Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< June 07 June 09 >

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 redirect‎ to Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. Viable ATD, with the history there for anyone wanting to merge. While this would appear to be a no consensus, the keeps, with the exception of Jahaza are not based in policy. Star Mississippi 02:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boardman Plaza

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP. Rationale from talk page It is a shopping plaza with no major significance and does not come close to anything WP:GNG. Just because of the companies who it does not make it worth an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:58, 8 June 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 International Seed Testing Association. History is under the redirect if a merger is desired. Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keshavulu Kunusoth

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

Nominating for smarter folks than I to decide the merits. Seems highly self-promotional, so possibly qualifies as G11. Possible also UPE. Maybe enough issues to be returned to draftspace and not clutter main article space. UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rareș Manea

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

Almost every reference in this article is a non-WP:RS list of results from a race. The subject has zero SIGCOV that I could find. He has never gained any international recognition (even a name check) in any international skiing or mountaineering magazines. I have found that many of the BLPs created by the author, User:Gamsbart (since blocked as a sock), should also be AfDed as failing WP:GNG. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098

edit
AfDs for this article:
Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The eclipse was too small, but somehow it was kept Q𝟤𝟪 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Q𝟤𝟪 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to say WP:PRESERVE but the event has not happened yet:) Still, seems useful that we are a full set (per the navbox at the end of the article) of the predicted eclipses for any student to reference. I.e. NOTAPAPER encyclopedia? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098" article should definitely be retained. It is indeed a small eclipse -- the total viewing area is about the size of Iowa (which for solar eclipses is miniscule), only a maximum of 0.56% of the Sun's disk will be occulated by the Moon, and it is occurring off the coast of Antarctica. Therefore, it's likely the eclipse may well go unobserved in 2098. However, the October 24, 2029 eclipse is still notable for being the smallest eclipse of the 21st century (and also for the next 800 years); a distinction that in itself should keep the article active. The eclipse article is as well documented as most other eclipses appearing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghehsv41 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This same article was nominated with the same rationale by the same person a year ago, so I will say here what I said there, since nothing has changed:
    Keep. This is not WP:CRYSTAL, it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality. Celestial events are the most predictable events known to humanity, which is why "the sun will come up tomorrow" is the most commonly used example of a vacuously true prediciton. This eclipse is literally guaranteed to happen at the precise hour indicated, and if it doesn't, come find me in 2098 and I'll give you a hundred bucks (inflation-adjusted). I don't see a GNG fail, either -- eclipses have been considered intrinsically notable events by virtually every civilization in history, and we have the entirety of astronomy to back up that this will happen there then.
A hundred years out is perfectly fine. It will become notable then, and this exact same article will have to be recreated -- why? We should not delete perfectly verifiable information to create pointless busywork for the fine people of 2098, whoever they may be. jp×g 19:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rationale in the second comment gives a good case for keeping this article Karnataka (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viviana Callahan Vargas

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

I can prove that this person does exist (she is a mountain guide), but there is no real WP:RS on her, and almost zero SIGCOV on this person. Ski Mountaineering is a niche sport, and even more niche in Chile. Another BLP from blocked sock Gamsbert (who has many other dubious BLPs). Aszx5000 (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali in Muslim culture

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK from Ali WP:COATRACK for a random poem about Ali. No reason why any of this information couldn't be mentioned in Ali, where it essentially already is, except for the poem, which seems WP:UNDUE anyway. There's no reason why Wikipedia should host this poem without further context. For the rest it's just clogging up our categories. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:30, 8 June 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) 17:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Posada

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

Another undersourced pinup artist page brought to my attention. Most of the article is unsourced and WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up anything that would help it meet GNG or NARTIST. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dede Robertson

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

Fails WP:GNG, as almost no independent, reliable, secondary sources show that she is notable for an article in her own right, as most of the sources that check all three were made after her death, and almost all of them use words that signify she was not notable in her own right (wife of Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson's wife, etc). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of men's footballers with 30 or more trophies

edit
List of men's footballers with 30 or more trophies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST. One source comparing the top 2 players with a mention of the rest of the top 6 ([2]) isn't enough to justify the creation of this list. The set of trophies won by these players are completely different and arbitrary, which makes this a WP:NOTSTATS violation too (stats for the point of stats, not because it adds encyclopedic value). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It has been a pleasure gathering information about footballers with the most trophies. There is room for improvement on this page, and I believe that together, we can build a more user-friendly page with a better solution for presenting the numbers. This will ensure that the article meets the guidelines of WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Thank you in advance! Tamás Szüts (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic North

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

NN bio - fails WP:ENT UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevosoft

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

NN game developer - fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Karnataka (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Transportation in Macau. However, if consensus changed on the target - that's fine. That's a matter of editorial discretion Star Mississippi 02:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in Macau

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

Very short list with just three entries (which is unlikely to increase), with only one/two entries in each sub-category. Suggest to merge into Transport in Macau. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a dry and nearly useless list-article, with no photos, no statistics on maximum lengths of airport runways, what are the largest planes that can land, when built, etc.! There are no coordinates, no possibility that the reader could see a linked OSM map in a {{GeoGroup}} box to see how well various areas in Asia are covered. The guideline wp:CLNT discusses how lists can/should be complementary to categories and navigation templates, but the main list doesn't convey much more than a category would (it does group the sublists sensibly though, while a category would not.) Is there any one sublist that is actually good, to use as a model?
There is benefit in merging sublists back up to the main list, in allowing readers to make comparisons (so actually the info in any one sublist is in effect greater if it is on the same page as other sublists).
I happen to think that keeping Macau and Hong Kong separate from China, as done in the main list, is useful and valid.
Finally, there is "no harm" in simply keeping, and there is no particular point to deleting, IMHO. So tagging with a suggestion that it could be upmerged, and leaving it for some editors to do in the future, would be fine, too. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge like what was suggested by nom for reasons listed above into Transportation in Macau or List of airports in China. Karnataka (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Airlines of China. No consensus to keep this article. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Macau

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

Very short list with just three entries (which is unlikely to increase substantially), with only one entry in each sub-category. Suggest to merge into Transport in Macau. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of kindergartens in Hong Kong

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The list is almost entirely comprised of red-links of names of schools, without further context. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete are we listing apartments next? Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; this seems uncontroversial to me. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:20, 8 June 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 Hell#In popular culture. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

