that can be found via Google 1, 2; looking at his achievements (multiple times European and World Champion); and his books he wrote about Karate technique and French history of karate for me it’s clear he made a respectfull contribution to the sports of karate. Sources of his active career would be offline and cannot be found via Google. 109.37.152.3 (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:BASIC are both met given coverage across several issues of Black Belt magazine as a fighter (including international representation), coach and teacher; LaDepeche; and the secondary coverage in KarateBushido.com. I have a feeling the IP editor above and Papaursa are right as well and that there is also a much deeper, verifiable WP:NSPORT claim as well. —siro χ o 06:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Full contact karate. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't your nomination to delete already count as a vote? Also, why redirect to a page that doesn't even mention him? Papaursa (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Lethweimaster (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Older results are always harder to find but he seems to meet WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:BASIC. Some links on his French wiki Lewolka (talk) 12:16, 7 September 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. I don't see a consensus here and I doubt that one more week will definitively resolve the difference of opinion and interpretation of policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search the City[edit]

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

Sourcing is poor, none of their releases are notable. I found nothing of use on a WP:BEFORE search. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band with no references online aside from pages the band itself would have made. View / Stream analytics on websites such as Spotify & Youtube do not suggest at any degree of "hidden notability". Article seems to have been written by a well-meaning novice editor A MINOTAUR (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group's full-length release was widely reviewed in the Christian press and also in alternative rock press outlets. The band has an artist bio and review at Allmusic; IndieVisionMusic; Jesus Freak Hideout; Cross Rhythms; HM Magazine. My memory may be faulty, but I believe they also received a review in Alternative Press at the time of release (a magazine that does not have a good online archive). The article notes Billboard placement, which would nail it down decisively, but sadly Billboard's website has gotten a lot stingier meting out historical chart information, and I don't have all the published paper chart books, but maybe someone else seeing this discussion does. A note on that, though: about 14 years ago, I added a link sourcing that chart placement, and that link rotted and was not archived anywhere that I know of. However, it's a legitimate chart placement; I verified it myself, and I hope you all believe me when I tell you I did not make it up. Chubbles (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, one single chart placement does not necessarily make a recording pass WP:NALBUM. dannymusiceditor ^oops 13:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The band is up for deletion, rather than the album, and charting is a criterion at WP:MUSIC. Coverage in multiple sources is, too. Chubbles (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the wrong page, MUSIC is the one I meant. My apologies. I am conditioned to working on albums. Even so, a few album reviews is not going to be enough to save it, in my opinion. You can't construct a proper article out of a few reviews if an album with no available historical or biographical details. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we have that; we have everything we need to create a reasonable summary. The AMG bio gives historical and biographical details, and Cross Rhythms's online version (it also is, or was, a print magazine) has several short news articles about them; the reviews give style comparisons that explain the band's sound; and a 2008 issue of Billboard will have the chart listings. Additionally, I've just discovered they were profiled in CCM, the magazine of record for Christian music, in 2008. When they meet WP:MUSIC with more than one criterion, I don't know why we'd get rid of the article despite that. Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A BAND from Detroit, Search The City, have recorded their first Tooth & Nail album. 'A Fire So Big The Heavens Can See It' is produced by James Paul Wisner (Dashboard Confessional, Underoath). Said the band's frontman Josh Frost, "We're more influenced by hardcore music than anything else. It doesn't show so much because we're pretty poppy in parts. But collectively, we all love bands like Jimmy Eat World. We'd probably say we are progressive rock or something like that."

