Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 31	April 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Fulton

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three references to this previously unfootnoted biography of a Scottish poet, but I do not think he meets WP:NPOET. Tacyarg (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Tacyarg (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found a couple more pieces of coverage in newspapers from the 1990s, including a review/small profile of his work in the Paisley Daily Express: [1], and in a review of a Scottish poem anthology, a paragraph calls him out in The Guardian: [2]. This just isn't anywhere close to enough coverage to satisfy the requirements of WP:NPOET, in my opinion. Cheers to the nominator for doing due diligence here before nominating as well. Nomader (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala (TV series)

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

Simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Would have redirected, but it was contested, so only option now is AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are various citations which are available in English and in local language on page which describes about the given series. 43.242.226.55 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL television series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. I would also avoid leaving the redirect, as some readers could find it misleading at best. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Gay

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

Another reality tv bio where the only notability is due to the program. Similar to a spate of Survivor contestant articles recently. Outside her reality star coverage, does not meet WP:GNG. Would have restored redirect, but that is no longer an option due to recent discussions at ANI, since it was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New York Times is about as solid as it gets. Other sources only help confirm GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Onel5969: This appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion. The comparison of the subject to a Survivor contestant is categorically flawed and completely misleading, as the two are simply not the same. For one, the New York Times does not dedicate entire articles to the likes of a Survivor contestant, however, the publication did just that on the subject, Heather Gay, this past February. Despite your proclivity to censure this article, the subject is a notable public figure. Since March of this year the article has received 11,393 pageviews. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an entertainer with TV show on major network she qualifies. See WP:ENT.Kakara69 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Pocket for Corduroy

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

Fails GNG Finlan Bendbow-Rendeck (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original book is a children's classic, and this had a short film released about it. Nom obviously failed to do WP:BEFORE, as this passes GNG easily. Nate • (chatter) 21:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Manifestly notable. It's a children's book with a JSTOR and Google Scholar presence, for heaven's sake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources support that WP:NBOOK is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to meet notability guidelines and I added another review. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable based on film and sources. Kakara69 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied per WP:CSD#G5. The article creator is a blocked sock of Ayoub.jghalef, and since the only people !voting keep here are also blocked sockpuppets, I see no reason to prolong the inevitable. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayoub Jghalef

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

All of the sources cited are written by Jghalef himself or are obvious press releases. I'm not seeing any decent sources in searches either. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotional profile of a subject with no claim of notability, likely paid for. Mccapra (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 14:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure promo, he does work in advertising, but this isn't the place for that type of thing. I don't see sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He Is Notable specialist marketing figure in the middle east region. i see the article is meeting the Wikipedia guideline Reedex2023 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ayoub.jghalef. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw some new citations is added today - there's quite a bit of articles coverage Pood25 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ayoub.jghalef. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely promotional and could probably be G11'd, no evidence of notability. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ayoub.jghalef. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ here is some evidence for notability ^[1]^[2] more coverage evidence articles is coming Reedex2023 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedex2023: you can only !vote once. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is noteble person in Oued Zem. Also i find out that he is Digital Marketing Expert who . Here is some Important evidence. ^[3]^[4]

Sood777 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Puris Middle East Admin. "Dubai Based Ayoub Jghalef Takes His Digital Marketing Strategy to Help Us Growth Our Brand". Puris Middle East. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
^ "Ayoub Jghalef Set to Expand His Scope Across the Middle East". February 3, 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Puris Middle East Admin. "Dubai Based Ayoub Jghalef Takes His Digital Marketing Strategy to Help Us Growth Our Brand". Puris Middle East. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
^ "Ayoub Jghalef Set to Expand His Scope Across the Middle East". February 3, 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Elliott (director)

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR, couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article lacks information, and we can't know exactly what his past film credits are as a director. And without any citations. I don't think this article is very helpful.Hhhh2 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP with no evidence of IS RS sources with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vidéotron#Television. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illico (Videotron)

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

Contested redirect - tons of uncited material which should not have been re-added as per WP:BURDEN, and there's not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Videotron, nothing notable about the television service. This reads like Promo and I can't find coverage of it, only listings of the TV packages. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Videotron Depreciated 2000s branding for their HD and digital cable services. Nate • (chatter) 21:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per last two users. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this saves history in case of sudden significant notability change. However, don't see it yet, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everybody. There's not really much case for having two separate articles about a cable television company and its digital subscription package, especially given that this article is relying entirely on the company's own self-published primary source content about itself rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it. There might be a case for a standalone article about Club Illico the streaming service (we do, for instance, have separate articles about Crave the pay TV movie-channel bundle and Crave the streamer), but that isn't a foregone conclusion and also isn't this — as things currently stand, even Club Illico is currently just a redirect to Vidéotron rather than its own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Videotron unneeded CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 05:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lemonade (Beyoncé album). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forward (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no notability on its own. Sricsi (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Texas. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney 19:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lemonade (Beyoncé album): Not enough independent coverage of this song. Charting not particularly impressive compared to other album cuts such as "Formation". Found no other evidence of an NSONG pass. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lemonade (Beyoncé album) per above. Unneeded Fork, Fails GNG and NSONG for standalone article. // Timothy :: talk 07:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this could be "no consensus", the keep arguments do not generally address the claims of lack of sourcing, or just point to web searches rather than particular in-depth references. Given this, the "delete" arguments are substantially stronger and more policy-based. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bezanson

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Canada, Bolivia, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is more than a little absurd to say "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" when the subject of this page has had so many significant roles, not only as an ambassador. The page should surely be tagged as needing better references, not deleted, to join the long list bizarrely celebrating the deletion of diplomatic articles on the nominator's user page. Moonraker (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADHOM. Where are the sources that would make this person notable? LibStar (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say fair comment, when an editor takes deletionism to such an extreme. It seems you have not yet hit the links for references at JSTOR and Google books. Moonraker (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced BLP. : BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

The keep club hasn't supplied sources or arguments based in policy and guidelines, so the only response is an offer of cheese for the whine.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 12:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: Currently fails GNG, but as the nomitator has a strong point it should be soft delete. NP83 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the strength of the listings at Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Keith Bezanson&btnG= Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors are certainly not automatically non-notable, as the nomination statement would seemingly have us believe. They can be notable, under GNG. The subject is also an academic and author, and notability might be achieved those ways too. But I didn't find GNG-worthy detailed independent sources about Bezanson, I didn't find published reviews of his two coauthored books, and I don't find the citation record pointed to above by Eastmain to be strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. That leaves his work as director of a Canadian government think tank and a university research center, but I don't think those are the types of major academic institutions described by WP:PROF#C6 and I didn't find GNG-worthy coverage of those roles either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. He fails GNG and NPROF, no book reviews in academia (JSTOR) and not a strong enough citation count to pass NPROF#1. --hroest 14:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A retired very highly noted Development Scholar...ex-Head of IDS at Sussex (UK's leading development institute and one of the World's) and of Canada's International Development Research Centre. I think these could allow WP:PROF#C6 He has held a highest-level appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
That is not the highest-level administrative post of the University of Sussex. JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searches on Google books (Currie-Alder, B. (2015). Research for the Developing World: Public Funding from Australia, Canada, and the UK. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford.) confirm that he was the IDRC president, and therefore I agree with (Msrasnw CT55555(talk) 18:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Head of IDS is not the highest-level admin post at an academic institution, that would be the chancellor/VC of University of Sussex. The IDRC is also not a highly-regarded independent research center, it is a governmental research funding org that is a subdepartment of Global Affairs Canada. He does not meet any criteria for NPROF or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible error: My understanding is that IDS is an independent research institute. "IDS has close links with the University, but is financially and constitutionally independent." (https://www.ids.ac.uk/about/governance/). Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per CT55555. Both of these academic books [3][4] devote a few pages each to Bezanson's time heading IDRC, so that with some of the other available sources is sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. The subject will probably never have a super long article, but that is not the bar for inclusion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the previews for those pages in the first source, are they covering him specifically or just covering events that occurred during his tenure? The second source is not independent as Currie-Alder is part of the IDRC. JoelleJay (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's about five pages, and I would say about half of that is about him and things he specifically did as IDRC head and the other half about the impact of those decisions. Currie-Adler didn't overlap with Bezanson at IDRC and the book is published by Oxford University Press, who surely would've been aware. So while, we should be slightly more careful, I don't think this disqualifies it from being a WP:RS because of WP:INDY reasons. This book [5] has 60 pages (pgs. 207-268) devoted to Bezanson's time as the IDRC head, and while I don't have full access, the previews do give several passages of things Bezanson himself did in that position. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 10:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currie-Alder is definitely RS but also definitely not independent from IDRC, so cannot be used to establish notability of Bezanson. Its publication by OUP is irrelevant here. The third source is by the same authors as the first so doesn't count as a second piece of SIGCOV. I agree the Muirhead book(s) are SIGCOV, so I'll strike my !vote for now, but we still need another independent RS with SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per David Eppstein. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Police Canine Association

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

This article is about an organisation that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article has two references which are to the organisation's web site. Much of the article has been removed as a copyright violation of material copied from the organisation's web site. That removal did also remove a reference, but that source was yet again from the organisation's own web site. My searches for sources turn up nothing that would substantiate notability. Whpq (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A handful of mentions on Google but all are passing mentions, directory listings, or Wikipedia mirrors. A couple press releases on Gnews. Otherwise, a WP:BEFORE search comes up empty-handed. Apocheir (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Cripps

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

Minimal coverage. Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF or WP:NMUSIC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bands and musicians. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The accomplishments listed in the article are the sorts of things that would need WP:GNG-based notability, rather than WP:PROF. But the article provides no in-depth independent reliable sourcing (its only source is an archived copy of what appears to be a brief autobiography on the web site of an associated act) and I didn't find any in searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No love lost between the Davids here, it seems :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Krüger

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

Non-notable actor. Sources cited are all primary, and a search finds nothing better. The article has been back and forth between drafts and the main space, but the author insists on publishing it against advice. Speedy request was removed by a mystery IP editor, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Germany. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Unreliable sources and lack of coverage. Notability is not shown. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 17:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that Emanuel Krüger works as a radio presenter under the pseudonym "Jayden Krüger" too. (https://www.radio-geretsried.de/index.php/members/jayden-krueger/) S.kranich (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our German colleagues seem to be having a bit of a nightmare with this, having deleted it 8 times. Is there no salting function on dewiki?? Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That page is salted and can only be created by the dewiki equivalent of extended-confirmed editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt – no sign of any notability. I looked for sources earlier and found nothing in English or in German; de.wiki has in fact create protected the title after multiple spammy recreations (by the same user who created multiple drafts and articles about him here). --bonadea contributions talk 22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was going to A7 speedy delete it, but the CSD was removed by the "mystery IP editor", so I let this run its course. Jay 💬 07:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there was a deletion discussion at de.wiki where several people were trying to find independent verification of his film/TV roles. In several cases, the claims about his works were faked. It was shown conclusively that he was not in Köln 50667 in 2016; S.kranich said that the 2016 date was an error, Krüger was in the show in 2018 (also unsourced), and she also said that it would be better to delete the article as nothing could be independently sourced. That was two weeks ago. It is rather peculiar that she has added the exact same unsourced and disproven claims in the article here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Starting to look like SNOW to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About Emanuel Krüger in Köln 50667

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2609822/mediaviewer/rm2236492545/

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2609822/mediaviewer/rm3661114113/

https://www.tvnow.de/serien/koeln-50667-2137/weitere/episode-0-koeln-50667-folge-837-258374?utm_source=awin&utm_medium=cpo&utm_campaign=TVN00001_Affiliate&utm_term=394187&utm_content=www.fernsehserien.de&awc=16040_1678460792_37967ad483425ca2a864ca1f436d27c5 37.201.117.92 (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their global contributions, I'm pretty sure that 37.201.117.92 is S.kranich, who is blocked until 2 May. 37.201.117.92, if you are a blocked user, you may not edit Wikipedia, logged in or logged out. --bonadea contributions talk 12:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illya Siryi

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

Article created prior to WP:NSPORTS2022 because of 6 mins of professional football back in 2013 before spending the rest of his career as an amateur. I have searched in Ukrainian but been unable to locate any significant coverage. I note that there is a parachutist with the same name but, given that the parachutist was 15 years old back in 2017, they cannot be the same person. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC currently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He played mostly in amateur clubs. --Yakudza (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For same reasons as stated above—not notable, has played almost entirely for amateur clubs, and has not played in two years. Anwegmann (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saaren (singer)

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

The singer does not seem to confirm the Wikipedia:Notability (music) policies. NameGame (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Iran. NameGame (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.--84.32.131.79 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.--84.32.131.79 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable musician and multimedia artist with reliable sources under the name of Saaren. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] And pay attention to this point, Iranian female singers are not allowed to work in Iran, so the resources are very limited.--3567b (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles depend on notability as confirmed in significant and reliable sources. The oppression of Iranian entertainers is tragic, but that is a far bigger geopolitical problem that will not be solved by giving one person a sympathy placement in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I attempted to formulate a vote but must declare myself unqualified due to poor knowledge of the sources in which the singer appears. She shows up online in four different searches: her stage name سارن, the anglicized Saaren, her birth name سارا خوش‌شانس, and the anglicized Sara Khoshshans. In all cases she appears in a lot of Farsi sites, and to me they look like mostly social media and streaming services, which do not qualify as reliable sources here. However, I will defer to anyone who knows more about all those Farsi sources and their reliability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to offer any opinion in this debate, but to search harder. Her Persian stage name and birth name are clearly visible in the article, and can be used to find websites in that language. Then you could use Google Translate to find if those sources are reliable. 84.32.131.79 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vote, while admitting that I am not qualified to determine if those sources are reliable, per Wikipedia's very precise definition of a reliable source. More evidence is required beyond the quantity of search results. If you can deliver that evidence, please do so because you haven't yet. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to WP:SINGER she clearly passes point #11 because her song's plying in every Persian musice TV frequently. --84.32.131.79 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched based on the suggestions above and found nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV of the subject. None of the sources in the article are IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. They are promo, interviews, primary.

Sources above are promo [16], forum post [17], 404 [18]. After the 404 page I stopped looking at 3567b sources because it shows this is just link spamming.