While this topic surely can be written about in a proper way, that proper way is prose. What we have instead is a WP:NOTTVTROPES list that violates WP:IPC/WP:NLIST/MOS:TRIVIA. Out if this mess, the only thing that can be rescued is arguably the single sentence in the lead. As such, I suggest WP:TNTing, either completely or by reducing it to a stub based on the sentence in the lead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, Religion, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell#In popular culture - A ridiculously broad topic that is in no way suitable for a list. Agreed that the topic is notable enough for a prose discussion in either the main Hell article or a spinout, but this massive list of mostly unsourced and, in many cases, extremely trivial examples of every time Hell has appeared or been mentioned in all of art, literature, and popular culture has to go. The main Hell article actually already has a decent section on Hell in Literature, as well as one on Hell in Popular Culture. I propose redirecting to there for now. If those sections become built up enough with properly sourced prose material, then they can be spun back out into separate articles at that time. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Both the "in literature" and "in popular culture" sections should be combined--as in, what's the bright dividing line?--and expanded. The influence of The Divine Comedy on Christian theology of hell is a topic worthy of extensive discussion. That it influenced the Diablo series of video games is without question, but neither of the sections nor this article do a good job of connecting them. The parallels between The Great Divorce and Ted Chiang's Hell is the Absence of God are remarkable... but we don't even link that piece here. It's clearly a mess, but what's needed is not trimming "cruft" but organizing it sensibly. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I obviously agree with the overall sentiment of it being a noteworthy topic, what do you think of my suggestion of incubating it at the already-decent sections of the main article before attempting to split it back out again? Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a "needs work" standalone article is a better magnet for improvement than the absence of an article. WP:TNT theorizes the opposite is true, but that's merely a belief without evidence, hence better characterized as a religious assertion. I'd rather merge the sections from Hell into this and expand from there. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TNT, WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTTVTROPES Dronebogus (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell per WP:NOTTVTROPES. There is almost nothing reliable here to WP:PRESERVE. If someone were to start a Hell in fiction article, a better starting point would come from Hell#In_literature (still poorly sourced, but barely better in terms of avoiding problems with WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty there that's reliable... it's just primarily sourced to a fictional depiction, hence uncited and without commentary. Remember, individual data elements can be sourced to primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell. A notable concept, but WP:TNT applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TNT does not apply, actually. People keep citing that as if it does, but it never envisions the deletion of such content. Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to disagree. WP:NOTTVTROPES. This needs to be rewritten from scratch. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, did you actually think WP:NOTTVTROPES is part of WP:NOT, Piotrus? That's a pretty big disconnect. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Could you perhaps explain how if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article and Deleting severely deficient articles through the WP:AFD process is grounded in established policy. (both from WP:TNT) fit with your assertion that it never envisions the deletion of such content? For that matter, what about our WP:Deletion policy, which says If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.? TompaDompa (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure: cruft isn't useless. While certain fan theories might fail OR, the point of cruft isn't that V is failed (most factual statements can be sourced to primary sources), but rather it delves too much into minutae without showing how secondary sources engage with it. I suppose some fan theories can violate NPOV, but when you get REALLY into the weeds, it's a division by zero error to find DUE. Oh, and if you dispute "cruft isn't useless", then the follow-up question is, "Says who?" Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that actually answered my question. Or if it did, it raises the rather fundamental question of just what "such content" meant in your initial assertion. TompaDompa (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything else about the statement follows from the clause you quoted, if the article's content is useless. You haven't established that it's useless, and cannot, because it is not, in fact, useless. Even the cruftiest cruft can be turned into a quality article through regular editing. Now, it might be more work to do that than most people are willing to invest in, but "useless" it is not. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That still does not particularly clarify what "such content" is. I might also point out that WP:TNT explicitly says Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over. which would seem to address your point that "it might be more work to do that than most people are willing to invest in". TompaDompa (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but an essay doesn't seem to trump deletion policy: improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page and If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. TNT being at odds with core policy is one of the reasons I find it so unfortunate that people quote it with respect to topics where notability is at issue as if it were in alignment, when it never has been aligned with deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That you don't agree with WP:TNT and don't think it is in line with existing policy is a completely different argument than saying that WP:TNT doesn't say what the people invoking it think it says. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, WP:ATD-E is an actual policy, it does exist, despite the assertions that TNT is "just an essay" and supposedly "doesn't count". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TNT is a valid essay, and I never said it wasn't, nor did I say "doesn't count," but rather "doesn't apply." Seriously, go read it: Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. [...] While you can edit any page to fix the page content, you can't edit the associations and social history of a page, even if you delete every trace of that page on the wiki. Now, do those statements of the raison d'etre of TNT touch fictional topics in any meaningful way? Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And if we're looking at WP:ATD-E, what part of the content fails V or NPOV? Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    99% of this fails V. Well, maybe 98%. Hint: lack of footntoes at the end of most examples is a telltale sign. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 100% of this article material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, Piotrus? Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On a long enough timescale, all material is likely to be challenged. TompaDompa (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non sequitur. We're talking about finite time, writing an encyclopedia in good faith, otherwise every single clause in every article would need an inline citation. Sometimes it feels like some articles get close, but that's simply not reasonable for many less-controversial articles. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You say otherwise every single clause in every article would need an inline citation as if that's some outrageous utopia. On the contrary, it is fairly close to best practices. All things considered, the material that does not require inline citations basically amounts to a rounding error. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny, but when I have cited graduate-level papers Wikipedia-style, with at least one citation per sentence, and citations after a clause rather than at the end of the sentence, I've been told that I'm citing too densely. It would be interesting to compare citation density at Wikipedia Ideal--which I'm not disagreeing with you about--with the citation density of peer reviewed papers in various fields. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is exactly what this AfD is, in fact. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're seriously asserting that you challenge the truthfulness of the statement In Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991), the title characters go to Hell.? If you say "yes", then I fail to see how that is not a WP:POINT or WP:CIR issue. Of course you don't dispute the factual nature of that statement: you just don't see it as useful without secondary sourced commentary, which is a different issue and one which neither requires the removal of the commentary-lacking content, nor does it trigger the actual wording of TNT. Try again. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to disagree with you on two points there. Removing content which lacks proper sourcing is in fact necessary to bring articles of this kind in line with our WP:Core content policies (in particular, WP:PROPORTION), and—speaking from experience—the effort required to work backwards from existing content that has been added willy-nilly in a TV Tropes style, adding appropriate sources for it while simultaneously maintaining a proper balance of different aspects that reflects the relevant sources on the overarching topic indeed dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over, which is "the actual wording of TNT". TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice tag team there, but Piotrus still needs to answer. Regardless, to your point, facts without commentary sourced to primary sources are still reliable for those facts without commentary, and if you're going to cite TNT, do be sure to include enough context: the clause you cite is applicable to some articles... but not this one. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability for facts is a red herring. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and WP:PROPORTION is an integral part thereof. TompaDompa (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might additionally point out that WP:PROPORTION is part of WP:NPOV. If the content does not treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, then it violates WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources adequately verify simple statements of fact, but not interpretation, per WP:PSTS. V is met for such statements, anything that goes beyond that can be fixed by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does nothing to address the WP:PROPORTION issue, however. TompaDompa (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And how, precisely, is that an issue in this case? And what barrier prevents editing from fixing it? Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was unfixable. You asked what part of the content violates WP:NPOV. My answer to that is that prima facie, the entire article does—the article does not appear to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But we've established that bare, primary sourced facts are reliable, so... I'm not seeing what you're getting at. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's completely beside the point, since reliability isn't the issue here. The issue is WP:Neutrality, which you well know since I've mentioned it in each of my replies in this sub-thread thus far. TompaDompa (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that you're mentioning neutrality, but I don't see how it's a problem when dealing with such primarily cited fact-only sources. The fact I cited above with respect to Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey doesn't interact with, say, the factoid in the article about Little Nicky. How can that, or any other, non-interaction create a neutrality/NPOV problem for this article? Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read WP:PROPORTION, which I've both linked and quoted above. As I said before: if the content does not treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, then it violates WP:NPOV. Whether certain aspects are mentioned or not, and how much space is devoted to each of them, is a neutrality issue (as are several other things such as prominence of placement and so on). I'm certain you understand this in other contexts, so why not in this one? TompaDompa (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of it is disproportionate? You keep not understanding: If everything is primary sourced fact only, it's not disproportionate, is it? NPOV is not a weapon to exclude information if it's all on a level playing field, which it is here. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works; articles are supposed to reflect the relative weight of various aspects as covered by sources on the overarching topic. I am convinced that you understand that a medical article where everything is primary sourced fact only would be problematic from a neutrality perspective. The same thing applies here. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apples and oranges, since this is not a medical article. Still not seeing that PROPORTION means what you think it means in this context, still not seeing how this article is unbalanced as-is (note: not saying it doesn't have other problems), and still not seeing how, even if it was, that it would not be fixable by editing. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that articles based on primary sources do not reflect the balance (relative weighting of different aspects) found in secondary sources, which makes them non-compliant with WP:NPOV. This is as true when the primary sources in question are works of fiction as when they are primary medical research. TompaDompa (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kuhlman

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

Kuhlman does not appear to meet notability guidelines. I have found four sources which mention him, but they do not seem a substantial enough body of work to ensure notability:

Uffda608 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American psychologists

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

This list had its entire contents blanked other than the intro in 2019 due a complete lack of citations. There has not been anyone added back to list the since then. It seems that at the very least if this were deleted it would possibly be constructed to an appropriate standard under WP:REDYES or at least would not be an article that at the current moment does not provide the information from the title. TartarTorte 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if there's one source list about Jewish American psychologists, that's not enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, which requires multiple sources discussing the set. The list has been empty for over 3 years. At best this is a WP:TNT candidate that can be remade from scratch should someone decide to make a list with proper citations. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyEnvironment

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

NN website fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Ballads XMas

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

NN fails WP:NALBUM UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micropublishing

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

This is just an extended dictdef with significant citation problems. UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 8 June 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) 13:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Massey

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 8 June 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 ChatGPT. Consensus that the paid version is not sufficiently notable to have its own article; no consensus to keep this, and a reasonable consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT Plus

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

ChatGPT Plus is a subscription service thta is not notable by itself, and should be merged into main ChatGPT article. Merge discussion was stale, with several editors supporting merge and one opposing, I redirected the article some time ago. Now it's reverted by an IP, with a comment: "no consensus reached; improper way to redirect - use WP:MERGEPROP to propose a merge and let an uninvolved person to close it. Artem.G was involved".

my messages copied from talk pages: "There is nothing unique in paid version, there is no pages for example for paid version of Duolingo or any other application. The article is a redundant stub that says that Plus costs 20$, has plugins, and is available in several countries (that's already outdated)."

