Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 29	January 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio La Salle La Colina

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

From what I can tell this article has been un-referenced since it's creation and 2007 and has had a More Citations Needed banner since 2014. Both of which is more then enough time for someone to have added references to this if there were any. Personally, I couldn't find any when I looked. Especially not anything that would pass WP:NORG. Which I think this has to pass since the article says students pay an attendance fee and it's ran like a business. Adamant1 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SCH, all of the news articles about the school only mention it in passing. Wgullyn (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school gets mentioned as the alma mater of folks in the news articles that I reviewed, but I don't see anything specific about the school. I suspect that it is well-regarded, but unless someone can find sources about the school itself it doesn't make sense to keep it. Someone with access to and knowledge of Venezuelan sources might be able to help here, but as Nom says, the article has been in this state for a very long time without getting suitable references. Lamona (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Lal Tabdar

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find any coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Diplomats are not deemed "inherently" notable just because it's possible to offer technical verification that they exist: the notability bar for a diplomat requires a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about the diplomat's work in media, but that's not what's here. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As best as I could determine, the only published coverage he has received is in Wikipedia and wiki mirrors. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 12:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISG Luxury Management

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

Does not seem suitably notable for a standalone article. This could be a section under ISG Business School, with this being a redirect, if looking for a halfway measure. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ISG Business School as WP:ATD. No evidence of notability separate form the parent organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of multiple, reliable, in-depth, secondary references and WP:PROMO. As to the suggestion of merging, IMO that is only a good option when there is adequately referenced content to merge and it will improve the target article. Neither is the case here though. So I don't think it's worth merging. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rusly Almaliky

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

An unknown person in his country, and the article was deleted in the Arabic wikipedia version through the deletion discussion.(Please see here)، Fareeq Almayoofee (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources in the article or in searches. The extraordinarily large unsourced passages by a new SPA suggest either WP:COPYVIO or WP:UPE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no WP:SIGCOV at all, under the spelling of his name in the article or under "Rusli al-Maliki," an alternate transliteration into English. I would just caution that the Arabic AFD approach is very different from enwiki, and notability for authors there requires five books published by "well-known and registered publishing houses". In general, I would hesitate to advance another wikipedia's AFD outcome as evidence for enwiki AFD. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed to find any meaningful coverage. Fails WP:GNG. 67.168.136.107 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. appears GNG is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ümit Uygunsözlü

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google search turns up some coverage (e.g., here, here, here, here, and here), but the language barrier and lack of familiarity with Turkish media prevents me from evaluating properly. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 The TRT Haber is a reliable source, but it's in Spanish (don't ask me why). From the above sources, I'd say that the Habertürk and Anadolu Agency sources (the final two) are also reliable. However the content of these three sources is the same, the Habertürk one literally starts with "ANKARA (AA) -", with AA being the initials of Anadolu Ajansı. My own search however does result in some other sources:

Milli dartçı Ümit Uygunsözlü bir ilke imza attı, TRT Haber, 18 April 2017
Dartta büyük başarı, CNN Türk, 30 April 2017
'Kızgın Türk' Ümit, oklarını Londra'ya çevirdi, Anadolu Agency, 30 October 2017

The CNN source is a bit too short for my liking to be considered "substantial", but together with the AA source above it totals up to three reliable and significant sources with one not-so-significant but reliable source. I am not quite familiar with darting, so if a SNG exists I won't be bothered to look at it, though I think this meets the general guideline, thus making SNGs irrelevant and being enough to keep this. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I feel that this article deserves a look from someone with some Turkish language expertise. References have been found, more may be out there, I feel like this is one of those articles that could meet guidelines with some work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CNN Türk source looks a bit flimsy but there is also this article published in Milliyet. These combined mean that there is enough coverage in independent sources for this individual to pass GNG. --GGT (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 06:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lima: Breaking the Silence

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing during a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some significant sources are provided in previous AFD. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources reviews found in the first AFD as shown in this comment from the AfD: "There are a couple reviews in the Spanish article that seem noteworthy: the El Comercio (Peru) review and the rayray.utero.pe review. The book source has a couple paragraphs about the film. cinencuentro.com looks like it could be reliable though it seems to be a niche website. The German article has this Film Dienst source with a "long review" hidden behind a paywall. Other than that, the New Video source looks like minor/routine coverage. Overall, the amount of coverage is somewhat underwhelming for an American film released in 1999, but I think it might be just enough to meet WP:NFILM guidelines. I think I would support either keeping the article or merging some of it to the director's article, Menahem Golan. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC) , imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to sources pointed by Mz7 from previous AfD, including reviews in Spanish.Fulmard (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 22:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deco Rides