Keep votes seem to be centered on the false assumption that popularity and promotion equals notability.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. A BLP with no IS RS is an unsourced BLP and needs to be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I commented above that I felt uncomfortable about assessing the sources from a language I do not know and called on native speakers to help the WP community. My attempt at a culturally sensitive recommendation received no thanks and I was only ordered to search harder and use Google Translate. So I did. Living in an oppressive regime, the singer appears doomed to promote herself via social media feeds, socialite appearances, and gossip sites that repeat press releases. Via Google Translate those sources do not qualify as the significant coverage that is required here. I am willing to conclude that her attempts at an honest singing career are being oppressed by her country's hardliners, but that problem is far larger than this article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Ta East

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

Are we even sure this is a thing? What I am seeing are youtubes, announcements, stuff generated from press releases. I literally am not sure this even exists. Maybe it's a transliteration problem? Valereee (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Afghanistan. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think the sources in the article [19], [20], [21], [22], pass GNG. The threats against them will probably generate more IS RS coverage and the monsters doing the threatening have a record of brutally following up on their threats. // Timothy :: talk 18:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, @TimothyBlue, does it even exist? I can't find it anywhere. All I can find is these announcements that they've received threats. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does exist and I vote *Keep because it’s a paid only service to watch hence you can’t find it. 120.21.91.130 (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 120.21.91.130 (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But, @MrsSnoozyTurtle, which of them show that? I'm literally only finding stuff generated from what appears to be a press release about a single event (their claim they received threats) and nothing, literally nothing except what appears to show they've made a single YouTube video. I'm literally wondering if this even exists. Valereee (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Valereee for the correction. I did some further digging and it does look like it wasn't ever broadcast (perhaps due to said threats?). Maybe the story of how it was cancelled is notable in itself, but in the meantime my !vote will be neutral. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon a second and third look since above, @Valereee: has a point. This might all just be vapor. I'm switching over to delete, unless someone can show something to show this is not all publicity vapor. As it currently stands, obviously Draft isn't a good option. // Timothy :: talk 05:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mizraab

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability doesn't established, fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NBASIC, 28 sources, all are interviews, primary, not working, irrelevant, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources, award section is empty, name drops with Faraz Anwar, also take part in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Anwar M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy pass of WP:NMUSIC. There is so much about this band. Perhaps, we should WP:SMERGE List of Mizraab band members to this article. A major band in Pakistan, no way we can delete this. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also related articles, Mizraab discography and List of songs recorded by Mizraab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- From the 70s, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Rainbow to Pakistani bands like Junoon, Noori and Mizraab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Mizraab released their album, Panchi, which was well-received by their growing cult following
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BAND - in particular prominent representatives of a notable style in Pakistan. Coverage is available in several sources per WP:PKRS. Also secondary coverage in WP:RS books: We'll Play Till We Die Journeys Across a Decade of Revolutionary Music in the Muslim World and Heavy Metal Islam Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam. ResonantDis_tortion 09:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence The Herald in 2005 stated here that Mizraab was, for a while, the most famous band in Pakistan. Easy pass WP:Band#7. ResonantDis_tortion 07:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Band#7, Representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city, of what? and the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, does it do that? M.Ashraf333 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as books and national newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources coverage, 1: an interview with one passing mention, 2: one passing mention in rock music history related article, have no significance in-depth coverage. The refs on the article's page are already mentioned, primary, unreliable and YT videos. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which of the sources provides in-depth coverage? My reading of the sources linked above is that they lack sufficient depth about the band. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source Assessment. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68243	Member's interview	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20111001003607/http://www.pakipop.com/reflection/cookin.html	List of bands performed in a show	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110723205457/http://www.metalkingdom.net/album/22061_mizraab_panchi	List of songs of Band's album	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20100413223209/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/culture/03-Strumming-through-history-ss-01	Pakistani rock music history	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110526075414/http://www.rewaj.com/entertainment/indus-music-to-hold-first-pop-music-awards.html#	Listing of award nomination	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720025318/http://www.epidemie.cz/dusk/DUSK_Jahilia/interview.htm	Interview	✘ No
http://www.mizraabianz.com/v3/chris-ruel-mizraab-mhm/	Own website counts as primary, but not working	✘ No
https://saadshakeel.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/top-5-under-rated-bandsartists-from-pakistan/	To band listing promotional blogpost	✘ No
https://jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2007-weekly/nos-18-02-2007/instep/article3.htm		✔ Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEBdBzdjGRQ	YT video not available	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110816140856/http://www.indus.tv/newsite/script/2nd_ima.html	Award listing primary	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20140924040515/http://www.paklinks.com/gs/printthread.php?t=179977#	Award nomination	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20111009183241/http://pakstop.com/pmforums/showthread.php?t=14958	Forum post	✘ No
https://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2007-weekly/nos-05-08-2007/instep/downlaodthisweek.htm	Songs of the week listing	✘ No
http://www.pakium.com/2009/05/05/mizraab-wont-release-its-album-until-times-get-better-faraz-anwar	Not working	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20121012120018/http://jang.com.pk/thenews/may2008-weekly/nos-04-05-2008/instep/mainissue.htm	Awards music nominations	✘ No
http://www.pakium.com/2009/06/13/faraz-anwar-speaks-on-the-guitar-idol-experience-and-why-he-had-to-pull-out-of-the-show	Not working	✘ No
https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=298242	Mizraab song	✘ No
http://www.pakium.com/2010/03/29/mizraab-new-lineup-2010	Not working	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110820163320/http://marketspost.com/coke-studio-season-4-episode-1-promo/	dead link	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWuENLw2x2g	YT video song from unofficial channel	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-vQywosqrE&hd=1	YT video song from unofficial channel	✘ No
http://tribune.com.pk/story/174353/coke-studio-episode-1-maestros-and-mishaps/	Song listing of a show	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUx8dIgkSEA	YT video song from unofficial channel	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltpty7dEUSs	YT video song from unofficial channel	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110809164552/http://www.playtv.com.pk/news/music-news/216-an-insight-look-faraz-anwar.html	Interview	✘ No
http://tribune.com.pk/story/212340/coke-studio-4-concludes/	Mention in a list of singer performed in a show	✘ 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}}.

Regarding the table 404s can be fixed using internet archive so dismissing a source because it is 404 is not a valid analysis, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to source analysis above, which shows only one qualifying reference. And the focus of that reference is the guitarist Faraz Anwar who already has a separate article. I'm happy to reconsider if additional sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy pass of WP:NMUSIC. Lightburst (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain on what criteria it meets WP:BAND? M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the excellent assessment table above. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article referencing at time of AfD initiation was poor. However several independent reliable sources are referenced in this AfD which clearly demonstrate a national level of notability (both in 'fame' and musical impact). Several of these references have subsequently been added to the article. It should be noted that none of these are presently included within the source assessment table. ResonantDis_tortion 23:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple independent reliable sources should have non-trivial coverage to address the topic in detail per WP:SIGCOV. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and BAND. Nothing in the article shows SIGCOV from IS RS and source eval shows this. The above mentions new sources added to the article so here they are:
[23] is a brief tongue in cheek mention, nothing SIGCOV;
[24] is a grand total of 13 word, not about the subject but an opinion about a song, 13 words is not indepth and opinions do not establish Notablity;
[25] quotes in reference show this is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
[26] is the extent of the coverage, nothing that meets SIGCOV.

These are the best references for the subject and they all fail IS RS with SIGCOV nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Colton House. The discussion come to a general agreement that the NRHP building covered in this article is notable, while the modern subdivision does not. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote Springs, Arizona

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently created orphan for an extremely minor community with only one or two sources. Seems very WP:MILL and vaguely promotional. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep community outside Flagstaff, Arizona. Current sourcing passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some clarity about editing intentions here would help, i.e. whether this article will be the place in Wikipedia that the Colton House (significant historic house, site of much community activity and good programs etc.) will be covered, or whether the Colton House will be covered in a not-yet-created section of Museum of Northern Arizona article (to which Colton House currently redirects), or whether it shall be an independent article. It is the kind of place that would clearly be National Register of Historic Places eligible, but maybe there has been too much renovations going on for it to be a stable subject. (Also, as part of nonprofit museum now, there would not be the tax incentives driving many NRHP listings.)

About the Colton House, there are substantial sources, including this from the Arizona Daily Sun, this Facebook page of the Museum of Northern Arizona on "the historic Colton House", and about some music scene there, this about a music residency program and this this about the "Colton House Sessions" (record of music sessions recorded there)

Searches on "Colton House" also turn up that Harold Colter was an archeologist, too, and there are, perhaps confusingly, journal articles such as reported here maybe involving prehistoric pit houses (or maybe those are in different articles in the same publications). And/or maybe there are archeological sites on this property, I dunno.

There's a lot of material, and Wikipedia's coverage of Colton House as a cultural center and architecturally significant place and historic place with important associations, is not sorted yet. I say let Wikipedia's editor(s) creating content here proceed and sort this out, and merge or split or redirect as they see fit. Come back a year from now and bring on your deletionist perspectives, but don't waste their/our time now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To be clear, this is a slam-dunk Keep if an editor decides to make this article the location of Colton House topic coverage (temporarily until the deleters go away, or permanently) and makes a couple edits putting "Colton House" in bold and having a large section about it, with a small section for the rest of the development. I note that the previous AFD was essentially about there being nothing there, but now there's a significant development and one clear head-liner, so the arguments for deletion have to be different. Of course that's no problem to say the opposite now. The previous AFD did say something about a spring, could that information be rounded up and added to the current article. Do editors have access to the material of the previous (deleted) article? Maybe this is an obvious Keep on other grounds, in other ways, too, but overall I think this AFD is a waste of time so why not just stop it sooner rather than later. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, what is the connection between the archaeological site and the article topic? The journal article you linked is about an area "six square miles adjacent to Winona Station, some seventeen miles East of Flagstaff, Arizona" which is a different location entirely and doesn't mention anything about Colton House/Coyote Springs. –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accessing and reporting on that journal article. I was myself reporting that searching on "Colton House" turns up articles like that. I myself don't know if the Coyote Springs resident-archeologist did archeological digs in Coyote Springs itself; it would be nice if you could sort that out. -- Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was no "Coyote Springs" neighborhood at the time when Colton lived there, and your article doesn't say anything about conducting digs at Colton House. I think that it would be odd for an archaeologist to be working on his own property unless he coincidentally owned some sort of historic site. Are there any other articles that you'd like me to check through the Wikipedia Library resources? –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources for Coyote Springs are mainly the routine type of coverage we see for new housing developments; there's not really any lasting coverage beyond the first few years, and nothing discussing it as a community or the people who live there. It's unique in its connection to the Museum of Northern Arizona, but that can be covered in a few sentences at the museum article.

The NRHP listed Colton House is a different matter. The few sources that cover it in detail mention its obvious connection to the Museum of Northern Arizona, but not the Coyote Springs development. I think that this is best covered within the museum article as part of the section about the Coltons, since its historical significance is mainly due to that family. This could eventually be slit into a standlone article for the Coltons if enough content can be written about it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in-depth coverage is in-depth coverage. The current coverage is not just from local papers, and is over the period of several years, so it is sustained.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, it isn't the only Coyote Springs in Arizona; there's one near Prescott Valley, which even has a school named after it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, btw, just looked at the version deleted in the last AFD: that was for yet another Coyote Springs, up on the Navajo Nation in Apache County by the looks of it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator and dlthewave that the sources present are routine coverage and nothing extraordinary for a housing development. Given the connection to the museum, the best solution IMO is merge with Museum of Northern Arizona. I have no objection to creating a separate article for the Colton House which would pass NBUILD as a NRHP-listed property. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article on the Colton House (item 37 at National Register of Historic Places listings in Coconino County, Arizona). Faily generic housing development, and the coverage is routine stuff about new housing for sale or is associated with the museum and Colton House rather than for standalone notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm glad ppl including Dlthewave figured out that Colton House is in fact already NRHP-listed (as "Coyote Range", which I had not found). It remains that the main Wikipedia coverage of the topic of "Colton House" / "Coyote Range" (which all seem to agree has plenty of RS) could be as a section in this Coyote Springs, Arizona article. There is no requirement that NRHP places get separate, standalone articles, and it is often better to include their main coverage within other articles. It remains that my personal opinion on this AFD is "Keep", leaving it to locally-interested editors to organize the material. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay, I've edited the article to do that. It is linked from the "NRHP listings in Coconino County" list-article, etc. It is started with NRHP infobox and NRHP nomination document and other sources, but is marked "under construction", and help developing would be welcome. This AFD should be closed "Keep". It will be decided by editors there whether to keep it under "Coyote Springs, Arizona" name and include section on "Colton House", or to move it to "Coyote Range" or to "Colton House" and include section on other development of the Coyote Springs community. If a person is bent on forcing something upon the locally-interested editor(s), they may open discussion(s) at its Talk page towards forcing a split or a rename. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the latter option, the listed house is far more notable than a subdivision of non-historic homes. There shouldn't need to be a separate discussion for that, but thanks for expanding content on the House/Range. Reywas92^Talk 22:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Reywas said. Thanks for the expansion, but that content should be moved to a standalone article or merged with Museum of Northern Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 14:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reywas and dlthewave. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad you three like it. I think it is enough different from "Museum of Northern Arizona" that it should be kept separate, at least now. Perhaps you saw it after I developed it more and removed the "under construction" tag, and I have gone a bit further since. If this is closed "Keep", I am fine with anyone moving it to "Coyote Range" or "Colton House" while keeping a redirect from "Coyote Springs, Arizona", if they will please revise it to explain (and keeping or revising the hatnote like I put in, mentioning the other Coyote Springs Arizona which gets the most hits in web searching). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Colton House or Coyote Range. The historic house and property are notable, but the surrounding development is pretty new, and any relevant details about it can be covered in an article on the historic site. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment System is Down

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future film, not yet demonstrated as the subject of sufficient production coverage to bypass the primary notability criteria for films at WP:NFILM.
As always, future films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment they're announced -- exceptions are granted for films that generate an unusually large volume of ongoing production coverage, to the point that even if they failed they'd likely remain notable as failed productions anyway, but the vast majority of films do not pass inclusion criteria until they're actually released and garnering reviews from professional film critics. But the only sources here are two pieces of acknowledgement that this is in the pipeline -- the latter of which indicates that even the script wasn't finished as of that time, let alone any actual shooting actually having started yet, and in fact he didn't even have producers nailed down yet for the purposes of being able to file this in any "Nationality film" categories that it needs to be filed in.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when it actually gets released and starts getting reviewed, but this doesn't have nearly enough coverage to exempt it from the primary NFILM criteria as of today. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Bearcat, case of WP:TOOSOON, no prejudice against recreation if and when it is released.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak draftify until such time as filming has begun per WP:NFILM. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom's rationale. // Timothy :: talk 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. MER-C 16:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to the League of Nations Haile Selassie June 1936

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

This article is a large swath of quotations in contravention of Wikipedia's non-free content policies. Specifically, minimal use as the article is almost entirely quotations. As note in the non-free content guidelines, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". This nomination takes no stand on the notability of the topic. But if notable, then the removal of the extensive quotations to comply with the non-free content policy would mean that the article would need to be written from scratch. Whpq (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Ethiopia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I send this to WP:CP, and am not sure why it needed to go through AfD in addition, but regardless this is not at all what an article should be, and if you remove all of the quotes you are left with only two unsourced sentences. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The speech is public domain, at least in the original Amharic and the original French translation. See here. It is the English translation that I cannot be sure of. An English translation, perhaps not the same one, was published in the Monthly Summary of the League of Nations for June 1936. When I go to access it, the UN warns me about copyright. Still, it seems that removing the offending material would leave the lead in place. A stub is preferable to erasure. Srnec (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the English translation of the speech is determined to be public domain, Wikisource would be the place for the text rather than here in an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92 ~~Keep~~ the topic is definitely notable and if kept I will undertake to write a well-sourced article about it. I’d be surprised if the text of the speech was copyright protected but even if it is that would not prevent a decent article being written. Stubify for the moment. Mccapra (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haile_Selassie#Collective_security_and_the_League_of_Nations,_1936. With this nice sourced section that covers the speech fitting well into the main article in context, I see no need for a separate article for it. If User:Mccapra is interested I'd encourage expansion there first, even if a split may be appropriate afterward. Reywas92^Talk 15:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right that makes best sense. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on major speeches. Which of Churchill's speeches should we be merging into his article? Haile Selassie's article is 154,836 bytes. If anything, the speech material should be moved here and that section lightened. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and this one is definitely notable, but we’re not discussing merging a decent article about a speech into another article. We’re discussing redirecting a stub that currently adds nothing to what is in the other article, until such time as I or anyone else writes a proper article about it. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support a redirect as noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haile_Selassie#Collective_security_and_the_League_of_Nations,_1936 as an ATD, per Reywas92 and others. Sal2100 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others above. Found some book sources about it, but it's mostly just quotes and not analysis (in English -- would be curious what Ethiopian sources say about it). Nomader (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irving G. Cheslaw

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

Cheslaw was an army officer, university lecturer, and State Department official who rose to be US Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago for two years. None of these accomplishments are inherently notable (including being ambassador). Primary sources mark each step: listing him among graduates from UCLA and among second louies commissioned, briefly noting his nomination and confirmation as ambassador, etc. There is a 125 word obituary that reads as if it was written by the family, and a passing mention in the review of a book. He may have been a fine, hard working fellow, but none of this adds up to multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of him, so he does not meet WP:GNG and should not be the subject of a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago, and United States of America. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable military career, office jobs and an ambassador to a small nation, none of which are notable enough for the press to write about him. I only find confirmation of the posts he's had, long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Dinraat

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

I did not find any primary sources or secondary sources conforming to this article directly in particular. Khorang 07:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Khorang 07:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and CORP. Sources in the artilce are not SIGCOV about the subject, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayasree Bhattacharyya

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any sources to suggest that she meets WP:FILMMAKER, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Khorang 06:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Khorang 06:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Single source in article is promo and fails SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 07:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 07:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season

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

Contested redirect. Simply listing books, without giving enough information to meet WP:VERIFY, is not proper sourcing. With current sourcing, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the nom's claim, the article actually properly cites everything and books are completely valid sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books I have used as a reference, the Rothmans Football Yearbook is now known as The Football Yearbook:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Yearbook

You will note from the article that the book contains statistical information on the previous season's Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League, as well as selected historical records for each club and all major competitions.