"Redirected to the main page. Everything on the main page can be said about Plus service, and as a subscription service it doesn't require a separate page. Besides, ChatGPT got almost 7 million views in the last 30 days, and ChatGPT Plus got less than 6 thousand." (31 May 2023)

See Talk:ChatGPT_Plus and Talk:ChatGPT#Merge_of_ChatGPT_Plus. My rationale still stands, subscription service is not notable and thus should be redirected (there's nothing to merge). Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Metal Gear Solid characters. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper Wolf

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

The main problem with the article is there is next to no reception about her as a character, and none that passes any amount of SIGCOV. There is nothing, but listicles and passing mentions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the characters article. There’s some decent info in “conception and design” that should be WP:PRESERVED but the… sigh… reception is “TOP 10 OMGWTFBBQ IN VIDEGO GAMEZ” and “top 10 characters with BOOBS”. Dronebogus (talk) 18:10, 8 June 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 Arman Kirakossian. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Diplomacy and the Armenian Question from the 1830s to 1914

edit
British Diplomacy and the Armenian Question from the 1830s to 1914 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page, does not appear to WP:NBOOKS. As an AtD perhaps a redirect to Arman Kirakossian JMWt (talk) 11:18, 8 June 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) 12:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beni Gassenbauer

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

Page created by a banned sock. Seems to be an effort at self promotion, I don't see many sources outwith galleries that exhibit the work, which I suggest do not meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also no listing in the Getty ULAN, [3]. Non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Good Eats home video releases

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Nothing notable about any of these releases. Only source is from a fanpage. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rest of these “list of home media for franchise” lists Dronebogus (talk) 17:55, 8 June 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 Shah Kamal Quhafah. ✗plicit 04:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Tajuddin

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

Very few references, and most of those references only mention his name in a list of other hundreds of disciples. No sign of independent notability. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:49, 8 June 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 and none appears likely to emerge with two silent relists. Star Mississippi 02:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maryanne Oketch

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

Sure, being historically the second black woman to win Survivor, the Survivor 42 winner, and one of Canadian winners of Survivor is something to rave about. However, even potentially meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:NBASIC may not override the article's noncompliance with WP:BLP1E (or WP:BIO1E) and, if applicable, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I've yet to see her being notable for anything else outside Survivor, especially by reliable sources. Must be redirected to Survivor 42. George Ho (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few more sources, there are quite a few others, that touch on her personal life. I think she passes GNG, and I think it's a stretch to say that the intention of the BLP1E policy is to keep those people who are of great interest to the public off Wikipedia. But that's just my reading of it. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify what I said before: the main issue is not her compliance with GNG but rather the article's suitability (and appropriateness) in this project. Curiously, but why else do you think Maryanne is one of people who are of great interest to the public... besides winning Survivor 42? From what I can see, the reliable source that you added doesn't verify her notability as a church employee or volunteer, despite being a fact. Rather the source emphasizes more on her winning Survivor 42. George Ho (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see the BLP1E argument, given the ongoing coverage of her win in the Canadian media, even recently. In particular there's a December 2022 Toronto Star piece on the Top 10 winners and losers of 2022, where she's listed along with household names like Tamara Lich and Kieran Moore - ProQuest 2754408882, along with an interview a couple of months ago on Entertainment Tonight where she discusses the possibility of appearing in Big Brother. As such the requirement in WP:BLP1E that "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is not met; see in particular the first bullet of WP:What BLP1E is not#"One dominant event". Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Toronto Star's top-ten winners and losers list contextually (if not merely) covers Maryanne as a Survivor winner and nothing else. Also, the ET Canada interview is more of a primary source than secondary one and may not count as verification of her (supposed) notability. Besides winning Survivor 42, how else is she more of a high-profile individual instead of a low-profile one? George Ho (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources to show that the person doesn't meet BLP1E with ongoing coverage do not need to be GNG sources. The article should have GNG sources about the subject - and it does. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearer consensus needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom's additional comment - I am, honestly, not confident about arguments based on GNG and (implicitly) WP:sustained weighing over those favoring redirect, yet I bet those "keep" voters would stand by their votes. @Bgsu98: I wonder whether you can add your rationale for your vote. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, as the nom is now in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet criteria for WP:NKICK. Non-notable YouTuber WP:NYOUTUBE/WP:ENT. There is not any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. References are from the subject’s personal blog, Instagram or subject’s YouTube, which does not pass WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethweimaster (talk • contribs) 08:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article has been re-written and cleaned up. She’s the current minimumweight WBC Muay Thai world champion, consistently ranked in the top 5 of her division by the WBC since March 2021.[11] WBC Muay Thai is under the World Boxing Council,[12] one of the four major organisations that govern professional boxing and listed as notable under WP:KICKGUIDE. She is currently ranked No. 1 in the 2023 miniflyweight World Muay thai Organization (WMO) Ranking,[13] WMO is one of the leading sanctioning bodies in Muay Thai, having crowned multiple high level champions like Satanmuanglek CP Freshmart, Petchmahachon Jitmuangnon or Thaksinlek Kiatniwat. Lewolka (talk) 09:59, 8 June 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. No comments after 3rd relist. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safiullah Khan

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

Unable to find sources to meet WP:SPORTBASIC (sports databases don't count). Tagged as needing more sources since 2009. SWinxy (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

o shit i forgot about that. yeah i'm okay with this being put on hold for now until internet services are restored. SWinxy (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question for you instead: Can you back up your claim with any news report? As I understand, only selective sites are down (i.e. YouTube, Twitter, etc.) Wikipedia is working. Internet service can be restrive in selective areas, not in the whole country. Things are getting normal after Khan's release by the court. BookishReader (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why don't you do the honor of posting here the news report that gives us all the good news that the internet service is ACTUALLY RESTORED in Pakistan and Imran Khan is ACTUALLY RELEASED FROM DETENTION after the court release order posted above by you. All I know is most of my regular Wikipedia contacts in Pakistan are still inactive....Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, non-notable footballer. Nothing significant in my searches. This article may help. BookishReader (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards keep There are a number of hits on dawn.com [14], although Pakistan isn't really a footballing country, there maybe enough out there for him. However I am not totally sure. But this is more of a weak keep at the moment. I added one little bit to the article to start with. Govvy (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't click the link originally, but I'm coming back to this and realize it amounts to just WP:GOOGLEHITS. Plus, your search query makes it include articles with either the words Khan or Safiullah in it. How many are actually about this person, and how many are more than including his name in a list of other names? SWinxy (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article are game reports and database stats, above are routine brief news mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. 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 per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  04:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:08, 8 June 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) Nagol0929 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.N.P.O.C. (musician)

edit
U.N.P.O.C. (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To quote my PROD which was just removed:

Appears to have received no reliable coverage beyond that Uncut review. Has an AllMusic bio but it's uncredited, and the same text appears on Spotify and Apple Music so that may have been written by someone at Domino Recording Company. I'm not seeing notability here.

Same argument still applies. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've never heard of them, but the article meets WP:BAND #5, "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The article states that two albums were released on Domino Recording Company, whose article has a ton of blue links suggesting that some of their signed artists are notable. The current reference could be improved to an independent, reliable source, but unless that's completely made up, I land on the keep side. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Domino Recording Company is indeed a notable label, but also one which has signed many artists over the years and not all of them are automatically notable just for meeting that single criteria. Do keep in mind that, like with other SNGs, NBAND does say that a subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria," not that they definitely are from just the one. If you ask me, NBAND#5 alone should never be a reason to keep a page, and this is no exception. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Two releases on Domino would be enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC, and it is not necessary for the band to also meet other notability criteria to qualify. However, the group really only has one full-length release on Domino, which is Fifth Column; the live album is a limited-edition release that's the length of an EP and was never put on sale generally or reviewed critically. ([16]) The AMG source is reliable (it doesn't need to be a signed review) and the Uncut review is, too; a couple more reviews (perhaps in paper rags?) and I'd bump up to a solid keep. Chubbles (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but the AllMusic page 1. is a bio, not a review, and 2. has evidence that it wasn't written by an AllMusic writer due to appearing in other places. Just because AllMusic hosts it doesn't give it an automatic pass; after all, they host all sorts of confirmed user-generated stuff that we don't use. It could perhaps be useful as a primary source, but I reject the notion that it counts toward notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An AllMusic biography is not unreliable merely for not being a review; both the biographical summaries and the reviews can be used as independent sources. If it appears elsewhere, it's just as likely it was cribbed from Allmusic as the converse; indeed, many a Wikipedia music biography has been copied and pasted from Allmusic. If we have reason to believe this is spon-con of some sort, I'd withdraw, but I don't see the need for native suspicion of the content. Chubbles (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said AM bios were unreliable. I never even said this one is. I just said that I have my suspicions and I don't think it's safe enough to clearly provide notability. And even if it did, that would leave us with two good sources which still isn't much. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bumped up to keep based on added sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 06:49, 15 June 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. The WP:HEY expansion is welcomed but has not been definitively agreed as proving notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linette Lopez