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

The company appears to have made a few hundred cars. The sourcing in the article is trivial and I could find nothing meaningful to add in Google News or Newspapers.com. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. Non-notable. References are junk. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see where it meets either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't find enough sources to say it can meet notability. 2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 22:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Humphrys

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

Fails WP:BIO. 3 non indepth gnews hits. Article relies on primary sources to confirm he held positions. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not see how the subject passes WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gusfriend (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough news coverage. Caphadouk (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find anything to support notability. I was going to suggest a redirect to Commission of Inquiry into the 2010–2011 Queensland floods, given the "critical" claim in the article, but the subject seems to not even get a passing mention in the 650 page report on the matter, so that is potentially dubious. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm Partners

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:NCORP due to inadequate depth of secondary coverage. Articles reads heavily like a WP:RESUME Headphase (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure advertising. Also, out of date - the company changed its name to HIREtech in 2014 or so. Twitter has not been updated since 2018. Nwhyte (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a cut-n-paste from a promo piece from the company. Mostly work histories of some of the managers? W Nowicki (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The present article has for a long time been setting out the company's then-business proposition, key personnel biographies, etc. The transition to HIREtech and then acquisition by Equifax in 2021 (PR) is not covered, but would not in itself confer notability. The 3 individuals whose biographies are detailed in the present text received a local award in September 2021 "HIREtech's Brian Cameron, Saqib Dhanani, and Zee Makhani announced as EY Entrepreneurs Of The Year® 2021 Gulf Coast Area Award Winners" (PR Newswire) but again that is insufficient, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing evidence of notability either as Paradigm Partners or HIREtech. A redirect to Equifax might be a bit of a stretch as the acquisition is not mentioned in that article. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE brochure article. No redeeming feature. scope_creep^Talk 11:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant PR fluff, borderline spam. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing 18:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Good arguments have been made on both sides, and neither side's arguments clearly outweigh the other on quality or quantity. Nothing in this closure prevents normal editorial actions such as merging from being taken. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Male expendability

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

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

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

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

Seriously WP:PROFRINGE, full of synthesis ("oh, look, Hitler killed gay men, that means he thought men were dispensable") and possibly a WP:POVFORK for Male privilege to justify the snowflake sensitivity of self-styled "masculists". Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. (because this relates to gender studies) --Xurizuri (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this page could certainly do with some improvements, I do not agree that it should be deleted. Alssa1 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This topic does not appear to be notable. Apart from the atrocious state of the present article, independent coverage in reliable sources appears to be next to nil. The only legitimately scholarly consideration I could find was this paper from 2019 which frames "male expendability" as an original hypothesis of the authors themselves (and thus WP:PRIMARY): [1]. The only other hit on Google Scholar is from 1979, and is completely speculative: [2]. I see nothing like the kind of WP:SECONDARY coverage that would support an article on the topic. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Generalrelative I can only find a single RIS discussing this concept. The discussion on the talk page makes it crystal clear that this is SYNTH, with a loosely related collection of ideas assembled under this title of convenience by a Wikipedia editor. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic as a standalone does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Potentially merge the limited reliable content into a broader article like Men's studies#Violence, particularly as the topic (where it's even recognized as a topic) appears to be one of active dispute among scholars. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of the few articles on wikipedia that talk about genuine male issues from a male point of view. Citations can easily be added. There are numerous discussions about this, and there is a study on the page related to this. The deletion request seems to be WP:SOAPBOX, and the page clearly isn't about that. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that presenting topics from a male point of view is contrary to core policies like WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the sense that feminist theory & articles on the site are from the female point of view. However, I retract that part of my statement. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic is as described in the article's title then the matter is hardly contentious in many species, see, for example, Ong, Walter J. (1981). Fighting for life : contest, sexuality, and consciousness. Ithaca : Cornell University Press. pp. 52–56. ISBN 978-0-8014-1342-1. But if, as in this article, we restrict our view to the human species (is this allowed under WP:NPOV?) then the concept is unlikely to be acceptable to Wikipedia editors given their demography. Thincat (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the citation, it seems useful to the article and I have no issues expanding this to other species. Preying Mantis are a well known example. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It describes an observed phenomena throughout the animal kingdom, including in humans. Removing reference to it is tantamount science-denial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.58.56 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)— 82.47.58.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's potentially interesting, but the article doesn't discuss the animal kingdom at all. It's exclusively about human society. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an important article and needs more addition. there's very few men's issue pages left, do not allow deletion based on political bias. Most jobs where people are very likely to die and people usually don't care are jobs with mostly men, Police and military deaths. Darren Dark— Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenDark (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) — DarrenDark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: There aren't many Wikipedia articles that go into this topic. Furthermore, this isn't soapboxing. Sure, it could be improved and more sources could be added, but that doesn't warrant deletion. User:Yithar (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)— Yithar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: It’s not a new obscure theory (at least to the extend that I have heard about it at university a few years ago when discussing reasons for emergence of matriarchal cultures in regions with harsh climate) and to be fair it feels as if Orange Mike nominated it for deletion just for ideological reasons (either misogyny or misandry, depending on the intent), not legitimate problems with the subject. Of course this theory has variants that could be seen as fringe. For instance, at least from the 70s there were feminists abusing this observation for formulating theories like need of reduction of male population (and corresponding criticism from the MRA side). However current version of the article does not contain such tropes, and thus needs at most rewriting in a better style or adding other perspectives, not deletion. JaBoJa (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)— JaBoJa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: The article definitely needs expanding but not deletion, it's very useful when researching sex related issues, the content of the article hasn't been disproved or debunked and it has academic backing. I fail to see reasons for its exclusion. Kindness Seeker Mau (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Kindness Seeker Mau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as synthesis. A cobbled-together selection of ill-informed non-sequiturs that does a desperately poor job of pushing the fringe perspective it attempts to. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication of sophomoric essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with much of what was said above RichmanHopson (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the number of low-edit-count WP:SPAs here, including a number of first-time editors, it sure looks like this AfD has been targeted by WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hope I'm formatting ok here. I think this school of thought (male disposability) is deserving enough of a page. It's discussed and cited frequently enough to be considered a mainstream debate. An article on a theory or concept doesn't have to be endorsing that theory, just explaining what the theory is. I think the page is sourced well enough to have a valid case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueorange22 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)— Blueorange22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. This article is just an excuse to push a fringe male-grievance POV. NightHeron (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike theories about men being privileged that totally ignore how men might be disadvantaged and how women might be privileged. Eh? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I concur with those that voted to keep the article on Male Expendability. Men's issues such as this are important to note, and the concept has been discussed by authors such as Warren Farrell.Leavit2stever (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article speaks the truth of matters which are being intentionally suppressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodOfAllCreation (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — GodOfAllCreation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I'm not sure why a few other editors have mentioned having difficulty finding RS on the topic, as I have in a short time found a number of them:

Mangan, J.A.; Komagome, Takeshi (1999-12-01). "Militarism, sacrifice and emperor worship: the expendable male body in fascist Japanese martial culture". The International Journal of the History of Sport. 16 (4): 181–204. doi:10.1080/09523369908714105. ISSN 0952-3367. PMID 21834217.
Gouws, Dennis S. (2018-06-11). "Not So Romantic for Men: Using Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe to Explore Evolving Notions of Chivalry and Their Impact on Twenty-First-Century Manhood". Voicing the Silences of Social and Cognitive Justice. On (De)Coloniality: Curriculum Within and Beyond the West. Brill. doi:10.1163/9789463511018_007. ISBN 978-94-6351-101-8.
Dennen, J. V. D. (2005). "Why is the Human Primitive Warrior Virtually Always the Male of the Species". S2CID 145036510. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Schaik, C. P. Van; Hooff, J. a. R. a. M. Van (1983-01-01). "On the Ultimate Causes of Primate Social Systems". Behaviour. 85 (1–2): 91–117. doi:10.1163/156853983X00057. ISSN 0005-7959.
"Why the Creation of a Better World is Premised on Achieving Gender Equity and on Celebrating Multiple Gender Diversities". Journal of Futures Studies. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
Barry, Kathleen (2010). Unmaking War, Remaking Men: How Empathy Can Reshape Our Politics, Our Soldiers and Ourselves. Spinifex Press. ISBN 978-1-876756-86-4.
Mukhopadhyay, C C; Higgins, P J (1988-10-01). "Anthropological Studies of Women's Status Revisited: 1977-1987". Annual Review of Anthropology. 17 (1): 461–495. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.17.100188.002333. ISSN 0084-6570. PMID 12319976.
Ong, Walter J. (1989). "The Expendable Sex". Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness (1st ed.). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-87023-679-2. OCLC 19323706.
KAUFMANN, JOHN H. (1974-02-01). "The Ecology and Evolution of Social Organization in the Kangaroo Family (Macropodidae)". American Zoologist. 14 (1): 51–62. doi:10.1093/icb/14.1.51. ISSN 0003-1569.
Wayne, Valerie; Moore, Cornelia Niekus (1993-01-01). "Negotiating Masculinity: Gendering Within Sex". Translations/Transformations: Gender and Culture in Film and Literature, East and West : Selected Conference Papers. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-1565-3.
Collins, William (2021). The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect. eBookIt.com. ISBN 978-0-9571688-9-3.
Curry, Tommy J. (2018). "Killing Boogeymen: Phallicism and the Misandric Mischaracterizations of Black Males in Theory". Res Philosophica. 95 (2): 235–272. doi:10.11612/resphil.1612. ISSN 2168-9105.
Jollymore, Annie D. (2016). "Make Us Whole!: Deconstructing Gender Narratives to Build Solidarity". In Haltinner, Kristin; Pilgeram, Ryanne (eds.). Teaching Gender and Sex in Contemporary America. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30364-2. ISBN 978-3-319-30362-8.