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms. Any expressed views were accurate at the time of publishing but may or may not reflect the views of the individuals concerned at a later date." This isn't exactly a notability raising source. Graywalls (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cross Rhythms is a paper magazine that's been around for 30+ years; this is their online outlet. It's the biggest Christian music publication in the UK, which also makes it international coverage. 07:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Once again, you can't make a proper band article out of album reviews and an AllMusic biography. There are probably a hundred groups you could make that case for on Wikipedia that aren't notable, and even more that have pages here on that basis that shouldn't. The idea is to have enough detail and sourcing available to make a fully complete article of the band's history. I was shown WP:THREE as a rule of thumb, and I don't think we have that. Also keep in mind that just because it meets NMUSIC may not necessarily guarantee it passes the GNG. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made hundreds of proper band articles out of album reviews and an AllMusic biography. That's the bread and butter of music notability, in practice. The article does not need to meet GNG if it meets WP:MUSIC, and this article meets bullet 1 of NMUSIC anyway, which is just the GNG. This group definitely hurdles the standard level of independent journalistic attention that has cleared the threshold of notability I have worked on for many years, and the sources are now in the article itself. Chubbles (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between when more content is available (such as interviews, tour coverage, etc.) and just hasn't been added to Wikipedia, and when one catch-all biography and less than a handful of album reviews is literally all there is. I see things like this are seemingly routine to you, however from looking at your userpage. (I even listen to some of the ones that were previously deleted regularly.) If I am overruled, it is what it is, but I think you have the bar set far too low. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we've exhausted the independent attention the band got. For instance, I think it's virtually certain that they were reviewed by Absolute Punk; however, I've had trouble dredging up that site's archive, despite its substantial importance as a music review venue in the late 2000s. We've already noted that there are two substantial offline sources that could build the article, and I don't think there's any reason to think that ends the list of coverage (even though, I would argue, what we have in front of us is enough as it is.) They were covered by all of the most important Christian music sites at the time of their 2008 release, and since notability is not temporary, crossing the threshold at the time is enough, even if they are not getting much in the way of new media attention in this decade. Chubbles (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A BAND from Detroit, Search The City, have recorded their first Tooth & Nail album. 'A Fire So Big The Heavens Can See It' is produced by James Paul Wisner (Dashboard Confessional, Underoath). Said the band's frontman Josh Frost, "We're more influenced by hardcore music than anything else. It doesn't show so much because we're pretty poppy in parts. But collectively, we all love bands like Jimmy Eat World. We'd probably say we are progressive rock or something like that." from Cross Rhyms. That's a very trivial coverage. An announcement that they've recorded an album, then the other half is a quotation of the band member's commentary, so you couldn't call that independent. Hardly a sigcov. More like slightly above a mention. I agree that things do not need to have refresher coverages every xx years to be notable; however, WP:20YT and notice over a sufficient time period are something to consider. On the JesusFreakhideout, there's an Amazon link with AFFILIATE CODE in it to buy the CD page, so in a way, it's like a sponsored review. Graywalls (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cross Rhythms covered the band (at least) three times, not once; that's much more in line with sigcov than the comment implies. The JFH review is a staff review and JFH is on the reliable sources list at WP:RSMUSIC. I'm surprised there is so much resistance in this discussion; I really don't know why. Chubbles (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed Danny's profile and his edit history and it sounds like he's got a good grasp on the subject matter, so I think he at least knows what he's talking about in nominating it, by the way. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't compare multiple mini coverages in place of a sigcov just as a luthier wouldn't consider a box full of sawdust the same as similar weight of nice solid wood of the same kind. Graywalls (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - see comment above. Graywalls (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is reliable sources coverage such as Crossrhythms, AllMusic, JRH to maintain a start class article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, not much more than a stub or a start-class article. Why keep a permastub? dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with a permastub? (noting, by the by, that this is not an article with no ability to expand; there are two major sources that have already been identified that can expand it.) Chubbles (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting... Further input would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four different reliable sources (AllMusic, JFH, IVM, Crossrhythms) with SIGCOV of the band, that's generally an uncontroversial keep for WP:BAND#C1/WP:GNG. —siro χ o 06:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Pretty weak coverage of the band itself. I don't believe every genre-specific chart counts as "national music chart" for the purpose of WP:NMUSICIAN, and the coverage is in sources that I'm not persuaded are RS for music criticism. Why is Crossrhythms RS such that we can depend on it to separate the notable musicians from the non-notable? It doesn't even clear the extraordinarily low bar of being listed at WP:A/S. Several genres have this issue IMO: a massive horde of niche websites of no interest to anyone who isn't really into the genre, whose priority is to cover as much of the genre as possible. Seems analogous to a subject that only gets coverage in the local town papers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Rhythms is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources which is linked at the album sources page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Action Wellness[edit]

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

A local non-profit doing local thing. A quick WP:BEFORE suggests it does not meet WP:NCORP and I don't believe it's a suitable encyclopedia article. The article creator appears to be a promotional editor based on the edit pattern and the name that's suggestive of a purpose specific role account with activity duration that seems to be consistent with a typical internship. Graywalls (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Graywalls (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, and appears to be in violation of WP:PROMO as well. Sal2100 (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clears the bar of WP:GNG. Here are some sources beyond the ones already cited in the article.[34][35][36][37][38][39] There are probably others behind the Philadelphia Inquirer paywall.Prezbo (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all the sources and I don't see them as satisfying WP:ORGCRIT.