The Book has been published every year since 1970.

Based on the above, I feel that this book would be regarded by any British football(soccer) statistician as a reliable, independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

In addition, a substantial number of newspaper references have been added since the article was first published therefore I think there are sufficient sources for you to reconsider. Hytrgpzxct (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's hard to view notability as the sources are offline, but based on the titles they appear to be ROUTINe and I am not convinced there is sufficient evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the current Yearbook here with additional media reviews:

https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-utilita-football-yearbook-2022-2023/headline/9781472288363

Further articles here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5524695/Football-Yearbook-shelved-Sky-end-support-revered-almanac.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/03/21/rothmans-football-yearbook-bible-british-game-need-saviour/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/6354677/the-sun-world-famous-football-year-book-with-sponsorship-deal/ Hytrgpzxct (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has over 50 offline references, including a news reference for almost every single game! This looks very highly likely notable to me, especially considering they played in the Scottish First Division. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As is the way with football in many countries, please note that the Scottish First Division was not the top division in Scotland. It was (and still is) the second division. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, this looks very likely notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also plenty of coverage in Newspapers.com's limited Scottish paper collection. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the coverage about the events of this season in multiple newspapers as evidenced above, we can definitely say that sources exist and a decent article can be made from this Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:No original research. There is no evidence that the season itself has been discussed in detail in any of the sources listed. It's hard to assume the many offline refs cover this topic in detail when all we have is a statistical table with no prose. To me this looks like a classic case WP:SYNTH in which coverage of individual games has been spliced together into an article on the entire season. In effect this is original research. What we need is clear evidence of in-depth significant coverage of the season as a whole to demonstrate that the season itself passes WP:SIGCOV; not just merely of coverage of individual events within the season. Until we see some textual evidence in a prose section of the article using these offline sources in a way that its clear these offline sources have in-depth coverage of the 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season as a whole (ie retrospective comments/quotes/analysis about the entire season) I am not seeing a strong argument for keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of season articles, from the many discussions relating to them that I've participated in, are from coverage of the year's games; articles discussing the team's season as a whole are not required. What proves notability is that each of their games have coverage (Though, actually, we do have sources covering the season overall in the books, it seems). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely not true BeanieFan. Read WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This applies to all articles; including this one. No exceptions. We need sources which address the "1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season" "directly and in detail" to prove WP:SIGCOV. It's disturbing to me that this very fundamental rule is not readily apparent to you as a long time participant in AFDs and prolific writer on sports content on wikipedia. Coverage of the parts does not equate to coverage of the whole, and if we are going to write about the whole we need to use sources which contain coverage of the whole and not just the parts. Otherwise it's WP:OR. 4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the many season article deletion discussions I've participated in, that's not how it works. Having tons of coverage on the parts is sufficient to pass GNG. As for your OR point, we've also got several books discussing the season as a whole, and so actually, even if your point about the part/whole was correct, we've still got enough coverage for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then those hypothetical decisions were made error and didn't follow our written policies. However, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and is not valid here at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that the community's consensus is that such coverage is sufficient towards notability relating to seasons is not an OSE argument; it appears that you are the one who is in error. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMESBASED arguments are also listed in arguments to avoid. Claiming past "community consensus" without evidence doesn't mean much; particularly when there is no record of a recognized consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes or in our policies on sports teams and their seasons. Even if you were to find a few past examples at AFD, cherry picking a few representative AFDs on the fly is not a guarantee that it is a representative sample of past discussions, and doing so would be an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Claiming a community consensus exists at AFD and is a common outcome actually requires an official organized conversation where community input occurs, a consensus is reached, and then voted on and approved before it is officially recognized at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes list. So no I don't think you are right and I don't think you can make that claim. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An athletic season in team sports is a collection of games. In the case of particularly notable teams, each game may receive SIGCOV, but we don't allow articles on individual games unless there is something exceptional about the game (e.g., a championship game).. Instead, as a reasonable editorial judgment, we have opted to bundle the coverage into season articles. This is a sound judgment that avoids the proliferation of articles on individual games and allows us to present the information in a more coherent fashion in the context of season articles. I know nothing about the Kilmarnock F.C., and the sources cited are off-line. Accordingly, I offer no opinion on whether this particular article should be kept, but the decision should not be made on the basis that there is abundant SIGCOV, but that SIGCOV is focused on the constiutuent parts of the season (i.e., the games) rather than an overview of the season as a whole. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what written policy are you basing that on? In any other topical area on wikipedia where there is an overview topic as the main subject of an article we require significant coverage of that named overview topic in reliable sources; and not merely sources on parts of the topic. The reason for this is to prevent WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I would argue that editorial decision to bundle coverage of individual games into articles on seasons doesn't supersede our core policies at WP:No original research and WP:GNG. We can not have a collective article on a sports season without sources that directly cover the entire season with in-depth coverage. With no sources of that kind, we are essentially doing original research/synthesis to build an article and not just merely fleshing out gaps in the coverage of the season through the supplementary use of sources on individual games. It would be like writing an article on the human body by only using sources that address individual organs or cells but never looked at the whole body or the body in larger systems. There does need to be at least a couple sources about the season as a whole to demonstrate that this isn't original syntheses. We can't just ignore policies because its editorially convenient.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per 4meter4. I also doubt it is at all common for individual games to receive GNG coverage that complies with NEVENT and NOT, since the vast majority of game coverage is primary and/or fails NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage of the overall topic. Also see WP:NOTDATABASE. BruceThomson (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Raj

AfDs for this article:

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

Not eligible for G4, so we're back here. I'm just going to quote Anachronist's comment from the last AfD, since the rationale still holds: "Subject occupies an administrative government position, not really notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN, and for WP:GNG purposes the coverage seems fairly WP:ROUTINE. Much coverage is made of her passing a civil service exam, although I have no way of knowing why that would be notable; even those who pass the world's most difficult exam don't all merit articles here." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the previous iteration's content has been repackaged as a "Controversies" section, perhaps to make it sound more compelling; but the relevant information is essentially the same. --Hadal (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as last time, civil servant, nothing notable. No coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Further recreations should be done via WP:AFC. I was unaware this has been recreated, and the rationale I used when I proposed this for deletion the first time is unchanged, with the additional note that while the controversies mentioned in the article may be notable, the subject of the article is not; the coverage wasn't about her. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in its current state the article is only serving as a WP:COATRACK for controversies this living person has been involved with. If these are the only noteworthy things about her then WP:BLP1E applies. She is not mentioned in the article on the more recent incident, suggesting her involvement was not significant, certainly not to the level that compels a standalone article. The older incident in Munnar we don't seem to have written about at all. This actually seems to be a WP:BLP0E. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 St. George Illawarra Dragons season

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

Contested redirect. Zero in-depth sources from independent, reliable refs. Currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been noted at Talk:2023 NRL season. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of sources currently cited at the article does not correlate to a lack of sources about the subject.
Furthermore—and I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF—but this would open the AfD floodgates to any number of team season articles that are useful for splitting data out of the league's season articles. I don't think we want to send AfD down that path. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything This user wants to delete many, many articles, just let them do it. I stopped contributing years ago because of this type of thing, why bother fighting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Onel these are rugby league season articles, what else do you want to see in them? A list of every play by teams in every match? Just put up a template that says "need more sources" is ok, but don't try to delete every existing page, rugby league may not matter to you, but it matters to us Aussies.
Oppose: WP:NSEASONS qualifies this and almost every other NRL team season article nominated or draftified by this editor. Yes some teams have more active editors than others to ensure full WP:GNG compliance, but I fail to see the point of the back-and-forward nature of what's happening to a few different articles in the rugby league space. Storm machine (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: looking around and I see a number of rugby league related articles that have suffered from a cycle of creation, redirection, recreation (often multiple times), further redirects, draftifying, and other moves, followed by an AfD process. Surely judicious use of the {{primary sources}} tag and starting relevant discussions on article talk pages, or even visiting the WikiProject Rugby league talk page to enlist editors to expand on articles, would be a better use of time. Storm machine (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NSEASONS does not preclude WP:GNG, indeed, the first sentence of the SNG is "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements." (emphasis added). Not that they automatically qualify. GNG still must be shown.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick ProQuest search indicates 1,017 search results for the search term "St George Illawarra Dragons" from 1 November 2022 (the nominal start of the NRL calendar year) through today. Is that enough presumed and significant coverage? Storm machine (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that WP:NSEASONS allows possibility of page existing. As per C.Fred, lack of cited sources is not a reason to remove page. Sources exist, they just need to be cited. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSEASONS> Sources are abundant, they just haven't been added. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flora's Very Windy Day

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

Fails GNG Finlan Bendbow-Rendeck (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NBOOK with reviews in, e.g., Washington Post, Kirkus and Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. pburka (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews establish that WP:NBOOK is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Easily passes notability guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Michigan State Spartans women's basketball team

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

Another contested redirect woefully undersourced. Should be redirected or draftified until enough sourcing is provided, but that's no longer an option, so we are here. Currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to wonder if any WP:BEFORE effort was taken prior to this nomination. ~~(Or perhaps an April Fool's Day nomination?)~~ Like the Auburn season articles nominated the other day, this article is for a top-level team that attracts significant coverage for each modern season. Examples in this case include here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, part 1/part 2, part 1/part 2, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (The State News not independent but there is also extensive coverage in this publication as well). This is a clear WP:GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination reads like WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the only course of action which could be taken as per recent discussions at ANI. As I said, should be redirected or draftified until sourcing is provided, but that is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Bagumba has cited the correct passage above. It would help if you could read through it. E.g., "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." In your nomination statement, you say that the article "currently" fails WP:GNG, but an AfD needs to consider the existence of sources not "currently" in the article. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows that this subject does, in fact, pass GNG. Would you consider withdrawing this so everyone can move on to other issues? Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. This is the avenue I was told to pursue at ANI, and I agreed to abide by the consensus of the discussion. When an article does not pass WP:GNG, reviewers can do one of several things rather than sending to AfD or PROD, once those other choices are contested, regardless of how absurd the contention, and the article is not improved enough to pass WP:GNG, PROD or AfD are the only options left. Believe me, I would rather not have had to bring this (and quite a few other articles) to AfD, but as per the ANI discussions, there is no other option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what ANI consensus you are referring to, but I doubt there is any "consensus" suggesting that you should nominate articles for deletion where a simple WP:BEFORE search easily reveals abundant WP:SIGCOV such that GNG is plainly satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The practice you are outlining (nominating for deletion without regard to whether SIGCOV exists) not only runs afoul of AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but also is contrary to WP:INTROTODELETE: "When not to use the deletion process: Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." Cbl62 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I believe Onel5969 is referring to this discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. There is clearly no "consensus" there that it is acceptable to nominate an article for deletion: (i) without doing a WP:BEFORE, (ii) where abundant SIGCOV is revealed by a simple BEFORE search, (iii) simply because it needs improvement (which would be contrary to both WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:INTROTODELETE). The correct solution in this case would be to tag the article for cleanup, but not to send it to AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 that is a thorough misreading of the ANI discussion. Yes, people are telling you to use AfD instead of draftifying. That doesn't absolve you from any of the normal requirements or processes related to AfD. You're gonna have to do some policy and process at some point, sorry. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. This is clearly satisfies GNG, and if there was any attempt to WP:BEFORE this, or the number of other articles we've had this same discussion on this week alone, we wouldn't all be here wasting our time. If this is the procedure now, then the procedure is broken. -fuzzy510 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI believe it should not be allowed to just show sources, but the article should also be expanded in he transcourse of an AfD discussion. While I know that this is currently not the case, I believe this would solve and shorten many AfDsParadise Chronicle (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a massive time waste to nominate articles for deletion where even a cursory BEFORE search discloses that GNG is satisfied. If the goal is cleanup, tag the article with an appropriate cleanup banner. AfD is not a proper procedure to clean up an article that plainly meets our notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats correct too, I firmly believe WP:BEFORE is the correct way to go for normally created articles.