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

the subject is not verified by reliable in-depths media sources; no achievements found - just a mere journalist in the US NortonAngo (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you have that test backwards: if you are confident that there are sources that you think would further validate the subject's notability, you are more than welcome to find and present them. But no one is compelled to do it for you. And if they aren't found and presented by someone, policy does not direct us to assume that they do exist just because you've assured us you think they do; quite the opposite, we have to presume they don't, absent a showing that they do. SnowRise let's rap 09:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one of many that got caught in the whims of Elon as he runs twitter as he sees fit; I can't find substantial coverage about her, other than being named along with other people that got caught up in the kerfuffle. Sources used in the article an un-RS or simply biographical articles. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or !Merge to a "twitter controversies since Elon bought it" article, there seems to be one every month now... Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, she wasn't notable before the twitter incident, she was just another working journalist. I'm not sure being one of many that got banned in a twitter fluff makes her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is indeed notable for being a reporter who Musk has retaliated against multiple times now. The Twitter incident pales in comparison to when she broke the Martin Tripp story really. QRep2020 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry QRep, but the onus is upon the party asserting notability to provide sources which establish significant coverage of the subject. The consensus so far is that some of the sourcing does not qualify as WP:RS, and the remaining mentions are incidental and short-term, therefore failing WP:SIGCOV, WP:NRV and WP:SUSTAINED, all requirements for a showing of notability. There's still time for a lot more input, so consensus may change, but I think it's unlikely. SnowRise let's rap 09:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While GNG appears to be met (see collapsed table below), this is a biography, so we need to examine this through the lens of WP:NBIO.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Columbia College Today Appears to be a University publication. Unclear if this is the equivalent of a press release or if this is subject to editorial review. ~ While reliable about home institutions, per WP:RSSM, student media may be discounted during notability discussions about topics related to home institutions. No Trivial metion in a single sentence. ✘ No
Entrepreneur No This is an author profile for staff/contributing writers to Entrepreneur, not an independently written news article. Moot as clearly non-independent. Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
The Daily Beast Yes This appears to be independently created content. ~ Per WP:DAILYBEAST, there is no consensus as to the reliability of The Daily Beast. Yes This definitely covers her in a greater-than-trivial way. The context of the coverage is the Musk tweets and Twitter suspension. ~ Partial
Bloomberg News Yes This is written by an independent news organization. Yes Bloomberg News is an established WP:NEWSORG No She is the focus of all of two sentences and additionally given two trivial mentions. ✘ No
Law360 Yes Law360 appears to be independent Yes For sake of argument, why not? No In the full article, Lopez is trivially mentioned a single time. ✘ No
Slate Yes Appears to be independent. This reads like an WP:RSOPINION piece but does not appear to be marked as such by Slate. Yes Obviously about Lopez, in the context of the coverage is the Musk tweets, but not her suspension from Twitter. ? Unknown
NPR via WITF Yes NPR is an independent WP:NEWSORG. Yes NPR is an established WP:NEWSORG. Yes The coverage about Lopez, in the context of the Musk Tweets and Twitter suspension, passes the WP:100W rule-of-thumb. ✔ Yes
The Independent via Yahoo! News Yes This is an independent WP:NEWSORG. Yes This is an established WP:NEWSORG. Yes This is significant coverage of Lopez, in the context of the Musk tweets and her suspension from Twittter. ✔ Yes
The New York Times Yes NYT is an independent WP:NEWSORG. Yes NYT is an established WP:NEWSORG. No She is mentioned in passing, once. ✘ 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}}.
As the table above shows, whether or not she was covered significantly in the context of multiple events seems to hinge on the reliability of the Slate piece and whether we treat it as WP:RSOPINION or as a regular piece of WP:NEWSORG reporting. I feel like it is a bit of a stretch to say that the 2018 Slate piece covers her in the context of the same event that was her suspension from Twitter, so I'm a bit hesitant to say that this is clearly WP:BLP1E if we treat that source as reliable. After all, as WP:BLP2E correctly states, if reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event, then BLP1E does not apply. She also doesn't exactly appear to be a low-profile individual, so I doubt that WP:BLP1E#2 applies to her even if we were to treat Slate's coverage as an opinion piece. Alas, the other coverage of Lopez that I could find online appears to cover her in the context of her suspension from Twitter, so looking for sources not in the article already doesn't really help clarify what to do here.
On a separate note, she has won a New York Press Club award, but I don't think that this is the sort of award that makes one pass WP:ANYBIO#1. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because although she has independent in-depth coverage in mid-2023 it's all arising from the Twitter suspension. I think that puts her into WP:1E and (like so many things involving Musk) not a particularly compelling event.
It's slightly more complicated than one-event, because he maligned her twice -- the 2019/2020 articles don't seem to be about her, but about the coverage on which Musk criticised her (the Bloomberg article is paywalled so I can't see it) -- but his allegations got just passing mentions in press coverage at the time. Oblivy (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still a long, long way to go with this article, as there is so much information that is still missing, but by definition, her coverage of Tesla spanning many years, plus her coverage of Occupy Wall Street, are both widely cited and satisfy criteria #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR, which says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work.... Also easily satisfies WP:BASIC. (It's always hard to do good searches on journalists, as you have to weed through so much of their own bylines, but the more you dig, the more you find.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update is that there is still room for expansion/improvement, but at this point I would say it's also a pass per WP:HEY. Another point is that the author actually has a large body of citations across Wikipedia (be sure to search for "Lopez, Linette" as well as "Linette Lopez" – not sure if there is an "Authorlink" bot similar to "Findlink" that takes care of this automatically but the number is large enough that it seems like a tedious update to make manually). In any case I don't think there's any doubt about her notability per WP:NAUTHOR, and there is still plenty of other secondary coverage about her media coverage that could still be added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article has been improved significantly. But aside from the Common Ground citation is there anything new that adds to the WP:NAUTHOR analysis? Those four factors all point to recognition by others of her body of work or contributions. One might argue that the attention she received from Musk is a backhanded complement but that seems a stretch. Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several secondary articles have been added which specifically discuss her coverage of Tesla, Inc. There are many, many more articles like that. Her body of articles are also widely cited in articles discussing Occupy Wall Street. And all the other citations within Wikipedia. That is sufficient for WP:NJOURNALIST, criteria #1 and #3. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth remembering that every article must still pass WP:GNG; SNGs merely establish temporary presumed notability based on certain common metrics that are believed to indicate a likely basis for notability. However, at AfD the party arguing for retention still bears the burden of demonstrating that there is substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject itself. A journalist might satisfy WP:NAUTHOR thirty times over, because they had a hand in breaking the ten biggest stories of the previous decade, but if independent sources don't cover them as a subject, it doesn't matter.
That said, if the expansion of the article is perceived as a positive indicator that such coverage can be ultimately found, then let's grant the time to bring them to bear. There's clearly a 'no consensus' result here at present anyway. But speaking for myself, I'm only going to formally change my !vote once I see detailed coverage of Lopez herself, as required by policy. This "she widely covered this", "she was instrumental in that" is all just a distraction unless RS report directly on her accomplishments and validate the significance independent of our being impressed. SnowRise let's rap 04:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For biographical articles we have WP:BASIC, which says: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. The article with its current sourcing easily satisfies this criterion. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:38, 16 June 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! 07:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional religions

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

Category-as-a-list. Extremely bare-bones and uninformative “article” that is missing probably the overwhelming majority of examples and has no justification for existing (i.e. provides no information independent of listing examples and duplicating the navigational function of a category) Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. jp×g 22:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. It's very barebones, it needs citations, but the topic of fictional religions is a notable one. Let's not confuse articles needing improvement with articles that violate policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability applies to the topic, not to the current state of an article. "Category-as-a-list" is not a problem, a great many lists are rightly constructed in this way as these are complementary means of navigation and both valid. There is no doubt that many of the items can readily be reliably cited, so this is an obvious and immediate keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it meets WP:LISTN; what has been said above seems correct to me, repeated claims from the nominator aside. A list does not have to be good to be notable, and it's obvious that the subject of fictional religions is the latter. jp×g 22:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zxcvbnm. Could use some work but it's a notable topic as someone else mentioned.
WuTang94 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Amao

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Aside this source [17] I found which can't established notability, wasn't able to find any to sustain the article. Epcc12345 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ BuySomeApples (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia De Berardinis

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

I did some searching and couldn't find much in-depth coverage in RSes. The sources linked seem to be her own books. The closest thing to sigcov is this LA Weekly piece I found but it looks like it was sponsored and isn't enough on its own anyway. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator in light of the sources found by DaffodilOcean, nice work! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is coverage of her in multiple reliable sources. The Los Angeles Times published an almost-full page article on her in 2008.[1] Sources on erotic art call her a 'leading artist'[2] or 'one of the few to achieve fame'.[3] She had a twenty-year span of working with the pinup model Bettie Page,[4] see that WP page for multiple references to De Berardinis. For those interested in finding additional sources, she uses the single name 'Olivia' as an artist which can provide too many sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Boehm, Mike (27 July 2008). "It's Empowering, Really". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 13 Feb 2021. Retrieved 15 March 2022.
  2. ^ Slade, Joseph W. (2001). Pornography and sexual representation : a reference guide. Internet Archive. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press. p. 529. ISBN 978-0-313-27568-5.
  3. ^ Ervolino, Bill (14 March 2004). "Pinup power ; Some art never loses its allure". The Record; Bergen County, N.J. [Bergen County, N.J]. pp. F01 – via Proquest.
  4. ^ Foster, Richard (1999). The real Bettie Page : the truth about the queen of the pin-ups. Internet Archive. New York : Citadel ; Partridge Green : Biblios. ISBN 978-0-8065-2075-9.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeph Maystruck