Again, I'm not sure why some editors are claiming to be able to find so few - most of these are pulled from the first few pages of a Google Scholar search. Maybe their search wasn't optimized? Anyway, there are more, but I feel like this is enough to establish that there is enough coverage on this topic. These aren't SYNTH-y uses of the sources, they aren't just passing mentions. The article as it stands now needs work, but that's a terrible reason to delete it. --Equivamp - talk 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Equivamp: Thanks for listing these. I did see several of them in my search but not all. Note that many have serious problems as sources, e.g. #2 appears to be self-published, and #3 only briefly considers "male expendability" before rejecting it. #1 reads like a blog post by a very emotionally immature person (and unpleasant colleague!) rather than any kind of scholarly product. #4 and #5 look like decent sources however, and if the article does survive this AfD I hope we can center it around sources of that quality. #7 which was suggested above as well is by the Jesuit priest and English lit professor Walter J. Ong, not exactly the type of expert source we look to for comment on evolutionary biology. I won't go on down the list but my view is that the sources you've provided are hit-and-miss in approximately that proportion. The question then becomes: is it best to build on what exists in the article and attempt to cobble together something notable or WP:TNT and reassess whether an article can legitimately be built out of reliable secondary sources on the topic? I lean toward the latter since I don't see anything of encyclopedic value in the article as written, and I'm still not convinced that the concept meets WP:GNG. Generalrelative (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article isn't exclusively "evolutionary biology", so your attempt to restrict reliable sources to such is wrong. The article is primarily about an idea, which is quite widespread in the culture and which has attracted different kinds of analysis. Perhaps it is a bad or unfounded idea, in which case this should be made clear in the article. Ficaia (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) The Dennen source is by UG senior researcher Johan van der Dennen, whose work on the subjects of human conflict, human ethology, and evolutionary ecology has been repeatedly published. He is very much the subject-matter expert to which WP:SPS refers, and it's likely his other published work (to which the source I linked refers readers for extended discussion) is also useful to the article. That source in particular has been cited in such high-quality sources as The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict.

Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT response to the Gouws source is noted, but it doesn't sound like a helpful, policy-based justification.

Ong was a psychologist whose specialty was the evolution of language. Fighting for Life is the published version of his Messenger Lectures, the "highest recognition of scholarship" by Cornell U.

The question is not about whether the article can be "made notable", as that is not what Wikipedia editors are in the business of doing. The subject (male expendability) is, as established, already notable (regardless of whether there's a consensus on it as a concept). --Equivamp - talk 07:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equivamp, I'm not going to descend into a personalized debate with you, but I will make clear (because I see that my previous comment left out this obvious fact): If you read the Gouws source (#1) you will see that it is quite clearly PROFRINGE. He is completely transparent about the fact that he is advancing an alternative theoretical formulation which contrasts markedly with mainstream scholarship. And no, the notability of the subject is not already established. That's why we are having a good faith discussion about it. Using the Gouws source in particular in a way that violated WP:FRIND would be against policy. Generalrelative (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So, for whomever comes along to weigh the value of the arguments presented here, a summary of the arguments for why the plethora of sources on this topic do not constitute GNG:

Some editors stated they could not find any.
One source by a subject-matter expert might be self-published.
One article published in a high-quality source by a scholar of great esteem and which is cited in other high-quality sources in the topic area might not be reliable, because the author also happens to be a priest.
One of the sources might not be reliable because the author ~~would not make a good colleague~~ states that the idea is not the subject of mainstream consensus.

Do I have this about right? --Equivamp - talk 16:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly do not. This is clearly a tendentious representation and I trust that will be obvious to any uninvolved observer. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: would you be able to explain your position in a bit more depth then? Your earlier reason(s) for deletion doesn't seem to be accurate from what I've seen/read. Alssa1 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The key question posed by WP:GNG is whether a topic has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The burden to WP:PROVEIT is on those seeking to include, and in the case of a clearly notable topic this should be easy to do. All I see here is a bunch of spaghetti being thrown at the wall. Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already robustly refuted most of the the few arguments you've offered against the selection of sources presented. That you chose not to engage or rebut is your choice, but the discussion did in fact happen. The sourcing is more rigorous than you're trying to portray. --Equivamp - talk 20:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I happen to find myself in agreement with Equivamp. The sources are there, and I don't think your attempt at a rebuttal provides an effective response. Alssa1 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic of this article has been discussed in academic literature, such as Expendable and Disposable? Discussing Cultural Exploitation of Men (Weiss 2012) and Sex Differences: Developmental and Evolutionary Strategies (Mealey 2000) Jaqoc (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems to be a case of WP:OBSCURE. Jaqoc (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is on TV Tropes, so I'm not sure it's that obscure. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-documented phenomenon. Feminists trying to remove it is their equivalent of book-burning. Science denial, pure and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.230.139 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — 83.245.230.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I don't think you quite know what science is. You also don't know the political views of others in this conversation. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the more angry delete requests are from people who are well known feminist supporters, including OP - who makes direct reference to feminist theory. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As part of an intention to work on this article if it survives this AFD process, I've spent a bit of time collecting further RS on this topic likely to help:

Baumeister, Roy F. (2010-08-12). Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-975255-3.
Drummond, Murray (2021-10-19). "Expendable young males". Sport, Education and Society. 28: 17–29. doi:10.1080/13573322.2021.1992610. ISSN 1357-3322. S2CID 239563238.
FeldmanHall, Oriel; Dalgleish, Tim; Evans, Davy; Navrady, Lauren; Tedeschi, Ellen; Mobbs, Dean (2016-07-08). "Moral Chivalry". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 7 (6): 542–551. doi:10.1177/1948550616647448. ISSN 1948-5506. PMC 4952565. PMID 27478541. Social norms regarding pain tolerance and the notion that women should be protected from harm further confirmed that there is a societal belief that it is more morally unacceptable to harm a female than a male.
Mangan, J. A. (2013-09-30). Making European Masculinities: Sport, Europe, Gender. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315038520. ISBN 978-1-315-03852-0.
Aanen, Duur K. (2018-09-25). "The disposable male— the ultimate emancipation of females?". BMC Biology. 16 (1): 106. doi:10.1186/s12915-018-0574-8. ISSN 1741-7007. PMC 6154933. PMID 30249271. (This source concerns insects.)
Armstrong, Joe. "Treating men as "a disposable commodity"". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
Benatar, David (2003). "The Second Sexism". Social Theory and Practice. 29 (2): 177–210. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200329213. ISSN 0037-802X. JSTOR 23559072.
- Clatterbaugh, Kenneth (2003). "Benatar's Alleged Second Sexism". Social Theory and Practice. 29 (2): 211–218. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract20032929. ISSN 0037-802X. JSTOR 23559073.
"High Court Rejects San Diego Men's Rights Group's Challenge to All-Male Draft". Times of San Diego. 2021-06-08. Retrieved 2022-01-20. (Several sources on this topic; see National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System)

--Equivamp - talk 00:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help more, here's a couple of critiques of the book. [3] [4] And I'll also note that anything by Benatar himself is not independent and needs to be used with extreme caution (WP:RSPRIMARY). --Xurizuri (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look through those sources, and I have some comments. The first, "Is there anything good about men?" is more accurately a broad discussion of masculism/critique of feminism, which happens to discuss the same evidence as Benatar. The second, "Expendable young males" is a research article (see WP:RSPRIMARY again), and while I can't access the full text, the abstract certainly makes no mention of male expendability (as described in the WP article). The third is a research study (aka primary), and it's only related in that it describes a similar type of evidence. I have no idea how the fourth is related, although I don't have access to it so I could be wrong. As you have noted, the fifth is literally about insects. It doesn't discuss humans. The sixth seems actually related, it doesn't use the exact same term but its the same concept. Obviously, the seventh one by Benatar falls into that same WP:RSPRIMARY category. The eighth one has no issue, it's discussing his book so it's a clear secondary source. The ninth also mentions the same concept. It doesn't discuss it but it's mentioned. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can respond in full to your comments later, but I believe you are quite mistaken about Benatar's book. It is not, as you have stated twice now, a WP:PRIMARY source. It is a secondary source analyzing many primary sources. --Equivamp - talk 18:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm not really seeing any justification for exclusion of a source because it is about nonhuman animals. --Equivamp - talk 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:PRIMARY makes clear, what makes a source primary or secondary is contextual. In this case, Benatar's book is evidently a primary source for the concept of male disposability; it could be a secondary source if it were synthesizing primary sources discussing the concept. In particular, let's look at how male disposability/expendability is discussed in the book. (I'm using the 2012 release of Second Sexism (John Wiley & Sons).) The word "disposability" or variants (e.g. "disposable") do not appear in the book. "Expendability" is not explicitly discussed in the book, although the concept could be said to appear twice (two places where "expendable" occurs). First, while arguing that male life is valued less:

It has been suggested that the reason why men and not women are sent to war is not that male lives are valued less but rather that too many fatalities of women of reproductive years would inhibit a society’s ability to produce a new generation .... The problem with this suggestion is that instead of showing that male life is not valued less than female life, it (at least partially) explains why male life is less valued. In other words, there is a good evolutionary explanation why male lives are regarded as more expendable.