(For masscreated ones I'd support a different approach, though, but that's another discussion). Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. passes WP:N via WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment three sources picked up above at random, this, this and this are not SIGCOV of the 2022-23 season/team by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not interested on the topic so whatever, but it's seldom a good idea to give the benefit of the doubt to such a volume of sources, especially in sports AfDs. Avilich (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: it's seldom a good idea to give the benefit of the doubt to such a volume of sources In the past, sports articles have been damned if editors give too few sources and now, I guess, damned if you give too many. Even if you take issue with the three you highlighted, it's hard to imagine how anyone can argue that this, this, this, and this don't constitute SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever caused trouble by simply posting the WP:THREE best sources. Again I have no opinion, and you may just as well be right about those and the other sources. Also please be careful when cutting and pasting others' comments. Avilich (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the sloppy cut and paste. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the coverage provided by Cbl62. Note, there are sources with in-depth significant coverage about both the 2022–23 season and team of the Michigan State Spartans women's basketball team, and not just coverage individual games within that season.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 USFL Championship Game

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

Contested redirect - zero in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several hits on a Google search show details about its date, time, and location and it’s reasonable to believe much more WP:SIGCOV will be available closer to the game. Per WP:CRYSTAL, an article on a future event is appropriate if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. (Y based coverage of date/time/venue/TV) and if the subject matter [is] of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. (Y based on notability of 2022 Championship game article). Frank Anchor 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Frank Anchor. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep enough to pass WP:GNG, there are details about the event even now that are covered in the news. Right now, it's basically a stub, but do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Power (TV series) as there is no standalone list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brayden Weston

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

No indication of any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. Fails as per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. Contested draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show's list of characters. Pure WP:ALLPLOT, no evidence of how this meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power (TV series)#undefined. Nothing shows this meets GNG. FANCRUFT. // Timothy :: talk 07:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show's list of characters per above. Clearly not enough notability for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Chinedu Ndukauba

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

Was draftified due to UPE/COI concerns. Moved to mainspace by inexperienced editor. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. He has no career to speak of. With the exception of the first source, all of the remaining sources in the article are unreliable. The subject is only known for being a chairman for a non-notable organization and winning a non-notable award at his school. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources appear to be largely unreliable WP:PROMO pieces from Nigerian media that lack independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The sources are reliable and meets WP:NACTOR and is deemed neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddysugarism (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtiss Riggs

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

Another contested redirect without improvement. Currently, not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, nor even enough coverage to meet WP:VERIFY. Uncited material was returned to mainspace without sourcing in violation of WP:BURDEN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, this nomination is a bit silly – Riggs is literally one of the top ten winningest football coaches in history – and has the sigcov which comes with it [27] [28] and [29], among others. Clearly is notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He even has pro football's all-time consecutive wins record! BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources found by BeanieFan11. I took the liberty and added them to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll add WP:IMPACT. Cleanup the article and make it better, but that's not a deletion issue--just editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mammootty Kampany

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

Another contested redirect. Not enough in-depth coverage about a vanity company to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-12 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing here is very thin. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seidu Faisal

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

In my searches, all I can find are squad listings much like the ones already referenced in the article. I can't find any sources that pull Seidu Faisal to one side and analyse him in depth. WP:SPORTBASIC not yet demonstrated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article fails SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Annan (footballer, born 1992)

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

I've done a WP:BEFORE but can't find anything about the Isaac Annan born in 1992 other than the 4 references already used. Kaya FC is the best in terms of depth but it needs to be disregarded entirely as it's written by his employer at the time so is not independent of the subject. Based on my searches, Annan looks to fail WP:SPORTBASIC comprehensively. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article fail SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 07:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Fire Brigade

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

Contested redirect. Single in-depth source from an independent reference. And I'm not sure if that is reliable, as I can't find any information about the publisher, Jeremy Mills Publishing, other than they seem to specialize in subjects around fire and fire-fighting related issues. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel, I get the concern about the single source, but there doesn't seem to be any other publicly accessible one. I understand the consensus is in this case that it's acceptable if the source is reliable?

In terms of reliability, from what I've found, Jeremy Mills Publishing changed its name to Riasca UK Ltd in 2014 and has since dissolved (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04323450) with the director going on to a book conservation organisation. The director states that they focused on "specialist niche titles" (https://jeremymillspublishing.blogspot.com/2007/11/visit-our-website.html) which would explain why they went for this book. I've found nothing to suggest that this source is notable for faulty fact checking, poor oversight, or conflict of interest.

The beginning of the book contains an acknowledgements section, listing three members of the Croydon Auxiliary Fire Service (Neil Wallington, Ron Bentley, and Eric Billingham) as sources, as well as records held at the Croydon Archives Library such as annual reports, the books "Croydon and the Second World War" and "Croydon Courageous". Additionally, it mentions that many records have been lost since, explaining the lack of sources on this subject. The author, Eddie Baker, appears to be a frequent publisher of UK fire brigade books (https://www.waterstones.com/author/eddie-baker/61614), and this book was reported in local press on coming out as well as being celebrated by the local fire brigade (https://web.archive.org/web/20050103125928fw_/http://www.jeremymillspublishing.co.uk/paper2.GIF) (https://web.archive.org/web/20050310190245fw_/http://www.jeremymillspublishing.co.uk/paper1.GIF)

It would be great to have another source, but this appears to be the only one. I believe this to be a reliable, independent, secondary source published by a respectable publishing house as required by WP:SOURCE and so I think that it meets WP:GNG. Look forward to discussing this, please let me know what you think :) Dan :] (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject. Sufficient sourcing. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Further paragraphs added to History section with separate cited sources. Appreciate nominator's concerns but now passes GNG multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sourcing condition. Rupples (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable, and expanded article now cites multiple RSs. Paul W (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded article and added citations seems to prove notability to me, meeting WP:GNG - Navarre0107 (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cornrows. Sandstein 13:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana braids

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

Contested draftification by an event coordinator. There is a single reliable source. Fails WP:GNG as written. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Ghana, and Senegal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cornrows. Found a video from the BBC, but I don't think sufficient coverage in RS exists for a standalone page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cornrows per above. Not enough coverage for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bustami

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

Badly sourced stats-only BLP on a footballer that doesn't seem to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. I found a trivial mention in a Tribun News match report and Modusaceh, which may or may not be the same 'Bustami', just contains 2 brief quotes so isn't significant coverage. I'm not seeing even one example of significant coverage let alone the multiple ones required for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Ágh

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

Despite playing 134 mins of professional football over a decade ago, I'm not seeing the depth required for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches including this one did not yield any decent coverage. Even Nemzeti Sport had nothing useful. I found 2 Q&A articles and will explain why they are not sufficient. Felvidek is not an independent source since it's based on a press release from FC ŠTK 1914 Šamorín, his employer at the time. It also contains no independent analysis of his responses so, as per consensus at footballer AfDs, we wouldn't regard it as significant. Sportolunk is another basic Q&A with no meaningful content from anyone other than Ágh himself, so does not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Hungary, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep press releases are significant if they are by third party, even if they repeat whhat first party says.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger concern with the Felvidek source is that it lacks any substantial independent content. Last week, Zoltán Ágh, the newest member of STK Somorja, trained hard. He returned to Somorja after a half-year detour from Sopron is pretty much all that it says about him. Most of the rest is direct quotes from him and consensus at AfD is that Q&As with little independent content do not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not a source for notability. // Timothy :: talk 08:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nom's detailed source analysis (and yes club press releases on their own players are NOT independent sources regardless of which outlet publishes them). Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Press releases from clubs about its own players are never, ever independent sources. Alvaldi (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Above Keeps provides no sources, just a false claim about press releases showing notability, but it is worth noting the best sources Keep votes can produce are just press releases. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, better than I was able to say myself. I am honestly stunned that someone can, in good faith, say that this press release from his employer shows notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. The argument that press releases count toward SIGCOV is ridiculous, as press releases by definition lack independence, are sometimes not independently fact checked by the third parties who publish them, and are therefore inherently unreliable.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vignan Vidyalaya, Rayagada

AfDs for this article:

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

Private primary school with no claim to notability. Only sources I can find are ones like DIY Schools which are way short of WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. There are also several red flags in the article such as "Vignan Vidyalaya does not have its own building and runs in a rented building." and "The school has total of 5 classrooms." which are essentially admissions that the school is not a notable school. Primary schools are almost never notable and I'm not seeing this as being the rare exception. I can't even find any WP:RS that would be worth creating a section on the school in Rayagada with. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus.

Previous discussions: 2016-11 (closed as no consensus)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vectra AI

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

Lack of notability per WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a business directory. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and California. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article used to be much longer, note revision 1139512372. Most of the material removed was promotional in some form. I don't see any references that would support a keep vote, but I haven't checked them all. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all of the references there' The last one ("Magic Quadrant for Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems") is arguably suitable, including about 3 paragraphs of content on the company. The rest are all useless, and more than one good source is needed to write an article anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Analyst reports such as Garner, Forrester, etc, meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 18:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's only one of them (which I will admit I missed in the WP:REFBOMBing) and don't you need two such sources to establish notability? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true you need multiple sources. I'm suspicious of some of the reports put forward by some research agencies where it is difficult to identify the author or where they just don't look right. Also, I found reports mentioned on "Market Research Future" but this website is registered on Wikipedia's Blacklist. So while this "GLOBAL AND UNITED STATES INTRUSION DETECTION AND PREVENTION SOFTWARE MARKET SIZE, STATUS AND FORECAST 2021-2027" report by Kingpin Market Research is ... difficult ... to validate, this "Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems Software Market Analysis 2022" by Stratagem is probably OK. Once you go searching though, there appears to be sufficient reports and all in all - unless someone can point to a reason to discount these references - I think there's enough here to say that there exists sufficient sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 11:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Less Unless (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bazaart

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage (of the company itself rather than its products) meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional content that surely fails Wikipedia:Notability. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1 million downloads is notable. if the page is written in a promotional manner then edit it but don't delete it.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's topic is more a software as I see from the sources. Also it showcases the design platform's history and milestones, such as being selected by Apple as "Best of 2014" and by Google as "Best of 2020." These recognitions from prominent tech companies demonstrate the platform's notability in the industry and suggest that it has had a significant impact in its field. Furthermore, software's partnership with Adobe in 2015 highlights its relevance in the design community.--Rodgers V (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable and well-referenced software. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect could be possible, but this subject isn't mentioned in the target article that one participant suggested. RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Play

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

Fails GNG and CORP. Unsourced article. BEFORE showed database listings, promos, adverts, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. I don't think there is a good redirect target, but if consensus forms for one, I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 09:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disney. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have any sources, and it is an Orphaned articles without any related articles and listings added to point to it.It should be deleted.--Lqy328 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any CORP worthy coverage either but maybe a redirect to Star is possible, like how Fox is redirected to Star Premium.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keo-Oudone Souvannasangso

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

Contested draftify (see Draft:Keo-Oudone Souvannasangso). Article makes no claim to notability and my searches in Latin and Laotian script failed to yield anything that indicates WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG are met. Best I can find from Laotian sources are Muan, Lao Phattana and Vientiane Times, all of which are essentially just a squad announcement where he is mentioned once. The only decent Latin script source that I can find is Football 5 star, an Indonesian article about an U23 fixture which mentions him only 3 times and doesn't give anything that we can build a biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Laos. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a previous version of this article did have 2 sources. Lao Daily is a trivial mention. Lao FF is just a squad list for a game against Thailand U23. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I know I voted in this, but WP:SNOW makes me think that this can probably be speedy closed, and so I will. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Theatre (Belvidere, Illinois)

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

Merged and redirected as failing N and unneeded CFORK, but rv. Fails GNG and NGEO as well as EVENT and LASTING. There is also the article 2023 Apollo Theater Roof Collapse, which again fails GNG, NOTNEWS, EVENT and LASTING. Finally there is Belvidere North State Street Historic District which has a spot for it Belvidere North State Street Historic District#Apollo Theatre. This is a classic unnecessary CFORK, which serves to fragment the content into stubs and make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 08:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article 2023 Apollo Theater Roof Collapse was very temporary, as it consisted of just one sentence ("On March 31, 2023, the roof of Apollo Theater in Belvidere, Illinois collapsed, causing the death of 1 person and the hospitalization of 28 people.") and it was redirected to the historic district. I re-redirected it to this Apollo Theatre article, where there's expanded info about the collapse. This AFD is not about that redirect; redirects are cheap and harmless. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this building is independently notable. That it didn't have an article until this tragic event doesn't make that any less so. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? // Timothy :: talk 08:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[30] / [31] / [32] / [33] / [34] / [35]. I would have thought a 100-year old theater would give enough for a Start. KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:Rockstone35. Indeed among contributing buildings in NRHP historic districts, usually a theatre is going to be individually notable; because of their nature there is much written about them. wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, an excellent essay, applies. Also I am adding to the article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did add to this article, and I revised the historic district article to start to list out its major contributing buildings, including this one. With brief mention, currently, to the roof collapse... the details are now provided in the Apollo Theatre article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this whole thing, so I'm a bit biased, but I think it's gotten to be quite a useful little article within the span of about ten hours. DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per User:Rockstone35 and User: Doncram. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...not going to lie; the explanation for the deletion request looked like a bunch of gibberish to me. ChessEric 16:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone said it. It looked like someone wikilawyering. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Perhaps the article about the roof collapse could be merged with it, but the page about the Apollo itself is sound due to the theater's notability. TH1980 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks good and perfectly viable now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The future of Iran’s democracy movement

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV are the problems with this article, which is about a meeting that had no sustained coverage (far from WP:GNG). ParadaJulio (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't need this. BenzoAid (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most powerful reasoning to delete an article. "We" don't need "this". Gharouni^Talk 09:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 22:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? Gharouni^Talk 09:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Keep or Draftify and Move and incubate; as an article about the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, for the reason's stated here: Talk:The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement#Requested_move_17_March_2023, among others. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The summit attendees have released their promised charter, they have styled themselves as the ADFI, so the obvious and logical thing to do is to expand the scope of this article to be about the alliance and its future political action. (Unless your goal is to undermine this Iranian opposition group, and support the existing regime, in which case you might deliberately ignore this fact and then nominate the article for deletion)

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article because after one week there was no response, which is presumed consensus.

Its not a "completely" different topic, its an expansion of this same topic.

If the AfD ignores this, then the AfD may be a disruptive process.

Also, @ParadaJulio rolled back a citation and several other constructive contributions. If this user insists on reverting the article-move to its original name, then he should please WP:PRESERVE the other content. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the proposed move has been explicitly supported by @Gharouni, who is the only other constructive contributor to this article, we have not only presumed consensus for the move, but unanimous and decisive consensus for the move as well.

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few citations to the Iranian english language media, have now been provided on the article to substantiate the notable existence of the ADFI.

Some of those citations were also on the article which you actively worked to delete, as you know.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement

Remind you of our policy: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Considerations

|"First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth."

@ParadaJulio has not even attempted to do this. I have now undertaken to do it, the AfD should be closed as "Keep", since the nominator is evidently WP:Tendentious Jaredscribe (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was also substantially tendentious in the earlier AfD, by inaccurately alleging the NCRI's efforts to be a "hoax", and then doubling down on that false claim in a Sockpuppet investigation. And is now continuing that WP:Disruptive editing behavior here:

Talk:National_Council_of_Resistance_of_Iran#2023_U.S._House_Resolution_100

Since @ParadaJulio is now continuing to press these false allegations against in ANI along with his cohort @AndyTheGrump, I will ask that these users be dealt a penalty equivalent to the penalty that they are seeking to have dealt against me. Jaredscribe (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to participate directly in this AfD discussion, as it might be seen inappropriate in circumstances where I'm involved in a dispute with one of the participants in regard to another article, but I would like to suggest that Jaredscribe's hand-waving at talk-page discussions elsewhere is contrary to the process laid out in WP:DISCUSSAFD. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a closer to read though material elsewhere in the hope of figuring out exactly what the 'reasons stated' are. Policy-based arguments for a 'keep' are generally simple to make (e.g. through demonstrating that sufficient third-party sources exist etc), and should be stated directly in the AfD discussion, where they can be assessed by all, and responded to if appropriate. If Jaredscribe wants his arguments for keeping the article to be taken into consideration, he should state them explicitly here. And if he isn't prepared to do that, the closer will, in my opinion, be entirely justified in simply ignoring them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. At least his/her reasons are more reasonable in comparison to other two users that have requested to delete the article. It is even more reasonable in comparison to the reasons that the user who has nominated the article for AFD. This article is about some important current events and as it was requested the title change is now necessary. This article will need to be completed and more information added to it gradually as they happen. I requested speedy deletion as creator of this article (it was declined as there are other users involved) because I was sure this article would never be nominated for any reasons, to be deleted, except for some other reasons that I can not say. Thanks for your comment. Gharouni^Talk 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the topic of the article with forbidden synthesis is not a valid argument to keep the article. Jaredscribe also tried to do this in another recent AfD with a similar topic, which obviously ended up being deleted. AndyTheGrump is correct that Jaredscribe's approach here goes against policy. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. That the ADFI exists, was birthed from this "future of" meeting, and has published a manifesto, is not a synthetic statement. It is accurate reporting of the WP:Verifiable facts, and is therefore a valid argument for keeping the article.