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

This person does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoyTheKingCanDance The article has been updated to include more references from reputable news sources. It's unfortunate that there aren't even more publications covering Jeph as he is a well known public figure in the Saskatchewan education and marketing sphere. CarterFromSL (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just social media fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough under any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and having a smattering of "local guy does stuff" in the local media of his own hometown is not sufficient to earn him passage on WP:GNG grounds. We're not looking for articles that mention his name, we're looking for articles in which he's the primary subject of the coverage, but there's not nearly enough of the latter being shown at all. Also I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that there's a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username includes "FromSL" and the subject works at an organization whose name can be abbreviated as "SL". Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 15 June 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. / Nom withdrawn. Clearly I had a search fail. We don't need to spend more time on this Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. E. Smith High School

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

Bringing this here for discussion as it has been deleted, redirected throughout its history. I am unable to find significant, independent coverage of the school, nor is the Orange Street location's listing on the historical register enough to convey notability on the school. A redirect to Cumberland County Schools or Fayetteville,_North_Carolina#High_schools_(grades_9–12) would make sense. Star Mississippi 02:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and North Carolina. Star Mississippi 02:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Tons of regional coverage of this nearly 100-year-old high school. Generally, I only support deleting high schools if they entirely lack any sort of coverage, but this school does not meet that. It's got a pretty storied history as with many high schools its age: [18], [19], [20]. Namely, it was the site of many desegregation protests which sadly are not mentioned in the article. It even managed to get a dissertation [21]. (Note that this dissertation was cited in the Harvard University Press book A Class of Their Own: Black Teachers in the Segregated South, so any worries about it not being a good enough source can be put to rest.) I can shift through more routine sports announcements if needed, but with over 500 Newspaper.com results, I am pretty certain it meets GNG. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's long been held here that placement on the NRHP is more than a presumption of notability; except in rare cases, it's proof, due to the extensive amount of data required for an NRHP nomination to be approved. The nomination document itself is enough to show GNG is met. I don't see any problem with that here. Star Mississippi, I'd be interested in why you specifically said it wasn't. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding before I close, IP 69. It is no longer in the building, having occupied it until a new building was constructed/opened in 1954. The former building is notable, but that IMO doesn't make the school notable when it no longer occupies the building. Closing the nom so as not to waste editors' time, but happy to continue this on the article's talk or mine if you think helpful. Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Roman Polanski Petition

edit
AfDs for this article:
2009 Roman Polanski Petition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A split of Roman Polanski sexual abuse case#Arrest in Zurich, which already covers the reason for the petition, and the petition. This article mostly exists to contain gigantic quotes and a gigantic list of signatories. This strikes me as cruft and not encyclopedic. Without these quotes and lists, the article is only a few paragraphs. --Quiz shows 00:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanzetta Penn McPherson

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

Non-notable United States magistrate judge. Per WP:USCJN#Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges, "Magistrate judges... are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability."

The article was PRODded by Snickers2686 (myself) with the comment Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider/WP:USCJN; it was declined by 161.69.71.25 with the comment "literally first page of Google has tonnes of stuff, shared on talk page." The sources shared on article talk page don't constitute WP:RS or establish notability. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 01:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We generally don't accept magistrate judges as notable, not a ton of coverage of the individual otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:31, 8 June 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Briley

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

I had redirected this article, but it was reverted. Fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's in addition to a wealth of news coverage about his time on Idol. Briley clearly meets the WP:GNG criteria, and he's recieved some news coverage for his own music career after Idol. This article serves a purpose for anyone who wants to know about that career, and I guess I just don't understand what's accomplished by turning this into a redirect. --Jpcase (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments presented by Jpcase Jack4576 (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A view among many editors is that American Idol finalists need to recieve some sort of additional news coverage after their time on Idol to recieve a standalone article. I don't necessarily agree with that view though. The sheer amount of news coverage and cultural impact of Idol during its Fox iteration was so much greater than that of any other reality series that I feel it should be a unique case where news coverage related to the series is enough to display individual notability for the finalists. That said, I recognize that some editors would like to see news coverage for each finalist that is unrelated to the finalist participating on Idol. Briley has such news coverage from the three articles I shared above about his EP. It's not a lot, but the bar for establishing individual notability in this case should not have to be especially high, since Briley already meets the GNG so easily. --Jpcase (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the individual passes the general notability guideline then the article should not be deleted. Per WP:SINGER Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline. However, GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. That is, not just a brief burst of coverage over a relatively short amount of time. The coverage I found is from February to December 2014. The only source that covers the subject significantly in any other year is a [26] which is a blog and should not be used per WP:SELFPUBLISH. As it stands, I feel the subjects needs at least one other significant source that is from at at least 2013 or 2015 for him to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idol Chatter is published by The York Dispatch, so while it's in the format of a blog, it wouldn't actually be considered self-published. --Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Reporter is a few sentences about him, nothing extensive. A RS, yes, but not extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Local person gets featured on national TV show" is about the extent of the coverage for this individual. Delete for not meeting GNG or any musical notability (no charted singles, no national awards, no tour reviews in the national press). Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b When it comes to his American Idol appearances, there's a ton of national news coverage, so I don't think it's fair to characterize the coverage as just "local". I do still feel that the article should be kept, on the basis of coverage from publications like The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, Tvline, etc. But if others disagree, would you be willing to at least switch your vote to redirecting the article to American Idol (season 13)? --Jpcase (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A !redirect is fine if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Tong, Holly (2014-02-27). "Living the dream one song at a time". Lebanon Democrat. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04.

      The article notes: "Before Ben’s rise to fame, the 24-year-old who graduated from Gallatin High school in 2007 was working as a server at Olive Garden while pursuing his music and enjoying life with his wife Courtney. ... Though he’s a strong UT fan, he went on to college at MTSU due to them having the best field of study for journalism. He focused on Broadcasting and PR. While there he became the anchorman for the campus sports, and got some experience with channel 10 in Murfreesboro."

    2. Wadhwani, Anita (2001-06-05). "Gallatin boy promoting national day for siblings". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A Gallatin boy wants to make sure that siblings get their due by adding a Brothers and Sisters Day to the national calendar. Benjamin Briley, 12, hopes that June 2 — a date sandwiched between Mother's Day and Father's Day — will become that new holiday. Gov. Don Sunduist has agreed. Twice. ... said Benjamin, who is a sixth-grade honor student at Shafer Middle School and brother to 8-year-old Meggie."

    3. Tong, Holly (2014-12-26). "Briley releases 'Outlier' EP". Lebanon Democrat. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04.

      The article notes: "In fact, he just released an EP entitled “Outlier” which showcases his individuality and versatility. Briley’s latest music can be found on iTunes, Amazon and Spotify, among others. Hard copies of the EP will be available in 2015."

    4. Bronson, Fred (2014-03-14). "'American Idol' Eliminated Contestant Ben Briley: 'I Was One of the Weakest'". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04.

      The article notes: "Briley was a waiter at the chain restaurant. ... Briley was also very young when he performed the first time for a large audience. ... Although music is in Briley’s DNA — he explains that his great-grandmother was the first woman to sing at the Grand Ole Opry and his mother writes songs and was president of the Barbara Mandrell fan club — while he was growing up, he thought of music as a hobby, not a profession. ... Briley had a third option for a career – he majored in PR."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ben Briley to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I want to re-affirm my delete vote in response to this comment. If the best coverage is super-local coverage of him saying something about "national siblings day" as a 12-year-old (plus already-discussed coverage of his short time on American Idol), there is clearly not enough coverage to justify an article. Walt Yoder (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I maintain that nearly a full year's worth of significant coverage from national news outlets about his time on Idol, plus a little bit of coverage about his EP, should be reason enough to discount deletion as a proper outcome, when redirection or merging are also options. And I really do feel that this article should be kept. I feel even more strongly about this in light of the Tennessean news article found by Cunard, which was published years before Briley ever appeared on Idol. It should be noted that Briley didn't simply "say something about National Siblings Day", he originated the idea for the day, which was officially adopted as a holiday in the state of Tennessee. Jpcase (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:19, 8 June 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) SWinxy (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Winkle

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

Expired prod with one notable source which is probably a fluff piece, created by a banned user a very long time ago and never improved beyond draft quality (though that’s kind of insulting to some drafts). Dronebogus (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked into depth into other sources yet, but these all look like pretty standard fluff pieces/sources and are pretty poor for trying to claim notability. KoA (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage is normal fluff pieces, meaning this mutt lacks any real notability. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Had a chance to look for more on this after my initial comment and still nothing. Just fluff pieces you'd find as filler in a variety section (even for the CNN article), not true WP:SIGCOV or GNG. KoA (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that my delete comment includes sources like Cunard provided below. Those are the type of fluff pieces I was referencing, so the mere existence of a list of sources like that does not imply notability. KoA (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Analysis of the sources

    Mr. Winkle received significant coverage in multiple books and news articles. He was profiled in books published in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2017, and 2021. This satisfies Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. Mr Winkle received substantial coverage in national sources like the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, and the San Francisco Chronicle. This satisfies the principles underpinning Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Diversity of sources, though this topic is not an event.