Second, it is obliquely referenced while critiquing Tom Digby:

[A discriminatory policy] recognizes that men are reproductively more expendable. Given::::::Not only does the book not discuss the concept explicitly, it doesn't reference it as a concept at all. The claim that Benatar is discussing the concept of male expendability in this book would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. (I wrote above that the concept "could be said to appear twice": this is my original analysis of the source, and including this analysis in the article would violate WP:OR.) In particular, we would need a secondary source claiming that Benatar introduced or discussed the concept of male disposability. Suriname0 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

this, why would Professor Digby not also judge ways in which women were discriminated against to be merely cognitive discrimination, if these ways of discriminating were rooted in a recognition that women are reproductively less expendable?

We would definitely need secondary sourcing to claim that Benatar introduced the concept, but why would we do that when other publications such as Fighting for Life and The Myth of Male Power predate the first Second Sexism by 10 years, which itself well predates the book you're quoting? As for sourcing the claim that he discussed it, that is the point of the critique of the article (not the book) that I linked, which compares it with Farrell's book and goes as far as to say they spring from the same basis. --Equivamp - talk 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it sounds like I was confused and that we agree that the Benatar book is not relevant to the article, and that including the full section of description and criticism would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. I removed the section about Benatar from the article, although as you say the critique may warrant a passing mention. Suriname0 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and cut down. Ideally to reverse sexism, but violence against men also suits the topic. Alternatively, it could be converted to an article about Benatar's first book. There are enough RS to establish some form of notability, but per WP:MERGEREASON, it's often beneficial to discuss topics in the context of each other. And the RSs rarely discuss the theory outside of the context of Benatar's writings. Just because one person keeps describing a theory, and other people discuss the primary sources each time it's described, doesn't mean it's then a topic separate to that person's writings. It's appropriate for either a book article or for a very brief overview in a broader article. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'reverse sexism' and not just sexism? Reverse sexism is just sexism, but with air quotes. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wouldn't be appropriate for the sexism article. As acknowledged in the male expendability article itself, women are affected a lot more, and as such the sexism article is mostly about sexism that women experience. It wouldn't be due to discuss male expendability there, because that article should focus almost entirely on women, in proportion to the focus given in academic sources. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xurizuri: To be honest, I'm not sure what could be a bigger issue than being literally considered expendable, less valuable, and less worthy of life. It feels a lot like male expendability is playing into that decision there. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "due". Due weight has a specific meaning on wikipedia. It refers to how much something is discussed in reliable sources that are directly addressing the topic. There are a handful of sources discussing male expendability - enough to establish some notability, but not enough to dislodge anything that's on the sexism page, all of which has hundreds of sources discussing it (10 < 200). I will also note, and this may allay some of your concerns, that second sexism is actually already briefly touched on in the sexism article - within the scope of conscription, which again, has far more sources about it than specifically male expendability does. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: because this has become about whether its due to include this in the sexism article, I've notified that talk page of this discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I commented above). I'm clear the broad topic is notable and a suitable article could be written. Even if the topic is restricted to human beings (as the content has become again after some recent bold edits and reversions) the references given above have now persuaded me that the limited topic is also separately notable. There are some very satisfactory references but the article requires thoughtful editing under calm circumstances and so is not possible at present, unfortunately. I favour the article being extended to the broader topic with human males treated as a particular aspect but that is a matter for the talk page, not AFD. At present the article is in a rather sorry state but the solution should be to improve it. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Equivamp above has provided enough sources to show that this issue can be covered clearly with reliable sources. Clearly there are reliable sources on this subject, so we can create an article. Whether the current article is any good is a seperate discussion, and it may well need major improvements. However clearly there are reliable sources that cover this topic, especially in the context of military action and agression. There are reliable sources, so we can have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that some people take a far to presentist view of the issues at play here. Also possible a far too culturally narrow view of the issues. The broad expanse of human societies over the millenia we have records for offer many examples of the levels to which males have suffered high rates of death. At times this has happened because the ruling male elite finds it more to their liking to have a disproportionately large number of females in the population. Living in Detroit, Michigan I do live in a place in the US which may well have one of the most disproportionately lowest male life expenctancies to female life expectancies, in part caused by males much more often being killed in violence than females, the reasons this is so are complex. However I have a broad enough world-wide and historical view to know there are lots of issues at play. I know there is a whole body of literature built around the fear that Asia is on the bring of war because China and India have in place social realities and governmental policies that create a reality where there is a huge over abundance of males in the population, policies at heart driven by familial valuing of males over females, but this situation leads to the government themselves seeing some of their male lives as expendable, and thus a different calculus about war. In the case of China the over abundance of males has only been made worse by late 20th-century government policies, it is a very long standing issue in Chinese society, and the related issue of males not being able to form families and thus these unattached males being seen by various elites as an expendable portion of the society is a long standing phenomenon, and we can find lots of literature discussing this issue. This article needs to be a broad article, both by time covered and by cultural regions covered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to try and formulate that into a section of the page on world events, that might be quite a good addition. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree, that would be very useful. However, please keep in mind the policy on original research - while the connection may seem self-evident to yourself, anything included in the article needs to have a reliable source which directly connects the historical or global statistics and events to male expendability (or a related name, such as second sexism or male disposability). Please also note, that per the policy on primary sources, anything written by Benatar needs to mention it, along the lines of "According to Benetar, ..." or "In his book, Benetar says ..." (while Benetar's book is a secondary analysis of data, it is a primary source about male expendability; see above discussion). --Xurizuri (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this discussion is increasingly getting out of hand. Can we finalise whether we're going to keep the article or delete it? If we choose to keep the article we can then decide how to improve it/whether or not we merge it with another article. Alssa1 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think this is too big and to important a topic to not have a page on it. Especially when we have so many good sources, including statistical evidence that males are the majority targets of genocides. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honestly? This sounds a lot like someone doesn't like an idea and therefore thinks there should be no article about it. Doesn't look WP:PROFRINGE, firstly because I have no reason to think the notion is Fringe. Also it seems to describe the notion in a neutral tone and has a bunch of criticism. I've never read anything on men's studies and had never heard of masculism before, but the idea of male expendability (not necessarily in those words) in human societies has always been pretty much blue sky territory and is talked about a lot. Sufficient sources have already been provided, so I'm not looking up for more. Even if there are not a lot of scholarly sources, not everything needs to. The page surely could be improved, and if there are good sources of criticism that show that this is indeed FRINGE... Well, I'd be surprised. But the PROFRINGE problem could easily be fixed by removing any undue weight to proponents and adding more criticism to the lead. VdSV9•♫ 20:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has plenty of sources and I'm sure many more could be added. There's a mix of scholarly (1) and journalistic (2) commentary. As others have said, we're not endorsing the term/theory by having an article about it. Also, the term itself is in widespread use. Ficaia (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources in the article itself, let alone those you can find with even a cursory web search. Multiple editors have already pointed this out. While I would not call the article particularly well written, the topic itself is very notable. Calling it PROFRINGE is more a reflection of the nom's politics. Ciridae (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious concept for discussion in the field, and seems like the RS in the article subtantiates it. Also, profringe is unfortunately too often used by editors to discredit things they don't agree with. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. A dreadful mess of a page that would have to be rewritten from scratch if the topic were proven notable and best covered by a stand-alone article (the air of dubiousness about the sources, analyzed above, makes that hard to establish). XOR'easter (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I don't think that the page being a mess is any reason. I have been steadily rewriting it for a few days and it seems much improved. In terms of notability, the page mentions a fair amount of research demonstrating this in both humans and animals. More can be added, I agree. But since there is a tvtropes page on this - I feel it has to be notable. I think only one person was against the sources. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs a lot of work, but it's not a WP:TNT case and the topic is notable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the consensus is "It needs a bit of work, but we should keep it." Since this is tailing off, does everyone agree we should close this? If so, what's the process for ending it? Do we just remove the deletion notice? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not. This must wait for the seven days and then someone uninvolved can close it. See WP:Deletion process. Thincat (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I couldn't find anything about an end date on that page, so I thought I'd ask. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TiggyTheTerrible: It'll be up to the closer, but be careful taking a broad count of 'votes' (especially if a significant number appear to be WP:SPA) in presuming consensus. But, as we both participated in the discussion, it's not up to us when (and how) the discussion closes. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have said better than I could, this has alot of relevance so while it should be improved, I think it's too hasty to delete it. Also, perhaps more can be integrated from other articles about the relevant reproductive behaviors of non-human animals (like this). And also in certain human societies like the FLDS expelling young men to make polygyny less competitive. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is why Wikipedia contributors leave. Reliable sources become reliable only if they confirm the editor’s viewpoint is too often the reason why they get into an article text. Plug in a stack of 25 reliable citations in you wikipedia article and an editor can claim fringe, unreliable, npov violation or plain not with the already cited consensus to veto inclusion of the new citation and any article changes due to the new citation. Many wikipedia articles have primary sources from the social sciences twenty years old and editors ignore reliable academic sources from the last two years contradicting the old source’s conclusions. The primary source and the article remain in favor of the twenty year old conclusions thus excluding any modern academic sources. Article sitting and its ill effect should be curtailed. Poison pill article first paragraphs diminish Wikipedia that they only contain reliable source citations from sources which condemn, refute and disagree withe the article subject. An article, hypothetically, on religion T practiced by hundreds of millions should have first paragraph with content from proponents of and academic commentary with criticisms on it. Is should not have articles with only negative and opposing academic views in it. These are the most egregious types of inability to have a real discussion of what is in Wikipedia articles. Does anyone high up in the Wikipedia organization even try quality control tests of creating a new Wikipedia account, pushing for a tiny change anti the narrative in a more active article by requesting the change on a talk page with multiple reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5494:2B01:DD85:7C3B (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing a lot of votes by IP addresses and new editors who say it should be included because it's an "important perspective". AfD can't determine what perspectives are important or not. If the phenomenon is not adequately documented in reliable, independent sources, then deletion is the right answer. I'm no scientist, but I recommend using the following criteria for determining the outcome.