2.0 This article on the ADFI is a particular article about a specific group, not a WP:Broad-concept article like the other, therefore not an apt comparison, and not as susceptible to the possibility of inadvertently admitting synthetic OR.

2.1 The other article is now renamed (as I had proposed) and is being incubated at User:Jaredscribe/Iranian_democracy_movements. It has been shared with WP:WikiProject Iran and eventually will be published with more sources and without the problematic name (which was the only "synthetic" claim in the article). In the AfD itself I had acknowledged this problem - I'm not unaware or insensitive to it. I agree to abide by our WP:Content policy including the prohibition on WP:Original research, and to abide by the mostly fair decision of the closing admin in that AfD case.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding @Gharouni and for signalling your agreement with proposed move. Since we are the only constructive contributors to this article, it seems that there is now unanimous consensus for it.

I perceive that you are not able to speak freely at the moment, and whatever your earlier reasons were proposing speedy deletion, have retracted it.

Thank you for your contribution to the WP:Encyclopedia! Jaredscribe (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Jaredscribe. Walls of text are not a substitute for reliable sources (which is something that the topic is clearly lacking). - MA Javadi (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've voted to Move and Keep or Draftify and Move and incubate as "Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran", which is an expansion of this topic, not an entirely different topic. I also tagged it {{more citations needed}}.

Although not MSM, there is clearly some reporting about the ADFI; less about "the future ..." meeting.

Please clarify your vote, thanks.

Jaredscribe (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MA Javadi, see question above, forgot to ping you. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about a current revolutionary event that still is going on and just need to be expanded over time. there are thousands of reliable sources (in many languages) that cover these events. This article only needs topic change/s and information to be added as events go. Gharouni^Talk 01:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: most of the arguments put forth so far on both sides are extremely weak. I am relisting this discussion hoping that more comments will be forthcoming focusing on the notability of the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran and/or this summit
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. The article currently cobbles together a subject based on a Georgetown conference titled "the future of Iran's democracy movement" plus citations to a wide range of opinion and news pieces that briefly touch on the "future" of the movement. The Georgetown conference does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT, and the other sources do not identify a separate "future" topic distinct from the current Mahsa Amini protests and historical protest movements in Iran. Maybe notability could be established for Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, but the currently cited sources do not come close to meeting WP:ORGCRITE so I would not be in favor of moving this page at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rosguill. The article strings together weak to irrelevant sources, many of which fail to assert any kind of WP:GNG for this topic ("The future of Iran's democracy movement" or "The Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran"). The current Mahsa Amini protests is the notable movement here, not the Georgetown conference or its socalled "coalition of activists", for which there aren’t enough sources to justify notability. JoseJan89 (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rosguill and JoseJan89. This is WP:CRYSTAL in the extreme. Realistically any reliable sources could be added to the Mahsa Amini protests article but there isn't much here -- suggest a straight delete instead of a "merge" or redirect (very unlikely search term). Nomader (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blidinje Nature Park. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića

AfDs for this article:

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

Obscure tabloid coverage, an article by the globally banned User:Kubura, likely WP:COI and WP:self-promotion (see 'purported currency'). Vipz (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Vipz (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it has survived AFD previously, even with a no consensus close, we can't just soft delete this for low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. As the article states, the is a tourist destination, a "self-proclaimed fictional micronation" so it makes sense that the sources in the article and BEFORE are promo, travel, articles. // Timothy :: talk 15:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist, because this article is ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blidinje Nature Park under subsection title and leave a redirect. I was curious so I checked Pageviews stats for this article, and, amazingly, it has more page views than Blidinje nature park page, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's more visited page than any average Balkan scope article.from heritage, tourism and environment categories. That's not an excuse for standalone article but there is no reason to have paragraph or two in mentioned article. Actually, I wanted to move some prose over there and expand on its existing Trivia subsection, when I noted temp.msg.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have moved prose from the AfD to Blidinje_Nature_Park#Hajdučka_Republika_Mijata_Tomića, because standalone is really unattainable per notability; I would leave a redirect, however.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apart from serving as an appropriate redirect to content covered elsewhere, it is also required to still exist for attribution. Thanks for doing the merge! As for pageviews stats, I presume much of it is contributed from curious clicks originating from the {{Micronations}} navbox (this is how I ended up finding this article). –Vipz (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively Keep: I've just done some editing on that page, adding its current website, and an "External links" item to a page there of news clippings about it (in Croatian). Unfortunately things like date and even name of newspaper aren't shown, so it will take some time to track them down and cite them properly... but at least for now you can see that there are quite a few news stories about the subject. Pending dates and publication details, it looks like they're visibly "newsworthy" in the papers' opinions, whether or not ours. If they're all one newspaper, or a house publication, I'll change my mind; hence the tentativeness of my "Keep". – _•Raven ^.talk 02:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tried the same few years ago, I even tried to upload img's of CoA, but it was futile effort. The article itself is a messy and contradictory, which can only lead to a confusion among readers. Small number of sources is understandable because the whole thing was literally of a temporary nature and an advertising idea and project for an emerging family business than some kind of protest by the local community; after all, I am inclined to think that the community should consist of more than one small family with (currently) two members in order to be considered a kinda protest micronation. There is simply no way to make it notable. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the current 'Constitution' page (PDF), listing 69 officers, or the passport issued for €65 to guests and online applicants (shown in the Al Jazeera video report)? There are many more than "two members" involved. – _•Raven ^.talk 22:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Blidinje Nature Park per above.4meter4 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council

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

No evidence of notability. I can see simple mentions of it in books but no discussion. It is also mentioned here[36] which says " (There is an “Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council.” Its leader, Iron Thunderhorse, is currently in prison in Texas for rape, and projected to be released in 2051, at the age of 107. He is half-Italian, was born William Coppola, and according to a legal filing by the Texas prison authority, was not listed as Native American on at least one of his purported birth.'" Iron Thunderhorse's article was basically written by the same editor who wrote this one in 2007 IIRC. Thunderhorse is a wannabe New Ager with a lot of self-published stuff and articles in "Ancient American" which edited by Frank Collin and is the usual fraudulent archaeology stuff, everybody came to America with some right wing stuff thrown in. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Iron Thunderhorse, the highly dubious but seemingly notable character who created this otherwise non-notable entity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Organizations, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs to be rewritten to reflect what the organization really is instead of what they claim, which I can commit to doing once I get some free time (next week), but the organization is the subject of numerous newspaper articles (even in recent years). This organization is still active. A fact-based article would provide ballast against all the wild claims online. Yuchitown (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Ok, I'm willing to withdraw this if User:Cullen328 is. I could only find mentions, you've done a better job! Doug Weller talk 14:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I solemnly swear to revamp this article within two weeks. Not an April Fools statement—LOL. Yuchitown (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
No objection to keeping, then. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328@YuchitownOn my iPad, not sure how to do this without making a mess. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Brăila attack

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, attack without fatalities that was forgotten by the press in a matter of days. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Romania. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ikram Akhtar

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

Notability is not established due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of of the subject. Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:DIRECTOR.. References are not WP:RS as 1 of only 2 listed sources is a link to a PR published by ANI & the 2nd one is a listing in an entertainment portal. AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify Added couple of detailed article about him. Hope it serves the purpose of passing notability , if not it may be draftified Christopheronthemove (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO & WP:DIRECTOR as stated by the nominator.122.164.114.13 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has written at least 13 works sufficiently notable to have their own articles. Seems like a C3 pass of WP:CREATIVE CT55555(talk) 18:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The cited journal article may be usable as a source somewhere else, but is not enough to show independent notability for this separate Wikipedia article. RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War Rape and Judaism

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

Speedy delete. Fails all N, is OR. Agree with speedy delete, but it would probably be rejected at CSD. // Timothy :: talk 07:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely inappropriate for this article to be nominated for deletion considering it is NOT original research there was cited material. DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is example of source in which proves this was not original research

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309089216661171 DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply interesting edits: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Care to comment on these?
Comment to closing admin: Please review this users edit history for possible NOTHERE. // Timothy :: talk 10:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no chance of becoming a useful article. I would have speedied it except that I don't think I'm allowed to do that once an AfD is started. The article on Deuteronomy would be appropriate at Wartime sexual violence, but that is not an invitation to you, DroppingInNotONe1. Zero^talk 11:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
/agree, I'm terrible at CSD, so I just decided to bring it here. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's already a useful article DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a brief discussion in Deuteronomy perhaps, nothing for GNG. Wildly fanciful claims. I don't see anything for sourcing other than the Bible. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Many problems. One of which is that the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament source could be usable elsewhere, maybe, but "Discover The Truth" is a WP:SPS and biblegateway.com is just the primary source without any context or commentary, which makes its use here WP:SYNTH. Neither of the latter two are reliable in this context. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the reality is the article is well-sourced and in line with what the Torah actually says. False claims that the Oaktree did nto actually read the article because there was in fact peer reviewed source and it was not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.186.90 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe add the information to a page like Book of Deuteronomy. This is at best WP:OR. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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. There have been, quite frankly a plethora of points made in this discussion that do very little to advance the discussion such as the comparable notability, photos, title construction, claiming sources exist without pointing to them, pointing to primary sources, etc. All have been given very little weight.

There was a dispute as to if Film Daily sources are reliable enough to count for notability purposes. I would have preferred a discussion at RSN, but the ad hoc analysis was compelling that it is not. I suggest that editors further explore this issue.

There was a late proposal to merge the article into Roslyn Chasan. I considered a third relist, but decided against it. The discussion was already longer than the majority of AfDs and had a wide swath of editors involved. If editors would like to place a redirect on-top of the deletion and merge in some of the content, they can through normal editorial channels. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chasan Villa

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are all passing references in the small local newspaper, referring to landslide which undermined multiple residences, not just this one. Only more significant sources referenced talk about further landslides in area 30 years after this house was destroyed, don't mention the house at all. Also, can't find any sources that refer to the house as The Chasan Villa. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've read through the sources and given there are full page newspaper spreads showing photos of this house, it is clear that it is notable. Also, it would not make sense to delete this page given the more than dozen references to the house from newspapers popular in Los Angeles at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:A990:D300:BCE9:F105:D9DD:538A (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) — 2600:4040:A990:D300:BCE9:F105:D9DD:538A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The naming convention used by this page, The Chasan Villa is in-line with other structures both demolished and standing in Los Angeles. These follow the format [(optional) Article] [Owner] [Structure Type] [(optional) Location], and in the press (e.g. the citation to The Daily Breeze from 1982) "The" is included in the name and the structure is specifically referred to as a "villa," that would make this page follow the structure of: "The Chasan Villa".

Examples of this naming convention for other notable standing structures are The Barn (Los Angeles), Hills and Dales Estate, Sheats–Goldstein Residence and Don Abel Stearns House, and examples of demolished structures in Los Angeles are Von Sternberg House, Carrillo House, Palomar Ballroom, and Arcade Depot. Noting that the more than 10 sources used in The Chasan Villa article are more robust and directly mention the property more than the sources in any of the above, none of these pages fail WP:GNG so as the The Chasan Villa has more references than these structures and none of its references have failed the reliability and independence test, this article should not fail GNG. Vote to keep.--2600:1700:1E00:1960:B061:AE77:3:A84C (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)— 2600:1700:1E00:1960:B061:AE77:3:A84C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Two Keep votes from IP addresses that have never edited before? Something's quacking here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been following The Chasan Villa and related pages (as well as making minor contributions) for the last few weeks. Looking at the examples above, I agree that this property is at least (if not more) notable than many of the other properties in its categories like Bently Nob Hill, William O. Jenkins House, Jackling House, Athenaeum at Caltech given the number of sources that mention the villa. From a naming perspective, looking to Beverly Estate as an example, The Chasan Villa's name is following the same naming convention as other existing properties even if not directly stated in its sources. 199.192.65.251 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And now we have a keep vote from another IP which has been actively editing only topics related to the house's owners. Not suspicious at all. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I specifically mentioned this in my comment, I did not try to hide the fact that I have lightly edited the topic in discussion here over the past month or so and have been watching the discussion. Not sure about the others, they are not posted by me (I have an IPV4 address, the two BubbaJoe123456 mentions above are from IPV6 addresses which are assigned by the ISP not by the user) 199.192.65.251 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All your edits have been in relation to the Chasan family. Do you have a connection to the family? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, BubbaJoe123456's statement is not true, if one looks at Special:Contributions/199.192.65.251 one can see the edit history goes back nearly 10 years from 2014 to present across a myriad of topics that are unrelated to this family. 199.192.65.251 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A look at that history will clearly show scattered edits from 2014-2019, one in 2022, and then a surge of Chasan-related edits starting on February 28, 2023. So, to ask again, do you have any connection with the Chasen family? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I have no connection with the Chasen family 199.192.65.251 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, why did you suddenly start adding large amounts of content to the Fred Chasan, Roslyn Chasan, and then Chasan Villa articles a few weeks ago? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also not true: I added no new content to Roslyn Chasan (made cleanup changes of 91 characters in total or 0.4% of the article as can be seen by its page history) and then completed BubbaJoe123456's request for The Chasan Villa, by adding four additional sources and improving NPOV that BubbaJoe123456 had started. My edits to the article were not the addition of new content as can be seen on the page's history, rather sourcing of content that was already existing on the page. Given the Roslyn page referenced her husband Fred who was also notable, using the sources suggested by Wikipedia's find sources guidelines which directed me to Google, I researched and wrote the initial content for Fred Chasan, a page not in question, which was given a good rating by other editors as noted on its Talk page. 199.192.65.251 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The naming of article is fine, not an issue. FWIW i mostly edit about historic places including houses and weigh in on most AFDs about historic houses in the U.S. and worldwide. Photos and existing article are convincing of significance. About former buildings, the argument which always governs is "once notable always notable". I dunno if there's sentiment about this being a rich family's "villa", somewhat of a mansion, as opposed to the attention that might be paid for another's, but the amounts of money involved are part of the substantiveness. And the photogenicity of the house, and availability of photos for use in the article and usage of photos in past coverage are part of the substantiveness too. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a heritage building meets WP:NBUILD. Also, I did WP:BEFORE and found that coverage exists. Editchecker123 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage exists: [44], [45], and local city newspaper, LA Weekly [46]. Meets WP:SIGCOV. 122.199.38.222 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those sources are clearly paid content, and definitely not RS. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could probably do with some additional analysis from more experienced users. Something is certainly unusual here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancy old house that collapsed. I can only find sourcing about theaters in Africa that compare something with the same name to the Avengers compound (like from the Avengers movie). If this wasn't registered in the NRHP or the local equivalent, it isn't a notable structure. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Gscholar, Jstor, the NYT, Gbooks or Gnews. There is no coverage of the place. Photos are also contributed by a red-linked user which is apparently the family archives, but have no edits outside these photos. Appears a COI. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding claim "If this wasn't registered in the NRHP or the local equivalent, it isn't a notable structure", what does that say about all the NRHP-listed places, before they were listed? So no more places will ever be NRHP-listed, because if they were notable they would have been listed already? And certainly there are lots of notable structures that are never NRHP-listed due to owner preferences or other reasons. (I !voted "Keep" above.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking the first reference provided in last !vote before relisting, I see that [47] is very substantial coverage, making argument why this house is notable while others destroyed by water leaks eroding cliff are not. It seems to be an important/interesting case of the city having liability, hence settling. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That filmdaily.co site definitely doesn't look like an RS to me, rather as a spam site dressed up to look like a news site. The "author" who supposedly wrote that article has also "written" articles in the past week on everything from "D*Face's Artwork Skyrockets in Value as Global Demand Soars" to "Enchanting Karnataka: A Perfect Destination for Your Dream Wedding." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a conjecture. RE: Why they are writing on multiple subjects? it is something that we are unsure of, so better avoid aspersions. Better place to check its reliability would be WP:RSN. Editchecker123 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage exists in Google Books. Use search term "901 Paseo Del Mar" to locate them. Some prominent litigations, include [48], [49], [50]. Thanks. Editchecker123 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILDING. While there are reliable sources that mention the house, I am not seeing any reliable sources where the house itself is the primary subject or where the house is addressed in detail other than a few WP:PRIMARY sources like the court documents listed above (which don't count towards GNG as PRIMARY sources) or in unreliable sources. Likewise I am not seeing any evidence that the house meets any of the criteria at NBUILDING. Measurements like an official NRHP listing matter because we have to have some ways of determining notability for building that is objective and not subjective. Outside of meeting one of those criteria at NBUILDING, we are only left with GNG and that standard has not been met.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, the secondary sources such as the filmdaily.co article are dismissed by at least one !voter here essentially because they are secondary (i.e. written by someone who writes about a lot of things); the primary sources (thanks Editchecker123 for identifying the litigations and that 901 Paseo Del Mar is a good alternative search term to use) are to be dismissed because they are primary? Also I am not familiar with a "rule" that primary documents "don't count towards GNG", but even if that is, it remains that the primary sources make more material available for explicit development of the article and also provide depth for readers, i.e. as links which a reader can follow for more details. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty good summation at WP:PST. The gist of it is that primary documents don't analyze and interpret the material the way secondary sources do. If we engage in analysis ourselves, we run afoul of WP:SYNTH, so we use secondary sources. The rest is just an attempt to ensure the secondary sources we use are reasonably accurate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the notability here. The filmdaily.co site is definitely not a reliable source as there is no listed editorial board, no indicia of editorial control such as corrections or updates to prior articles, and the site presents me with spammy links such as "View John Wick 4 online" and "Purchase Instagram followers cheap". The others are genuine but fall into 3 basic categories: articles that deal with the landslide, and treat a number of properties as a group; articles that are primarily about the owners that mention the house; or municipal government/court records involving the house. None of these speak to notability in my opinion. In the article's favor, verifiability is not a problem, so I could support a merge to Roslyn Chasan, the former owner. She is mentioned in a couple of the articles as designing the house along with the (apparently non-notable) architect. More importantly, while I haven't done an in-depth check it appears that her article may have the sourcing to survive an AfD; I am considerably less confident that is the case for the other possible target Fred Chasan. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gaddalakonda Ganesh#Soundtrack. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elluvochi Godaramma