Coverage that is primarily stuff like Burns continued, “Together, we created an organization that offers lifesaving and life-changing services to people wrestling with chronic illness, substance use disorder, housing insecurity and other challenges. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to be a part of this important work.” is clearly not independent. I see a lot of local coverage. Local organizations get local coverage but local notability is not global notability, which is essentially the criteria for WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD seems like the most relevant part of that guideline. But Action Wellness has been covered repeatedly in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is the largest newspaper in the state.[40]Prezbo (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the google scholar results for convenience.[41] I haven't sifted through them to determine which are nontrivial. Prezbo (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again, that's a publication acting in its capacity as a local paper. You know, like things happening in NYC being covered in NY Times acting in its capacity as a local paper. A significant, in-depth, independent coverage about a company/organization in Los Angeles covered in NYT, or something in NYC covered in LA Times, then we've got something. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a good indication of notability. A facility that has the demographic of people that's of interest for researchers nearby would be a convenient place for them to research. That doesn't make the place notable. Researchers might tap into a specific plasma donation center if they were researching something about plasma, because it's convenient, but appearing in blood related research simply because they were such a site is no indication of the notability of that particular center. Instead of a list of search result, please suggest three actual sources that actually satisfy notability requirements for evaluation. Graywalls (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, WP:AUD is saying that coverage in a large regional paper is evidence of notability. The requirement that it needs to be a paper from outside the region of the organization in question is just something you’re adding. I think a good article could probably be constructed from the Philadelphia Inquirer articles (if someone had a subscription) or from the other articles I linked to originally. Prezbo (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AMOUNT might be of interest even though it's not a policy. Newspapers regularly gossip local matters all the time. Truth be said, essentially every major city have advocacy group for specific causes. Philadelphia Inquirer might have a page article on a Philadelphia car dealership saying something about its history but I would say that's a local paper covering local affairs and I would be hesitant to suggest the dealership is notable enough to merit a page. All these pages about these local shops really shouldn't be on here. Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like your basic argument here is that the existing third-party coverage “doesn’t count” for one reason or another. It’s too positive which makes it not independent, or the researchers probably just did research at this facility because it was close by so the article they published doesn’t matter, or it’s just local “gossip”, or…I think if the sources are out there, it’s fine, keep the article. But I’m probably repeating myself now. Prezbo (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: our guidelines and policies make no distinction between national coverage and local coverage or between big newspapers and little newspapers. The reason is because Wikipedia wants to include as much reliable information as possible (you know, the old "sum of all human knowledge"). We screen for notability not as some measure of earned merit ("they're big and famous") but rather as an indicator as to whether we have enough with which to build a reliable article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD comes into play for notability determination Graywalls (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot the same rules for corporations apply to nonprofits, too. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, essentially every single trade association in the US would end up being eligible for an article, because they're generally a 501c6 and they're bound to be written about in a trade magazine somewhere. Graywalls (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imagine this text on a trifold brochure printed on glossy paper -- this is a thinly veiled advertisement, WP:NOTADVERT. Note some of the subtle PEACOCKing, "long been the largest", "one of the oldest and largest", "volunteers came together to provide services", "Gathering in Center City Philadelphia, these volunteers acted", throwing around context-free numbers, etc. And a bullet point list of services. Additionally, immediate sourcing doesn't meet WP:SIRS. I do however want to note that The Philadelphia Inquirer explicitly meets the WP:AUD requirement as the biggest daily newspaper in any US state (Pennsylvania). No prejudice against a new article when SIRS sources are found and a proper article is written. —siro χ o 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something that's come up in discussions many times in talk pages is when regional paper is acting in its capacity as a local paper. New York Times covers more about Manhattan than it does about Los Angeles and vice versa. Graywalls (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo piece with extravagant wording, better fit for those trash spam brochures they leave an car windshields instead of Wikipedia. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:00, 5 September 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.