    The creator is not banned

    MakeRocketGoNow (talk · contribs), the article's creator, is not a banned user. The article was created on 12 May 2005. The creator was blocked on 16 February 2021 with this message: "{{checkuserblock-account}}: Compromised account: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61". There is more background at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61/Archive#16 February 2021, where a checkuser wrote, "It is apparent from CheckUser information that this sockmaster is attempting to compromise preexisting accounts, most likely by trying passwords obtained from a data breach on another website. The above four accounts are Confirmed to have been compromised by Arshifakhan61."

    Sources

    1. Book sources:
      1. Stall, Sam (2007). 100 Cats Who Changed Civilization: History's Most Influential Felines. Philadelphia: Quirk Books. pp. 75–78. ISBN 978-1-86374-163-0. Retrieved 2023-03-21 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Just when things couldn't get any stranger, they did. The local newspapers broke the story, which quickly exploded into an international media sensation. Smelling a colorful human interest piece, press from around the world fell upon the juicy item like, well, Lewis going after an Avon lady. Overnight, Cisero, her embattled neighbors, and anyone else with the vaguest connection to the cat started fielding calls from everyone from CNN to Inside Edition to The Daily Show to the BBC. Lewis got his own page on myspace.com, and Save Lewis T-shirts hit the market shortly thereafter."

      2. Lowe, Paul, ed. (2017). "Mr. Winkle as Rosie the Riveter". 1001 Photographs You Must See Before You Die. New York: Universe Publishing. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-7893-2768-0. Retrieved 2023-06-07 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Mr. Winkle is the canine muse of the successful documentary photographer Cara Jo Regan (born 1962). Regan adopted the diminutive dog as a stray, and soon found that his unique appearance prompted extraordinary reactions from people when she took him for walks. His lineage is uncertain, but possibly mixes Pomeranian and Chihuahua. Regan began photographing Mr. Winkle in a series of constructed studio sets as a variety of "characters," including this pastiche of the famous feminist icon Rosie the Riveter. Mr Winkle became an unexpected international phenomenon, with Regan producing a series of calendars of him. Mobbed by crowds at personal appearances, Mr. Winkle even appeared as a guest star on Sex and the City, where he upstaged Carrie Bradshaw (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) at her first book signing. Time magazine named him "Best Internet Celebrity of 2002" and he rapidly became the first global Internet animal superstar, gaining 65 million hits by 2006."

      3. DeMello, Margo (2021). On the Job: An Encyclopedia of Unique Occupations around the World. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-1-4408-6350-9. Retrieved 2023-06-07 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Some internet animal celebrities do not have outside agents representing them. For instance, Mr. Winkle, a small Pomeranian mix who was rescued by photographer Lara Jo Regan in 1996 (and died in 2019), gained his celebrity thanks to his adorable looks and the talent of Regan, who photographed Mr. Winkle to highlight his best characteristics (such as his huge eyes, bear-shaped ears, and perpetually hanging tongue) and promoted him on her own website. In the years before social media, Regan's work was so effective that she not only got a three-book deal from Random House, countless television appearances, and an appearance on an episode of Sex and the City (where he upstaged star Sarah Jessica Parker at a book signing), but he was also named the first Internet Celebrity of the Year by Time in 2002. Like other owners of internet celebrity animals, Regan ended up devoting much of her career to promoting Mr. Winkle and selling his merchandise"

      4. Miele, Christine (2006). Loevesque, Jennifer (ed.). 1001 Reasons to Love Dogs. New York: Harry N. Abrams. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-58479-526-1. Retrieved 2023-06-07 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "A tiny dog resembling a teddy bear, with a prominent pink tongue and enormous dark, expressive eyes, Mr. Winklelis truly one of a kind. Rescued from an industrial area by award-winning photographer Lara Jo Regan, Mr. Winklerose to stardom in 2001 with Regan's calendar titled "What is Mr. Winkle?" launched on mrwinkle.com. Books, cards, plush toys, media appearances, and worldwide recognition were to follow. ... Called "The Cutest Dog in the World" by the national media, he has graced the covers of Animal Wellness, Pet Life, and Time Magazine for Kids, and has been written up in major newspapers from L.A. to London. He sparked a wave of Winklemania across the globe, thanks in part to mrwinkle.com, one of the most popular websites in the history of the Internet, garnering over 65 million hits and counting. Mr. Winkle even landed a came on the cable TV series Sex and the City, playing himself at a book signing."

      5. Uncle John's Slightly Irregular Bathroom Reader. Ashland, Oregon: Bathroom Readers' Institute. 2004. pp. 480–481. ISBN 978-1-59223-270-3. Retrieved 2023-06-07 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "So far Mr. Winkle has been the subject of five calendars and three books, and his fame continues to grow. He receives an average of 100 e-mails a day, many of them from fans who have seen him on Today, The Rosie O'Donnell Show, Sex and the City, and other TV shows. "I feel like I'm the keeper of a magical elf," Regan told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I'll take him to a party, and what was a staid affair is suddenly full of happiness and whimsy. It's almost as if he knows it's his mission to enchant people." (If Mr. Winkle's fame continues to grow, we'll have to rename this article "Famous for 25 minutes.")"

    2. Newspaper and magazine sources:
      1. Ringe, Alexandra (2001-03-04). "Petropolis; Cashing In on Being Cute". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "Regan shot a Mr. Winkle calendar and started selling it in September -- along with Winkle's World videos, greeting cards and posters -- at www.mrwinkle.com. Soon after, Mr. Winkle appeared in newspapers and on TV, then on the ultimate launching pad for commercial cuteness, The Rosie O'Donnell Show. The site got four million hits a month. By November, Regan had to turn her studio into "a fulfillment house" to handle all the orders."

      2. Iovine, Julie V. (2002-01-20). "Petropolis; Cashing In on Being Cute". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "Since publication in November, Ms. Regan's first book, What Is Mr. Winkle? has sold 25,000 copies. Two more books are in the works, and Mr. Winkle plush toys, games, puzzles and remote-control robots are due from Mattel by Christmas. And Disney wants to do the movie, Ms. Regan said."

      3. Levine, Bettijane (2003-07-12). "Bow wowed". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "But Mr. Winkle is a dog. A 5-pound dog (about the size of a large squirrel), with fluffy apricot-colored hair, bright-as-glass button eyes, a koala bear’s ears and a perfectly rounded little cherry-red tongue that peeks from one side of his mouth as if it had been sewn in place for optimum adorable effect. ... Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis, waited almost two hours for a signed book. She was assembling a birthday package for her mother, Nancy, and “I wanted Mr. Winkle to be a part of it,” she said."

      4. Arp, Dennis (2000-09-22). "Tony as a Teacup, Bigger Than Life". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "First, there’s his diminutive size. People can’t believe that, at 5 pounds, Mr. Winkle is fully formed. Then there’s his squirrel-like tail, and his bright-red tongue, which hangs perpetually limp from his elfin mouth. Even when he eats, it never seems to go all the way back in. Plus, he has a bouncy, off-balance walk that makes him look battery-powered. Except when he’s really, really happy. Then he prances like a tiny Lipizzan stallion."

      5. Alexander, Donnell (2008-02-14). "A Winkle and a nod to films that go beyond cute". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "It's inherently compelling to see a cute little dog wearing human clothes. But Mr. Winkle is something else. This “Canine Cindy Sherman” stars in the 47-minute “Big Top Winkle,” and the silent-film-informed action sort of swirls around its surreal toy star. The miniature’s cuteness beguiles in such a way that it ceases to be only about the comedic baddies who line up to exploit Mr. Winkle. It’s also about the viewer and her or his own animal trip."

      6. Chonin, Neva (2003-06-23). "Leader of the pack / Fluffy Mr. Winkle has fans panting for calendars and books in his image". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2021-01-26. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "Regan's Winkle odyssey began six years ago when she lost her way in an industrial wasteland outside Bakersfield while on assignment for Newsweek magazine. A bundle of muddy, matted fur limped into her car's headlights; she got out to investigate, and the bedraggled creature toddled into her arms. Feeling the tug of destiny, she took him back to her Los Angeles home and spent the next two years nursing him to health."