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

Several sources (Indiaglitz, Tollywood.net, YouTube) are unreliable. Song has no independent reliability or awards. Songs reaching 100 million views are common nowadays. A Google search brings almost nothing. Best to merge back to Gaddalakonda Ganesh. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigelu Rani (another song). DareshMohan (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gaddalakonda Ganesh#Soundtrack: Only reliably sourced info in this article is either already there or not really worth keeping anyway so there's nothing to merge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahia Boushaki Boulevard

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

Ordinary city street that fails GNG, most sources are SPS and half of them talk about the person Yahia Boushaki. Created by a crosswiki LTA that was globally locked. Rs chen 7754 05:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Algeria. Rs chen 7754 05:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an ordinary street with no notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very unlikely to be notable and dubious creation. V C 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be just another run-of-the-mill street. No sourced encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Keich

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

Only claim to notability is winning a minor sporting event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cycling. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced stub of a cyclist that won an obscure racing event in 2005. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks notability and I honestly see no reason for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated is not notable and no traces of the subject except for the world championship win in 05. I do not see a way to expand the article. Paulpat99 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by a very rough consensus. If certain policy/guidelines reach more clarity here, perhaps we can reevaluate. For now, 4meter4's argument seems to hold. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lott

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which tells us Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. Cannot be converted into a redirect as there are multiple articles that mention a Charles Lott; Mount St Bernard Abbey, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, The Way Back (2020 film), James Madison Dukes men's basketball statistical leaders, New Zealand Supply Contingent Somalia, and V/H/S/99. BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The relevant guidelines here are at MOS:DABMENTION, and this dab page doesn't meet them. It has two entries, for two different fictional characters from the same series. Both entries point to the same article Between (TV series), which has no content about either of those characters apart from a mention in the cast list. The dab previously had an entry for Charles F. Lott, which linked to the now deleted List of members of the California Senate from Butte County. It doesn't seem like any of the other people with the name mentioned here and there on Wikipedia have any meaningful content about them. – Uanfala (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has several entries (I added more) which meet MOS:DABMENTION, they are mentioned within articles. And what gain would there be from deletion? Dabs are cheap and this is potentially WP:USEFUL. BilledMammal, Uanfala Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is a policy, MOS:DABMENTION is a guideline. Per WP:POLCON, when a guideline and policy conflict, we follow the policy. WP:USEFUL is a link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USEFUL: There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list, however, is not useful. Up until Boleyn added those examples it made it harder to find the majority of articles mentioning a Charles Lott, not easier - and since no one will add such mentions to the dab, as proven by the fact that no one did until I nominated it, it will soon by out of date and again make it harder to find mentions of Charles Lott. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a disambiguation page, not a list. Disambiguation pages are useful when, per WP:D, an article title refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is a list of articles, and you haven't explained why it is useful. However, this discussion isn't productive; policy is clear, if you disagree with it please open an RFC proposing that it be changed. BilledMammal (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page lists the articles in which you will find subjects with that name covered by Wikipedia. It is useful if you are searching for a Charles Lott to be presented with the places in which Wikipedia covers various people with the name. I do find that policy is clear in my favor, but I digress. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the dab page was kept updated, it would be as useful as the search function. Since it is not it is less useful and impedes readers from accessing search results on Charles Lott. But all that matters to this AfD is whether it violates NOTDIRECTORY; references to DABMENTION and arguments about usefulness aren't relevant, because we have a policy that is very clear on this question and a local consensus here is forbidden from overriding it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Have you done a search for Charles Lott? 2,422 results and the first two after the disambiguation page are irrelevant: Ronnie Lott and Trent Lott. In order to get more manageable search results, one would have to put it in quotes, which takes more time and not everyone is keen to do. Even then, the first result is Charles Edward Church, which is listed because he is the son of Charles Lott Anthony Church and Sarah Hiltz. Well that's also irrelevant, no one is going to be searching for someone's father's first and middle name. On the other hand, the disambiguation is helpful because these results have been curated to only include what is "helpful to the reader". So yes, it's much more useful than search results. I do find WP:DABMENTION to be very relevant because it defines notability for the purposes of inclusion in a disambiguation page. If we have guidance, we should not be dismissing it outright. The guidance is there because it is generally accepted within the community. Sure, there are times when it makes sense to ignore the guidance if it improves Wikipedia, but I do not find this to be one of those times. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search results. And policies overrule guidelines; if you disagree with the policy, please open a discussion to change it, although such a proposal was recently rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want search results so badly, that can be added to the disambiguation page. I have done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. Such entries are notable for purposes of inclusion in a disambiguation page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:DABMENTION. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not even useful, since it obscures search results. Compare WP:R#DELETE, The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia – this is a similar situation. WP:DABMENTION says that on dab pages we may use links to articles that only mention the subject, but it does not say that we have to keep dab pages that only contain such entries. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Pearce (2nd nomination) (no consensus). No such user (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the only policy that has direct bearing on this. WP:DABMENTION is just a manual of style guideline, and as such it tells how, not when, to mention an entry that lacks a single matching article title. WP:D applies to potential article titles and subtopics, not every single trivial topic mentioned in passing anywhere; dab pages are not search engines. This is no more "useful" than the search function itself, and has the disadvantage of requiring maintenance every time one of the entries is updated. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bit in WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a stray mention that's still there because nobody noticed when it was boldly added. It's still mostly correct though, we all agree that Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith, but then the next bit just the notable ones, is false. Or at the very least, an oversimplification of the more detailed and nuanced rules in the dedicated dab guidelines. – Uanfala (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also there because when editors attempted to remove that sentence, ten years later, there wasn't a consensus to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, if my recollection is correct, there was no consensus to either keep or remove it because many of the participants were unaware of the dab guidelines and believed that sentence to be the only thing standing in the way of people creating dab pages listing every Bob, Dick and Harry who ever lived. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Avilich. We already have a search function on wikipedia, if editors want to create an annotated index they should take up at the VP and make it apply to all subjects, not just the ones that happen to share a name. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which trumps WP:DABMENTION as the former is a policy and the latter is a manual of style guideline. I've considered DABMENTION to be used only when there is a subject which does not have an article but shares its name with at least one subject who does have an article (such as the "John Smith" in Mr. & Mrs. Smith who lacks standalone notability) as the search function would be affected by the presence of the "notable" subject. In this case, no person named Charles Lott has an article so there is no purpose to have this DAB page. Frank Anchor 13:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I argued above, WP:DABMENTION also supports deletion. However, this whole policy vs. guideline angle is misleading. It's not the case that every single piece of text on any policy page would have stronger community support than anything found in a guideline. In this case, the relevant sentence of NOTDIRECTORY was only ever discussed a few months ago, and that discussion resulted in no consensus. DABMENTION, on the other hand, reflects almost two decades of good practice, and its last major discussion, again from last year, was on a proposal to make it slightly stricter (though not nearly as strict as the bit in NOTDIRECTORY). That met with almost unanimous community opposition. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, this whole policy vs. guideline angle is misleading. It's not; we've got a policy, WP:POLCON, which tells us how to deal with situations where policies and guidelines conflict. I also think you misunderstand the opposition removing the sentence from NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What matters here is that the guideline has strong consensus while the bit in that policy page has no consensus. The rest is legalistic irrelevance. – Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal assessment of the strength of consensus behind NOTDIRECTORY and DABMENTION is not relevant; both have consensus, as evidenced by their inclusion in the relevant pages, and under policy NOTDIRECTORY overrules DABMENTION. If you disagree with that you will need to propose a change to WP:POLCON.BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as an absolutely reasonable use of disambiguation. The search function is useless here, as it will merely pull up a collection of articles that happen to use the word "Charles" one place and "Lott" another, with no refinement for finding people with the given name Charles and the surname Lott. BD2412 T 16:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The search function is shitty, but it's not that shitty. It still recognizes quotation marks. JoelleJay (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is of no use to people who search for this article title, which is Charles Lott, not "Charles Lott". BD2412 T 01:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Searching on wikipedia for "Charles Lott" gives me 12 results, all of them for people with the given name Charles and the surname Lott. JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even a correct reading of that search result, as one of the subjects is "Charles Lott Anthony Church" (aka, Charles Church with some middle names), while excluding any results for a person whose first name is Charles, last name is Lott, and has a middle name or initial. BD2412 T 21:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I assumed for the second issue you could just use the standard search wildcard in that case:"Charles*Lott". But when I tried that for "Charles*Anthony Church" it didn't work for some reason (maybe wildcards don't work with spaces?). So instead you can use "Charles Church"~2 which will return everything with 0 to 2 extra words between "Charles" and "Church". But anyway, if ease of searching is the main motivation, why should a subjective, manually- and inconsistently-maintained index exist only for items with the same name? Surely there are plenty of people with unique given name-surname pairs who have middle names and thus wouldn't show up with the quotation marks? JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:DABMENTION. DABMENTION should be used only in cases where the topic is "discussed within another article", not just merely mentioned in passing. We only should place articles in a disambiguation page when the target article will "help readers find information about the sought topic". In this case, the dab page itself contained all the information about these topics and the target articles had no more information to offer. This seems like a false promise, and misapplication of the policy. There needs to at least be a sentence of prose containing some information about the various "Charles Lott"s not on the dab page to warrant inclusion on the dab page. I'll also note that many these articles also lacked inline citations regarding the various Charles Lotts. I don't think anybody would be searching for these particular people either as I doubt any of these topics, fictional Charles Lotts included, would be likely search terms. They certainly wouldn't be independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of NOTDIRECTORY Starship 24 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was consensus non habemus. There are reasonable arguments to be made for redirecting or merging (minor aspect of a notable film), as well as for keeping (the scene has coverage in reliable sources), and whether these really suffice as the basis of an article is a matter of editorial judgment not to be second-guessed by your closer. Sandstein 19:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romani ite domum

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

Originally created on 1 March 2005 as a redirect to the article Life of Brian, it only took 103 days to be turned into essentially the same page it is now: failing WP:PLOT and WP:N for 17.76 years, it now manages to bear a single salient source (cited to "montypython.50webs.com").

It may be worth noting that steps have been taken repeatedly to return this page to a redirect. Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) redirected it again in January 2007, and was reverted by Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs) in March 2013. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk · contribs) redirected it a third time in December 2022 saying in part, the scene isn’t notable and neither is the phrase it seems; they were undone by Michael Bednarek again, who referred to deletion instead, saying there's a process to nominate articles for deletion. Today, I used one of those processes as instructed by Michael Bednarek, proposing deletion because Handily fails WP:PLOT & WP:N (nominated at the request of User:Michael Bednarek; that same editor reverted the {{prod}} tagging, saying this time, I made no such request; if you want it deleted, take it to AfD.. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a scene from a film is notable (and I doubt it is), then it should be a section in that film's article. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this scene is notable enough for a mention somewhere. It is discussed in many Latin books unaffiliated with Monty Python, take a look on google books:[51] – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even mentioned in the film's article (that I could find). Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is how it's described in the plot section: To prove himself, Brian is tasked by the PFJ to paint slogans on Roman governor Pilate's palace, but is interrupted by a Roman officer. The officer, however, is more concerned with Brian's appalling grammar and, after correcting the slogan, orders him to write it one hundred times. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Film. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject is discussed in some depth here: Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access your linked source. Could you incorporate it into the article so we can see whether it affects concerns about notability and lack of non-plot context (and won't make the page a coatrack of mentions/references)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A coat rack of references? That's what every Wikipedia article aims for. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! That's not what I meant. What I meant in my reply to Barnards.tar.gz was whether their source helped satisfy N and PLOT, and wasn't just a mention (or a reference) to the topic at hand; i.e. does the source just name-drop or call-out to this particular TV scene. Does that make sense? We don't want to just list a bunch of sources that mention the topic in passing: a coatrack of [mentions, name-drops, call-outs, references]. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual scenes from some films take on a life of their own, and this appears to be an example. Wikipedia has at least two from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, concerning the Knights who say 'Ni!' and the Rabbit of Caerbannog. Evidently there are sources unaffiliated with the movie that discuss this scene, whether in discussions of Latin grammar or for the sheer silliness of it. Perhaps more such sources could be cited. As for the argument that it should be redirected to a list of Latin phrases, there is simply too much content necessary to explain it; and in fact this is much the same reason for not merging it with the article about the film: as a section of that article it would be too lengthy, and would probably need to be split off to produce—this article. Finally, it's harmless and people might just be looking for it, so there are good reasons to have an article, and nothing is really improved by deleting it. There may be other articles about scenes in films that can't really be justified, but this one seems good enough to stay. P Aculeius (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do those sources provide the article requisite notability and real-world context? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the film. I'm not sure it's notable without the film, all discussions seem to be in context of the film itself. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – P Aculeius gave the reasons against redirecting and merging. As for the phrase's notability on its own, the first three provided search links above (books, news, scholar) provide plenty of significant coverage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without my own access to those sources, would you instead be able to incorporate them into the article, so we can all see how well and if they address the concerns about notability and lack of non-plot context (and won't make the page a coatrack of mentions/references)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the Google searches provided at the top of this page yield results when you click them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access those sources, as I said. That's why I asked whether you could use your access to improve the article, so we could evaluate their qualitative effect on the concerns here. Also, if they're libre-licensed or public-domain sources, you could copy them here (or onto this discussion's talk page) for us to pick through. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at the very least a smerge). The discussion on the grammar is a blatant violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and shouldn't be in the article regardless, and this is otherwise just a description of one scene in a movie. While it may be a well known scene, it doesn't rise anywhere near to the level of notability for a standalone article. WP:NOPAGE applies here. One single source which uses this as an example of linguistic humor is nice, but it's not enough for GNG. A couple sentences at the main article would be more than sufficient..."so-and-so has used this scene as an instructive example of linguistic humor in movies..." or something to that effect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of the grammar is exactly the point of the scene's notability and its coverage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even more reason that this shouldn't be an article then. Is the topic of the article the scene or is it the phrase? If it's the scene, WP doesn't include articles about individual movie scenes except maybe in very exceptional circumstances. The closest I could find is in all of WP was Poole versus HAL 9500, and that's really about the game depicted in the scene rather than the scene itself. Any well loved movie (and a lot of not-so-well loved ones too) are going to have their well known scenes dissected by critics, by cinephiles, by people writing in reliable sources. But again, WP:NOPAGE is key here. If it's particularly noteworthy, it can be mentioned in the main article on the film. Is the topic then the phrase? If so, it isn't notable except in the context of the film. Again then, at best, mention it on the film's article. Edit: oh wait, I finally did manage to find one: Han shot first. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading, WP:NOPAGE (which is also called WP:PAGEDECIDE), supports the existence of this article. Ignoring sources "by critics, by cinephiles, by people writing in reliable sources" is ignoring WP:RS, which works both ways. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Michael Bednarek: a cinematic debate or discussion of grammar is not what WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is about; this article is not a "how-to", but a discussion of a movie scene that has taken on a life of its own—the possibility that a reader might actually learn something about Latin grammar is incidental. I see nothing in WP:NOPAGE that suggests this article shouldn't exist; it's just general advice about how to determine whether a topic is better as a stand-alone article or as part of another article. In this case the discussion and explanation of the scene seems to be of an appropriate length and detail for the subject, and that discussion is too long and detailed to be folded into the main article about the film; hence, a stand-alone article seems justified. Often, notable scenes can be fully discussed within other pages, but this one simply requires more context and explanation than that treatment would allow. P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This scene has not "taken on a life of its own". It's one reasonably well known scene in a reasonably well known movie. You can find more written about countless others, but given the fact there's a total of one (1) other article in all of Wikipedia about a movie scene (that I could find), established precedent about how to handle this situation appears clear: individual scenes from movies do not get separate articles (at least not without some very extraordinary circumstance, like the SW one...this is where NOPAGE comes in). If you want to change this, you should write a new notability guideline on individual scenes and propose it for wider adoption. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion—if various reliable sources talk about a specific scene, then one can certainly say it's taken on a life of its own. But as this is a metaphor, I'm not going to waste time trying to "prove" it to someone whose opinion is clearly different. I pointed out two other movie scenes that have their own articles, and I might have come up with others had I bothered searching for them; they were simply the ones that I was already aware of. And your lack of awareness of others does not constitute any kind of precedent or policy concerning their general notability. If anything, the fact that such articles have been created and curated for a number of years would seem to argue that there is a general consensus in favour of such articles existing, for the very reasons stated at NOPAGE. That doesn't mean that every memorable scene in every famous film should have its own article, but it's a long way from extracting a rule, stated nowhere in the encyclopedia, that no scene in any movie should be split off into a separate article. If you want to create such a rule, it's up to you to rewrite the notability guidelines. P Aculeius (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles you pointed out were about characters, not scenes. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting hairs doesn't change the basic reality of the situation. They're really about individual scenes, even if they allude to things that happened in other scenes, and there's never been anything wrong with splitting off articles that are too detailed for a proper discussion as part of larger topics. The only argument against it seems to be, "I don't think this is important, so it shouldn't have an article." P Aculeius (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify while it may be notable, it’s current state is not good and needs some work to incorporate actual sources and make the text more encyclopedic (precedent might actually lean towards deletion for this scenario, judging by another AFD I was in, for GONN but I don’t really agree with that) MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:DRAFTIFY. Whether the article "has some merit" seems to be the main subject of discussion, although currently a majority of commenters including yourself seem either convinced or willing to entertain the possibility. However, it clearly "meets the required standard", as it is 1) already more substantial than a stub, 2) has a reasonable chance of surviving AfD, 3) is not a candidate for speedy deletion, and 4) is not a recent creation (it was created in 2005, and has over 200 edits, as well as an average of over 150 daily page views over the 90 days preceding its nomination for deletion, which is far more than many perfectly good articles). To this I would add 5) several editors participating in this discussion are satisfied that it belongs in mainspace, even if it could stand to be improved (as nearly all articles can—and many articles in mainspace are in poorer shape than this one), and 6) there do not appear to be any issues regarding copyright violations, as everything is properly attributed, or conflicts of interest involving the editors (not that we would expect any, given the age of the film). The defects in this article can be met by the normal process of editing it in mainspace—and Wikipedia policy explicitly states that there is no time limit for improving articles. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think those parameters are only pertinent when an article is simply draftified, without discussion. DRAFTIFY clearly states, "Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't appear to be the case. Otherwise the very clear guideline, "2d. The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. Older articles should not be draftified. As a rule of thumb, articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD." (emphasis in original) would not make sense. And we clearly do not have consensus for that, nor do the other criteria suggest that this article would be suitable for draftification. Or to restate: this article is not a draft, nor does it resemble a draft. If every article that could stand to have more citations were draftified, half the encyclopedia would vanish overnight. This is a simple case of a short article that could be improved by adding more sources, like countless others. It is already in better shape than many other articles that would never be draftified. The only reason for doing so would be as a backdoor to deletion—which AfD clearly states is not an appropriate reason for draftifying an article. P Aculeius (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect. Either would suffice for me. I have added a reference. BD2412 T 16:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The various WP:ILIKEIT votes are not convincing. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
… whereas the WP:IDONTLIKEIT voices are so much more convincing. BTW, those 2 shortcuts refer to the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, here doubly irrelevant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's argument was that this isn't an encyclopedia article, it is a coat-rack to quote a Monty Python sketch excessively. I agree. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds an awful lot like IDONTLIKEIT to me. IMO that's the premise behind all of the delete votes: "I don't like it, therefore it's not sufficiently notable." P Aculeius (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something about this particular claim has been bothering me: "a coat-rack to quote a Monty Python sketch excessively." Looking at the script (the very first source cited), the scene contains forty-four lines of dialogue, excluding stage directions. The quoted section contains seven consecutive lines focusing on the incorrect identification of domum as the locative of domus, when in fact the construction is accusative. These lines contain a total of forty-two words, less than half the length for which the Chicago Manual of Style would recommend a block quotation, if they came from a single paragraph (before I checked, I was thinking of a similar standard that requires just fifty words). There must be thousands of articles on Wikipedia that contain more and longer quotations of material still under copyright than this; the length and proportion of the original dialogue quoted is clearly not "excessive".

Nor can the article properly be described as a coat-rack to get the quoted lines into Wikipedia. The quoted lines are directly relevant to the section in which they occur, and illustrate what it is that is wrong about the dialogue; it is difficult to imagine a better way to do so. The quoted material does not contain any jokes, unless you count the description of the centurion holding his sword to Brian's throat—which while accurate and helpful, is not actually quoted from the script, and therefore occurs in square brackets. The scene is funny because of the context in which it occurs, as described by the non-quoted text and the sources cited, not because of the mistake made concerning the distinction between the accusative and the locative. There is no reason to quote these lines other than to explain the mistake.

Because there is a legitimate purpose for quoting these specific lines where they occur, which purpose is borne out by the sources cited in that section, and because the amount of material quoted constitutes only a small portion (a bit less than 1/7) of the dialogue in the scene, with a total of less than fifty words, the claim that the entire article is merely "a coat-rack to quote a Monty Python sketch excessively" is clearly wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monty Python's Life of Brian#Plot. The sourcing to establish notability for this scene as a topic of its own is weak. Of the four cited sources, one is just a transcription of the scene from the film, and another is just a definition of the Latin word domus. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are now seven sources, with the addition of three scholarly discussions of the scene in historical, linguistic, and social context. The subject was already too detailed to be covered adequately in the article about the film, which is why it was split off in the first place. Now it is even more so. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Michael Bednarek and P Aculeius. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have cited three scholarly discussions of the article. One discusses the use of the classroom discourse model to produce humor from linguistics, subverting the viewer's expectations from historical context; a second discusses how the scene depicts resistance to the Roman occupation of Judaea, compared with the historical reality; a third compares the use of satirical classroom discourse as a distraction from the primary issue of the Roman occupation to modern political debate over social matters, as the author suggests a misleading focus on details such as non-binary pronouns. I've also added a source further explaining the grammatical error involving the use of the locative, and rewritten the paragraph in which it occurs.
All of these sources were easily obtainable just by clicking the links above—but once again, AfD has been used as a substitute for the appropriate editorial process. Please consult WP:BEFORE; for an article to be deleted due to lack of sources, the nominator should attempt to determine whether such sources exist, not whether they have been cited. If they exist, then the nomination should fail. But here the burden was inappropriately shifted to those voting "keep", thereby inverting Wikipedia policy to say the opposite of what it actually does. AfD is intended to deal with articles that cannot be improved through reasonable effort. It is not a tool for editors who can't be bothered to improve articles themselves to force others to do it for them. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your clairvoyance of my actions and intents notwithstanding, I did not find before, and am still yet to see, sufficient and focused analytical discussion of this television moment such as warrants its own standalone article separate from the episode in which it appeared. However, I've nonetheless been keen to follow-up with the several participants here who mentioned sources that were available to improve the article. One, linked to by Barnards.tar.gz, I can not access and asked impotently if they could share with us for evaluation. Second was your non-specific mention of apparent sources available, but when I asked about them above, you didn't reply. Third was Michael Bednarek, who claimed sufficient sources were surely available at Google resources to which I had no access; I asked for them to be shared with those participating here, but they didn't reply. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That reliable sources exist is not dependent on whether every editor is able to view them over the internet. I cited only those sources I was able to review, or ascertain the purpose of sufficiently to determine that they consisted of more than a passing mention or "shout-out". Some were not available for me to view in any form, and I was therefore unable to cite them. I have however added citations to multiple sources indicating what it is that they say. Have you tried to access any of them from the links in the article, or by searching for them by author or title? Did you undertake a search, or merely rely on the fact that the other editors did not provide you with alternative links to the sources that they found? I cited to the work that Barnards.tar.gz linked, having reviewed it and determined that it was a detailed analysis of—not a passing mention of—the scene in question. So were the other sources that I cited, as I tried to make clear in the body text when citing to them.
I find it difficult to believe that no sources indicating notability beyond passing mentions or trivia would be viewable by someone doing a general search. But I also note that sources do not need to be available on-line in the first place: it is perfectly acceptable to cite things to books or other media that have not been digitized or made generally available on the internet. I don't know whether your complaint is that you were not able to find any relevant sources online, or merely that you were not able to view the ones that other editors linked to—but in either case, being unable to form your own opinion regarding those sources does not invalidate their use, or demonstrate that reliable sources indicating the notability of the subject do not exist. Nor are other editors required to find or provide you with copies of those sources or their contents—their failure to do so does not determine whether such sources exist, and should not determine the outcome of the discussion.
For my part, I merely alluded to whatever sources were referred to by the editors who commented before me, assuming that if they found good sources, then I did not need to verify that they were correct in their analysis. By joining this discussion, I only took on the responsibility to determine whether deletion was consistent with Wikipedia policy, not to hunt down sources myself or prove that they were sufficient to support the article; WP:BEFORE makes clear that that is the responsibility of the editor nominating an article for deletion. The fact that I subsequently found, reviewed, and incorporated good sources in order to settle this debate does not mean that the nomination was a good one before I did so; it was not, since the sources existed and were easily findable whether or not they were cited or incorporated into the article at that point. Now they have been, so the nomination that should have failed even without any further edits to the article cannot be sustained. P Aculeius (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concede defeat at the mass of your accusatory words, and apologetically withdraw from engagement therewith. Mayhap somebody else will take up the mantle of MOS:ACCESS. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACCESS has nothing to do with anything discussed here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to various articles relating to the general topic of film scenes, Category:Film scenes presently contains five articles about specific movie scenes. In addition to Romani ite domum, which I just added to the category after seeing this discussion, these are Han shot first, Poole versus HAL 9500, Red pill and blue pill and Tears in rain monologue. WP also has at least one article on an individual scene from a TV episode: Kirk and Uhura's kiss. (That all of these scenes except Romani ite domum are from sci-fi productions may say something about WP's content biases.) Gildir (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced this warrants a stand-alone article (as opposed to being covered at Monty Python's Life of Brian), and to me Romanes eunt domus seems like a more appropriate title. TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a number of people have pointed out, this article is too big—and the topic requires too much discussion—to be folded into the main article about the film, which is already just shy of 90 Kb—well over the size at which splitting is suggested, and nearing the point where it is strongly recommended. Since the issues concerning this scene require more discussion than can be conveniently had in the article about the film, there is a good reason for splitting it off; the only argument against it seems to be an assertion of a hithertofore unwritten rule that individual scenes in a movie are never notable and therefore cannot be split off, even though in any other topic doing so would be justified by the size and detail of the subtopic alone.

Whether the article is at the best title is a completely separate issue from deletion, and does not really belong here, particularly given that this discussion has gone on at considerable length with little or no significant discussion of the title. However, I will note a few things: first, a Google ngram and overall Google hits for each wording show very similar numbers either way; part of this is likely because most books, articles, or other references to one wording will also contain the other. "Romanes eunt domus" is nonsensical, while "Romani ite domum" makes sense, and all other things being equal, the correct wording would seem to be the better title. Lastly, over the last ninety days the article has received an average of 200 daily page views—not an inconsiderable number, as many notable topics receive far fewer views—while the redirect "Romanes eunt domus" has received an average of 1. I can't say for certain how many people arrive at the article by typing "Romani ite domum", but clearly very few people are searching for "Romanes eunt domus". P Aculeius (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZESPLIT refers to readable prose size, which is nowhere near 90 kB at present. It's more like 50 kB, if this is anything to go by. The film article could also do with a fair amount of trimming (somewhat amusingly, one of the things that should be trimmed is two paragraphs in the "Legacy" section that deal with "Romanes eunt domus" appearing in Fallout: New Vegas). I'm also not sure how much discussion you think this particular scene requires, but the current version is rather uneconomically written and thus way longer than it needs to be to convey the information it is meant to. For instance: Once Brian has arrived at the correct answer, the centurion imposes a grammar-school punishment—writing lines—instead of a period-appropriate sanction for vandals or rebels. Rather than punishing Brian for writing the graffito, the centurion instructs him to repeat the act one hundred times using good grammar. is just plain repetition of the same information twice. For these reasons, I find the argument that this needs to be covered separately unpersuasive. TompaDompa (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article about the film may indeed be in need of trimming, but that is not the primary issue here. If you're going by number of characters, instead of the article size—possibly a reasonable interpretation, although this is not clearly what the guideline says—folding this article back into it would not only make for an unduly lengthy section within it, but would push it back to about 60,000 characters, and into the size range where a split is suggested. Granted, it might be slightly less if trimmed, but I don't see any point in merging them merely because the combined article could be trimmed to be just under the size of a long article for which splitting is suggested. Just as the guideline does not make splitting mandatory at any size, it does not state that there is a minimum size for splitting; the choice is supposed to be based on convenience, and in this case the length of this article suggests that it is too detailed to form a section of the film's article.