      7. "What Is Mr. Winkle?". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 248, no. 43. 2001-10-22. p. 76. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The review notes: "This campy photo gallery depicts a fuzzy miniature dog, Mr. Winkle (a familiar sight to many from his calendar, Web site and many media appearances), with his Chihuahua's rounded cranium and a tongue too long for his mouth."

      8. Britton, Jason (2001-10-22). "Stories Behind The Book. What Is Mr. Winkle?". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 248, no. 43. p. 26. Archived from the original on 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-06-07.

        The article notes: "Mr. Winkle's rise to fame began last year, when Regan, an award-winning photographer for a number of national news magazines, compiled a Mr. Winkle calendar and a Web site to promote it. After a story ran in the L.A. Times and other media outlets (including CNN and The Rosie O'Donnell Show) picked up on it, Regan was flooded with orders. The Web site, www.mrwinkle.com , has received more than 22 million hits since last October."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mr. Winkle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the types of sources that were referenced in delete votes above about them mostly being fluff, many of which I had look over before giving my initial comment. Even the first source characterizes it as human-interest story as opposed to something encyclopedic in nature. To quote form there Human-interest stories are sometimes criticized as "soft" news, or manipulative, sensationalistic programming. Human-interest stories have been labelled as fictitious news reporting, used in an attempt to make certain content appear relevant to the viewer or reader. That's in part why this falls moreso into WP:NOTNEWS. KoA (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS has four bullet points. It says: "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:
  1. Original reporting.
  2. News reports
  3. Who's who.
  4. Celebrity gossip and diary.
An article about Mr. Winkle is not original reporting, who's who, and celebrity gossip and diary. The most relevant bullet point is "News reports", which says:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Mr. Winkle was covered substantially in books published in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2017, and 2021. With sustained coverage spanning 17 years, it is clear that Mr. Winkle has "enduring notability" under Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply.

Cunard (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is policy, it always applies. The bulk of sources you bring (including the books) are in the same vein as celebrity gossip, who's who (among pets), etc. which are frequently referred to as fluff pieces, human-interest, etc. in notability discussions. Long lists of poor sources like this do not justify notability. We also need to be careful about cherry-picking only parts of that policy. The spirit of that policy is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Newspapers, etc. may print stuff like that, but just because those types of sources print stories about it, does not mean it is an encyclopedic topic. Things like this are why we have NOTNEWS policy because of those differences. KoA (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the source analysis helps, appears notable. Article could use an update. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the sources listed by Cunard. The subject seems to satisfy WP:GNG. Blue Edits (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per what Cunard has listed above. Also, I would like to note that prior to the nomination for deletion, the page seems to have been badly vandalized (i.e. the references were removed and replaced with plain-text "[1]", "[2]", etc. I don't know how the heck that happened, but it has the effect of making the article look like it has no references, so I am fixing it. jp×g 22:50, 9 June 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 21:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Janoszek

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

It was today revealed that the whole career of this person is mostly made up. She starred in two very niche Hindi films in 2012-15, then published a book in Poland in which she introduced herself as a "Bollywood star." And she began to be invited to TV shows (including the Polish edition of Dancing with the Stars). Then she starred in an episode of 365 Days and was an extra (she appeared on screen for 5 seconds, without any line of dialogue) in a niche American comedy.

This is actually the only thing known about her for sure. The rest is probably made up. There is a small controversy about it in Poland these days. There is also a discussion on Polish Wikipedia about the removal of this article ([27]). Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Poland. Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are a lot of examples of actors faking or misrepresenting their resumes (George Lazenby comes to mind as probably the most famous). Can you clarify what you mean by her career being made up with reference to the current state of the article? As in, is there anything currently in the article that a hoax presented as fact? Curbon7 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to nominate this article. It should be noted that most likely Natalia herself created article about her on pl.wiki (account name nataliabb → aroundtheworld00), that account edited this article only. English article was also created by account (now banned) with edits being related to this article. She talks about herself like shes big star in India, but literally no Indian media mention her. She played in 1 Indian film that was watched by 16k people and was rated terrible, in 1 American film where she was just sitting on the beach and smiling for 5 seconds and some movie The Swing of Things, all minor roles. She forged her whole carrier and brainless journalists promoted her. Now when you Google her you see media talking about her forging her carrer. It is just WP:PROMO. Sławobóg (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see from Twitter that there seems to be some hubbub over this, but am unable to find solid sources. From what I can tell, these allegations are stemming from a report by Krzysztof Stanowski. I have to ask again, is there anything currently in the en.wiki article that is presented as fact but is in fact a hoax? Just because she is alleged to be a faker does not necessarily mean she is automatically non-notable, it just changes the reason for why she is notable.
    Also, the account that created the en.wiki article does not have a COI regarding the subject as far as I can tell, so it has little bearing that they are now blocked for other reasons. Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article to mainly manipulations that are meant to create the false impression that her figure is encyclopedic. Jharkhand International Film Festival Awards is very small and non-prestigious thing that started in 2018, their website is not working and they don't even have 2000 likes on Facebook and noone heard about it, which IMO makes this article also nonencyclopedic ("She won JIFFA award twice in a row for the best international actress (2018 and 2019), thus becoming the first Polish actress awarded with an Indian film award" is laughable in this context). The only film that has an article on Wiki is Dreams, but she played such a small role there that she is not even listed as an actor on IMBd. Her "big (leading)" role is in a movie that had 16k views in theaters (1.408 billion people in India). Everything here is laughable, like mentioning some minor Miss contests, singing during some concert (!), or "She gained international recognition with her performance at the opening ceremony of the 72nd Cannes Film Festival" - how is that thing for Wikipedia? And more importantly, none of the references provide such information: the first does not work, the second mentions her name only in the title and there is nothing about her in the article, the other two are typical sucking up to the "star" by journalists. "She was spotted at Supermodel International 2012 in Bangkok and that same year she made her Bollywood debut with the lead role in Dreamz." is sourced by IMDb (!) and that information can't be found there (!!). Sławobóg (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion raised at WP:BLPN. Curbon7 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Clearly notable, well-sourced etc. If it turns out that there are issues about truthfulness and other aspects of her career, these can be addressed in the article if properly sourced and would only add to her notability. This is not a hoax. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lard Almighty i just gave 2 examples of falsified references. Sławobóg (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 20 references. They aren't all fake. Just because someone fakes aspects of her life or career history doesn't mean she stops being notable. In fact, as I say, it can make her notable. There is no reason to delete this article. If more information can be reliably sourced it can be added. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need a valid WP:DEL-REASON to delete this article, and that should have been provided in the deletion nomination. Does this article present WP:BLP issues? Is it a WP:BLP1E or WP:1E? Does it fail WP:GNG (perhaps because the sources are unreliable or mentions are trivial)? Or is this a WP:IAR based nomination? If she doesn't actually meet WP:GNG outside of the controversy over the made up career, there may be grounds for deletion under WP:BLP1E and WP:1E Tristario (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lard Almighty, @Curbon7, @Tristario and @Sławobóg I think the main issue is that this person isn't notable enough, and the article is providing misleading informations about her. It claims that she is a film producer, but there is no information on film ever produced. It also claims she is a singer, but she never published any album and from what is known performed only once on the New Year's Eve concert covering Snap! song.
    She is a film actress, that for sure. From what I have been able to ascertain she has acted in three niche films in India: Flame: An Untold Love Story, Dreamz and Chicken Curry Law, none of which seem to me to be notable. She received two niche local awards for these. In Poland, she played a short episode in the film 365 Days. And a brief 5-second no-line role in the American film The Swing of Things.
    She has participated in niche beauty contests, none of which she seems to have won.
    She has declared herself a Bollywood star in Poland, published a book, and has been invited to TV shows for this reason. And she appeared on the cover of the Polish edition of Cosmopolitan. I also managed to confirm that she was actually also on the cover of L'Officiel Arabia in October 2021.
    In my view, these are not achievements that meet notability requirements. Marcelus (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give policy based reasons for the deletion, according to the guidance in the kinds of policies and guidelines I mentioned? We generally determine notability according to whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, not according to our views of the significance of what they've done Tristario (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NBASIC, none of the sources where she is covered are reliable, these are mostly online tabloids, details of her biography are based mostly on her own words.
    WP:ENTERTAINER, her roles in movies or TV productions aren't significant enough (minor movies, with minimal reception).
    WP:NOTADVOCACY, the article is most likely a self-promotion. Marcelus (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thank you. I see she's received quite a bit of coverage in media outlets relation to the controversy over alleged fabrication of career details, and she has received coverage prior to that too. Most of the websites look poor quality though (it's difficult for me to assess since I'm not familiar with polish news outlets), and the controversy may fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:1E.
    I'm probably leaning towards delete since all the coverage prior to the controversy could probably be considered unreliable due to the now widely covered alleged fabrication, and it looks poor quality anyway. Which leaves us with a WP:1E Tristario (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: similar discussion right now on the Polish side] with a similar (lack of) consensus so far but also sharing a lot of the same discussion. From what I can see so far it looks like there may be more lean towards reworking the article and adding discussion about the controversy but it does not appear to be a true Hoax as we'd define it even if potentially there was early in her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLPDELETE - if a BLP of a relatively low-profile individual comes into question, policy says that deletion is a valid option. "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ritchie333. This for me is exactly where the spirit of our BLP policy shines through. This is not a normal set of circumstances and therefore rigidly applying the matrixes we normally would isn't the most effective way of judging this article, and hence I feel the spirit of our BLP policy is the most important guiding factor here. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Characters of Final Fantasy XII#Balthier. The arguments for keep were found to be unpersuasive, but the arguments for deletion didn't quite have the upper hand. A merge seems the most appropriate compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balthier