I am unpersuaded by your example of unnecessary repetition, in part because the two sentences are making separate points: the first one describes the incongruity of the centurion imposing a grammar-school punishment, which is consistent with the grammar-school grammar analysis that preceded it, but inconsistent with the roles that Brian and the centurion are playing. The second sentence points out that the centurion's punishment is also counter-productive, because instead of discouraging vandalism, he is ordering Brian to vandalize the wall one hundred more times—provided he uses good grammar. I made this distinction myself when writing/rewriting this paragraph based on the discussion in the sources that I cited.

Could it be more succinct? Possibly, but it is difficult to make both points clearly in a single sentence, without making it unduly complex. Could the article be trimmed to remove all verbiage that isn't strictly necessary? Perhaps, but brevity is not a goal in itself, and does not necessarily make articles clearer. And Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that saving space is not a valid reason to delete (or even trim) articles; unlike a traditional print encyclopedia, we have no hard limit on the number or size of articles. Article length—and existence—should be based on utility to readers.

The fact that this article gets an average of 200 daily page views suggests that a lot of people find it useful. It is certainly not as big as it would be if, as one editor suggested above, it were merely a coatrack to quote the article excessively (only a small portion of the scene is quoted, and that portion does not contain any jokes, being focused solely on a grammatical error that is not apparent from the dialogue). Even if the language could be streamlined slightly, it is not unduly long for covering the subject, while it is too long for a convenient merge. That is why it should stay where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is an exercise in uneconomical writing. The first section describes the scene in question at length. This is done much more succinctly in the Monty Python's Life of Brian article with minimal loss of (pertinent) information. The second section quotes seven lines of dialogue and goes on for another hundred words to note that the centurion made an error. The third section, apart from having a terrible heading ("Cultural significance"), repeats a lot of information both from the first section and within itself. As an example, The centurion is unconcerned with Brian's act of vandalism, but rather with his inept use of Latin grammar. is just repetition of the scene description. For the two sentences I brought up above, you could for instance simply replace the second sentence with , and increasing rather than reducing the amount of vandalism. Really, this entire article could be condensed to a single brief paragraph in the main article about the film. Here, I'll show how (parts copied from the article under discussion, see the article history for attribution):
The scene where Brian writes anti-Roman graffiti and a centurion corrects his grammar has been noted as accurately reflecting the ancientness of the practice of writing graffiti on walls as a form of political protest. The incongruity of the centurion's actions is discussed as a source of humor in Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research, noting that the expected arrest of a vandal is replaced by a satirical representation of classroom discourse, followed by a counter-productive grammar-school punishment of writing lines that increases rather than decreases the amount of vandalism, and then reverting to the expected roles of soldier and rebel by the threat of physical harm if the punishment is not carried out on time. A number of works on Latin also note that the centurion himself makes a grammatical error, reflecting how even those well-educated in Latin occasionally err regarding grammatical details. Jack Halberstam compares the satirical use of classroom discourse as a technical exercise to distract from the realities of Roman imperialism to the contemporary political phenomenon of diverting attention from serious social issues by focusing attention on less important details.
I only took a few minutes to write this shorter version and it is obviously not perfect (still a bit of repetition with "satirical representation of classroom discourse" and "satirical use of classroom discourse", for instance), but it is a lot more succinct while still conveying all the crucial information. This is a question of WP:Writing better articles. TompaDompa (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The above is an exercise in crushing an article into a dense wall-of-text paragraph for the sole purpose of justifying its deletion or merger. It removes the context and illustrative quotations (and perhaps the actual illustration). Your example of combining sentences is faulty; the clauses are not parallel, and in your version the centurion is "[concerned with] and increasing rather than decreasing". You would have to reword the sentences considerably to have them make sense. But that is a minor point—condensing all of an article into what you regard as the only essential parts, in order to make the case for deletion or merger, is not "writing a better article"; it is the opposite. P Aculeius (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that should have been , thus increasing rather than reducing the amount of vandalism. (which would make the full sentence Once Brian has arrived at the correct answer, the centurion imposes a grammar-school punishment—writing lines—instead of a period-appropriate sanction for vandals or rebels, thus increasing rather than reducing the amount of vandalism.) or something along those lines. Mea culpa. The current article is poorly written, and reducing those roughly 700 words of sprawling text into roughly 200 words by summarizing (i.e. omitting extraneous details and needless redundancy) would be an improvement. The article only has the appearance of needing to be a stand-alone article because it badly needs copyediting. TompaDompa (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that most editors would regard the kind of editing you propose to be non-constructive. It seems that we are back in "IDONTLIKEIT" territory, where whatever content you don't like is unnecessary, thus clearing the way for deletion of an article you don't like. Further discussion would appear to be pointless. P Aculeius (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that this needs to be a stand-alone article due to length. I say that neither this article nor the parent article need to be as long as they are. If this had been done the way it usually is, with the scene covered in the article on the film in WP:PROPORTION to its coverage in reliable sources, the way it is treated here would be seen as obviously WP:UNDUE in the main article. We wouldn't split it off into a separate article due to length, we would edit it down to the appropriate length. From that perspective, why not fold it into the main article (in proportion to its coverage in the sources) as would usually have been done from the start? TompaDompa (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, but other people are also entitled to theirs. At this point we only have contradiction repeating the same arguments that have already been made. P Aculeius (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can definitely get somewhere useful with this conversation if there exists some good reason to have this as a separate article that would apply even if (1) this article did not already exist and (2) the Life of Brian article were already high-quality. That is, if there would be a strong reason to create this article in addition to the Life of Brian article assuming we had to start over from scratch. One such good reason might for example be if there is a significant body of reliable sources with discussion of this scene both in particular (i.e. not discussing the rest of the film) and in general (i.e. not just one aspect of the scene but the scene as a whole). Do such sources exist? Do sources that discuss the film as a whole devote significantly more time to this particular scene than to the other scenes in the film? Do sources that discuss certain aspects of this scene in depth tend to additionally discuss other aspects of the same scene or do they tend to discuss related aspects that appear elsewhere? In other words, is there a strong reason to discuss the film scene by scene, rather than topic by topic? If the sources predominantly do so, then yes, absolutely! Is that the case? If not, it would make more sense to discuss the different aspects of this scene alongside related aspects of different scenes in the main Life of Brian article. Whether this should exist as a stand-alone article is a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. We have various different possibilities to consider—is forking off this scene the best way to reduce the overall length of the Monty Python's Life of Brian article, assuming we should even do the latter in the first place? It seems to me we might have stronger reasons to create sub-articles along the lines of Religion in Monty Python's Life of Brian and Politics in Monty Python's Life of Brian than to create sub-articles like this. TompaDompa (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has been referenced in other pieces of popular culture like Fallout: New Vegas, and thus, is culturally significant. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Post-close: I think it ought to be consensum non habemus – Not the nominative! Accusative fourth declension! Write it 200 times! (unless the closer meant plural, which for an uncountable noun would be weird.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be correct—it should be accusative consensum, since the subject of the sentence is a group including the speaker. You can of course have more than one consensus, although in this instance it wouldn't make any sense. As an alternative formulation, perhaps the nominative consensus non est (there is no consensus) would work, although I can see no objection to consensum non habemus. P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 06:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panchito Gómez

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Doesn't appear to have significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of credits, but mostly fairly minor roles that don't satisfy NACTOR. SIGCOV seems lacking, with many results apparently about someone else with that name. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrellgas

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

Article appears largely OR. Nothing found for the company, beyond routine business filings, legal things and phone book listings. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of sources, but very few are independent. Most seem to be third-party press releases through business magazines. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Kansas, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantive third-party coverage such as [52], this, and this. That's from only a quick newspapers search; I find it very hard to believe that a company that was listed on the NYSE from the 90s to the late 2010s won't have much more significant coverage. Hog Farm _Talk 15:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, some WP:TNT is needed. I might take a shot at it if I have time later this week. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 16:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's some cleanup needed, but it's not to the state it should be wholesale deleted. Hog Farm _Talk 17:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject matter passes WP:GNG. Agree the content needs to be editied, but that's not an article deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is largely uncited, but AfD is not clean-up. See WP:BEFORE, etc. Edwardx (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; agree that the article meets GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. As noted in the discussion, the nominator redirected the article to a notable family member. This editorial decision has not been contested. If the redirect is thought to be inappropriate (and it looks to be firmly within policy to me) it can be nominated at Redirects for discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Maroney (politician)

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

The subject is not a politician and is not notable. The subject is an unsuccessful political candidate and triathlete. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You changed this article to a redirect 4 and a half days before you nominated it at AfD. Why'd you send it to AfD instead of RfD if changing the page to a redirect was not contested? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pokémon manga#Manga not released in English. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Monsters RéBURST

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

No evidence of notability. Besides the two Anime News Network posts cited in the article, I couldn't find more secondary sources. Xexerss (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon manga#Manga not released in English; I tried to find refs in English and French but couldn't find any. There might be refs in Japanese, but I'm doubtful there will be anything useful. Link20XX (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Pokémon manga#Manga not released in English. Insufficient references to warrant its own article, but at least there's a good redirect target. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon manga#Manga not released in English; I am also fine with merging. I have been unable to enough enough reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Redirects are WP:CHEAP and there is a suitable target, so this seems to be the best option. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Pinckney (American Civil War)

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

Fails WP:GNG, with only one book jointly about him and another person. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note for those doing their own review, sourcing is challenging due to him sharing the same name as his more famous relative Thomas Pinckney.Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book mentioned in the nomination is Two Charlestonians at War, The Civil War Odysseys of a Lowcountry Aristocrat and a Black Abolitionist by Barbara L. Bellows, 2018, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Two_Charlestonians_at_War/xZdIDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0. This is clearly an in-depth, reliable source, so I won’t belabor that it’s clear evidence of notability, but what I will point out is that it received fairly significant review coverage, with quite a few journals running reviews (see for example https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/285/article/724906/summary, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26973703, https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/105/4/1026/5352864, https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A593432004&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00182370&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon~51c5e84d, etc). While he doesn’t inherit notability from the coverage book, much of the coverage mentions him in at least some degree of detail.

He is also discussed in-depth in the book OF TIME AND THE CITY: CHARLESTON IN 1860, https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/41698073 pages 160-172, which recount his birth and family ties up on through to his military service.

He also had an in-depth piece in a 1916 article of Confederate Veteran. It’s not on our list of reliable sources, but it’s also not disclaimed as a reliable source. Regardless: https://books.google.com/books/about/Confederate_Veteran.html?id=ZEEOAAAAYAAJ

Apparently, his papers were significant enough to be in a special collection at UVA: https://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaxtf/view?docId=uva-sc/viu00739.xml And other materials of his are also preserved there, including his 1864 diary and “reminiscences of Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina who was captured, May 28, 1864, and was prisoner at Point Lookout, Maryland, and Fort Delaware, Delaware. The diary records interesting observations on Fort Delaware life, the experiences of the “Six Hundred,” and the falsification of war news. After August 13, the narrative is continuous with no daily entries. The last date recorded is December 14, 1864.” https://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/civil-war/Record-Archives.htm Immortal Six Hundred being the group referenced. (Further sourcing confirming his inclusion in this group: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Minutes_of_the_Immortal_Six_Hundred_Society_1910).

Also, while notability is not inherited, his biographical information can be confirmed in a another book about the family of his relative Thomas Pinckney, https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/27571522.

I see at least three in-depth coverages, significant additional coverage of the book (half) about him suggesting some degree of buzz about it in academia, various additional corroborating sources, etc. Accordingly, what I’m seeing suggests satisfaction of Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:BIO and I’m for keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This subject does have the one book which directly details, but I'm not seeing much else applied or linked here which puts this past GNG. Reviews of the book don't normally count towards notability. The Bellows article linked is more than just bare mention; the subject and his brother are directly detailed for portions of four pages. Confederate Veteran fails independence. Obviously there's little exclusivity in being part of the "immortal" 600 Confederate prisoners, a bare mention in the the source listed (not independent, being a screed from an era in which the Lost Cause was strongly promoted). Unpublished material like papers and diaries don't normally confer any notability. So my source evaluation of User:Jo7hs2's list gives two sources directly detailing, and other stuff which contributes some detail. It's rare that an ACW junior officer gets their own article, and I came to this process with that preconception. It seems likely with all the available archives this subject will get later biographical development, but we don't do synthesis ourselves. BusterD (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per the above. BD2412 T 21:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Costa Titch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nkalakatha (Costa Titch song)

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

As the article states, there is a hit song by another artist that inspired this song, but they are completely different. Fails GNG and NSINGLE. This version fails GNG and NSINGLE

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
Promo	1. "Costa Titch Shares Highly Anticipated Visuals for 'Nkalakatha Remix' Featuring Riky Rick and AKA - OkayAfrica". www.okayafrica.com. Retrieved 2023-03-24.
Promo	2. ^ "Costa Titch Releases 2 'New Wave Remixes' for his Viral Hit 'Nkalakatha' - OkayAfrica". www.okayafrica.com. Retrieved 2023-03-24.
About Album, not single, Promo	3. ^ "Costa Titch's Debut Album 'Made in Africa' is a Delightful Collection of Catchy Club Bangers - OkayAfrica". www.okayafrica.com. Retrieved 2023-03-24.
Promo	4. ^ Melisizwe, Annika (2020-02-21). "Costa Titch - Nkalakatha (Remix) Ft. Riky Rick & AKA". Ubetoo. Retrieved 2023-03-24.
Promo	5. ^ "Costa Titch Shares Highly Anticipated Visuals for 'Nkalakatha Remix' Featuring Riky Rick and AKA - OkayAfrica". www.okayafrica.com. Retrieved 2023-03-24.
Promo, off topic	6. ^ "Watch the Trailer for 'Gangs of Lagos,' Amazon's First African Movie - OkayAfrica". www.okayafrica.com. Retrieved 2023-03-24.

In addition, NSINGLE states, "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

// Timothy :: talk 01:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and South Africa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a handful of single announcement pieces available but I don't see anything beyond that, and even those aren't worth much. Redirect to the artist page since it's at least mentioned on there in a couple places, including a maybe-notable award it won. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Titch. The song does not appear to have the coverage necessary to support an independent page, but since a viable redirect target does exist, I think that is always preferrable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briggs Preparatory School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Nothing here that distinguishes this primary school. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Trinidad and Tobago. Skynxnex (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any independent coverage. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Puris Middle East Admin. "Dubai Based Ayoub Jghalef Takes His Digital Marketing Strategy to Help Us Growth Our Brand". Puris Middle East. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

[2] "Ayoub Jghalef Set to Expand His Scope Across the Middle East". February 3, 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[3] Puris Middle East Admin. "Dubai Based Ayoub Jghalef Takes His Digital Marketing Strategy to Help Us Growth Our Brand". Puris Middle East. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

[4] "Ayoub Jghalef Set to Expand His Scope Across the Middle East". February 3, 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]