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

Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soma Cruz, despite being a GA article, the sourcing standards have increased and the article clearly lacking WP:SIGCOV, and it contains mostly about the game itself not the character (at reception section). Again, GA criteria have no bearing on notability. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Characters of Final Fantasy XII#Balthier. There is one Destructoid source that could be called WP:SIGCOV, but the article does not have multiple sources that prove Balthier is standalone notable. Great deal of WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews. I expect Fran to follow shortly, unless someone can track down much better sources for her. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like Fran is fine or just barely notable. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I'll note that RS interviews with an author about a fictional element he or she created may not contribute to notability about the author, but do contribute to notability about the fictional element. GNG is met. Also, deleting or redirecting GA or other reviewed content is inappropriate; do GAR first. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I'm not sure how that could be the case, if it's entirely a Q and A session with a designer answering questions. There is no "secondary" in that source - it makes no sense how it could contribute to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do GAR first" is also not Wikipedia policy. There is nothing about notability in the GA criteria. I'm not asking you to believe me, you are free to read it yourself and confirm that. See also the Meta Knight GAR I tried to do, that was shot down because notability has nothing to do with GA. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPS is the governing policy for authors talking about their creations, as they are experts and independent of the topics. The "secondary" is based on the outlet publishing an interview, assuming it exercises editorial control. As far as "Do GAR first", I did not say it was a policy, I said it was inappropriate. I maintain that Wikipedia should adopt this stance as policy, per WP:CCC, and as a GA reviewer reject the assertion that notability is not part of the GA criteria. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, I would actually like the GA criteria to include that the article must not be of questionable notability. It only makes sense that "one of Wikipedia's best articles" would be backed up by reliable sources. But that doesn't mean it's current policy so I fail to see how it's "inappropriate". If the nominator went to GAR with this article they'd simply be told to do an AfD. You're basically saying "because I want it, I will tell people incorrect rules". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPS says in its first sentence "anyone can self publish a book..." That means authors are not necessarily experts on anything. There's nothing that says an author is a subject matter expert. That seems to have come out of thin air too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't see that an author is an expert in his or her own creations, I'm not sure how to help you understand that. And if you can't parse my is ought statement, again, not sure how to help you. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I feel given a lot of the arguments about standard increasing here are swaying my opinion, but a bigger problem is that most of the reception seems to be talking about him and Fran as a pair, rather than discussing him as a stand alone character. To that end I don't think Merging Fran into him is the answer: she definitely has some reception I recall through the years, especially on the subject of sexualized designs. But him by himself...I feel it needs more to keep it afloat. I'm sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This line of thinking seems to suggest that all characters that are a part of a "duo" must either be merged together or else will fail because sources talk about them as a pair. I don't think that's the correct position to take. Character relationships and dynamics are an important aspect of a character and I think demanding that valid reception be solely restricted to when a character is discussed as an isolated entity is not the right move. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting up characters who are normally seen as part of a group falls under WP:OVERLAP. If it would create a large amount of redundant text to discuss them apart rather than together, they should be combined. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Characters of Final Fantasy XII#Balthier - Agreed with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ that the reference section is largely being WP:REFBOMBed with cherry picked quotes to give an illusion of greater coverage than what is actually there. The references that are not just quotes from the games themselves or obvious churnalism (i.e. the "Top X Character" type sources) are general reviews or coverage on the games, with nothing but brief mentions of Balthier as part of that general coverage. The amount of significant coverage on Balthier specifically that would justify a separate article from the main character list just isn't there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it has the same problem with the article Vaan (Final Fantasy), nominated it also for afd. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 02:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reception is not the only possible source of SIGCOV. Outlets reporting on development info is an indication that the outlet considers that information noteworthy. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between primary sources (interviews) and secondary sources (reception). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but what sources are you actually referring to that contain development info that actually has any significant coverage on Balthier? Because its certainly none of the sources that are currently cited in the article. The interviews from IGN and Siliconera barely mention him, with the latter being especially egregious if you look at the actual context in which his name is mentioned in it. Even the one interview with the English VA for the character is almost entirely on the career of that actor, and has very little about the character or "development" of Balthier. If you are going to argue that there is significant coverage on Balthier in this regards, you are going to need to actually provide some examples, because the current sources are, as I mentioned above, just a mess of WP:REFBOMBing of a whole bunch of extremely trivial mentions of the character. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationales provided by Axem Titanium and Jclemens. The OP's argument to support the deletion rationale presented here is unconvincing, and I must say, seems to reflect their personal opinion on what should be notable or otherwise. There is a vague allusion to a lack of significant coverage, but no proper analysis on how the third party sources cited in an otherwise rated GA article does not provide substantial content. Haleth (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jclemens and Axem Titanium's rationales are both based entirely on the argument that the interviews cited in the article count as significant coverage of the "development" of the character, and I already typed out a rather lengthy comment as to why those have no significant coverage of the character. But if you want more analysis, then sure. This interview contains precisely one mention of the character, as the response of one of the devs being asked who his favorite character in the game is. Its less than a paragraph of "information" and not significant coverage. This interview is especially bad - aside from one random sentence mentioning Balthier's name in a sentence otherwise about Vaan, the only other mention of Balthier is the devs recounting a story about an amusing glitch that happened during development in which Balthier just happened to be in the party for. That has absolutely nothing to do with the character, and I think it goes without saying that two sentences is not significant coverage. Finally, this interview, with the English VA for the character, is almost entirely about the actor, not the character. Only a couple of the questions actually directly relate to the character - in fact the only one in which he actually discusses the character in any kind of detail is for the single question of asking how he feels that he is similar to the character he portrayed. Again, not remotely significant coverage. And of course, the nom, myself and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ all already pointed out that nearly all of the actual reliable sources being used in the Reception section are general reviews of the game that are having the one-to-two sentences that mention Balthier cherry picked out to give the illusion of greater coverage than there actually is - actually looking at these reviews shows that none of them contain actual significant coverage of Balthier specifically. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Just oodles of the most trivial mentions possible, masquerading as massive amounts of sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lets try and find consensus between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:13, 8 June 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! 07:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharada English High School

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

Since the last AfD we are now a lot more stricter on schools notability with no inherent notability. This one fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let’s try to get a few more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:11, 8 June 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. The arguments both to keep and delete were sub-optimal cf. "Meets GNG" / "Doesn't meet GNG"; a more substantial discussion occurred after the first relist, but I don't see any agreement what to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Namariau

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV Alvaldi (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG. Searching Proquest and Wikipedia Library, this could be ref bombed with a couple of dozen Fiji Times articles - the three already in the article are more than enough to count for one GNG source. The article from the Vanuatu Daily Post is very good in itself, for a second GNG source - this is neither a passing mention nor a routine transactional report. He also played in a third country, the Solomon Islands - but there's only trivial coverage from 2014 in the Solomon Star. Can you review the sources again, User:GiantSnowman. Nfitz (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the Daily Post article about a uniform being handed over is not significant - which of the other sources do you believe are significant? GiantSnowman 16:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree and believe that the Daily Post article is significant, as it not only talks about the uniforms, but then segues into a discussion about Namariau himself, including that "Joseph Namaraiu is a well-known former Tafea football club striker and represented the National team and Fiji football teams in various regional tournaments during his time in footballing days, until he retired in 2014". Nfitz (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not "add up" to GNG, that's not how GNG has worked in any of these AfDs and you know it. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate the the failure to assume good faith, User:JoelleJay. In the notability guideline WP:NBASIC, it says that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. You can't just selectively cherry-pick the notability guidelines that don't support the case for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not citing NBASIC, you were citing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a legal forum, I paraphrased NBASIC - which obviously wasn't going to fully cut it given it was all from the same publication. Do we now discount any KEEP that says an article is notable given the significant references, because it doesn't reference GNG? Anyhow, I'm glad you are now satisfied with my keep - even if you don't agree with it. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Gyaneshwari Secondary School

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

Fails Wp:Nschool, fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith St. George (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. I found indepth coverage for this author [28] but I think it's a different person. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 8 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_8&oldid=1161516574"