Arguments I keep seeing, and their rebuttals
There are lots of sources	Delete votes are biased or censorship	This article is necessary	Deleting will make Wikipedia unbalanced
Are the sources explicitly about male expendability as a phenomenon, or do they just deal with related issues? (This includes "oblique references")	Is your vote based on the idea that deletion is tantamount to persecution or book burning?	Is your vote based on raising awareness of social issues as a criteria for inclusion?	Is your vote based on the existence of other gender-related articles, or the idea that for every viewpoint an opposite must exist?
If you have to use WP:Synthesis to derive broad theories from existing scholarship on other topics, that's WP:Original Research. This is the biggest issue with every Keep vote which points to every phenomena (and even Wikipedia pages!) that could possibly be attributed or connected to male expendability.	If Wikipedia followed this logic, it would quickly become useless as an educational resource.	You're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which is admirable but not what Wikipedia is here for.	This is pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and a logical fallacy.
New and original research is important but Wikipedia isn't the place for it (no matter how much it seems "obvious" or like "common sense"). For example, a source might say that men die from violence more than women, but if it does not attribute this to male expendability than Wikipedia can not make that leap.	Hate to have to say this, but accusations of sexism and agenda pushing are very unfair to the volunteers who dedicate their time to the project	If you're still not convinced, I recommend reading WP:But it's true!	Articles are assessed on individual merit, not in relation to what other articles are included. Wikipedia does not have to give equal validity to all ideas.

If any of the above argument are the basis for your !Keep vote, please consider revaluating it based on Wikipedia's guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the possibility always open that it could be recreated in a better form, with better sourcing in the future. (Edit: I also don't have anything against redirecting it as suggested above. For example, Benatar's book seems to be about reverse sexism in general so moving that information there makes sense). BuySomeApples (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples: Many of the delete votes are nakedly about politics, and the ones that are less so are by people who I primarily see enforcing that same ideology on gender based pages across Wikipedia. The citations offered DO talk about male disposability or expendability, by name. If you're going to call out 'righting great wrongs' then that means we need to delete the feminist page mentioned in the main edit request. I feel you are using that page as an excuse to push bias while pretending to push the wiki rules. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think every single !Delete vote by anyone admitting that the article could be improved should be struck for the very simple reason that they have not read or do not have even a very basic understanding of Wikipedia's deletion guidelines. Most of it seems to be a poor effort to disguise their biased gender politics. Ciridae (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the general notability guideline, although the article, despite recent improvement, is still not very good. Cardamon (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find "expendability of men" to be a more productive search term than "male expendability":

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Cardamon (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Reverse sexism - Some kind of fringe and obscure theory with nil notability in academic sociology or even mainstream culture. A bunch of poor sources are waved amidst MRA socks crying a predictable river about feminists. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed by a non-administrator, which was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 28#Male expendability (closed). I closed this review as follows: "People here mostly agree with the closure, but believe that it should have been made by an administrator and/or with an explanation. Accordingly, per WP:NACD, this AfD closure is reopened in my individual capacity as an administrator, with the request that it be re-closed accordingly."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using google scholar, The references are not enough to establish notability. The term (Male expendability) is known, but doesn't deserve an article about it until we have a significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources.Charmk (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think the article needs some work still, but to my surprise I found there does seem to be enough sourcing to support an article about this concept. Reyk _YO! 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable, this nomination just screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and draftify. Draftification has already been done. Star Mississippi 03:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Outlaw

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

Fails WP:MMABIO notability criteria. He only has 1 fight in a top tier promotion (Bellator top tier 2009-2015 before being reinstated as top tier for 2022 and beyond). Sherdog and FightMatrix don't have him ranked in their top 10. He is scheduled to fight for the lightweight title, but since he hasn't actually done that yet this article is WP:TOOSOON, my recommendation is draftify until he fights for the title. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I added some content on the page since someone else created it beforehand, but too soon as you said.HeinzMaster (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON but it won't be long until he meets WP:NMMA (although I don't know when/if he'll meet WP:GNG). I also think the fact that neither of the fighters fighting for the Bellator lightweight championship are ranked in the top 25 by fightmatrix also says something about the depth of Bellator as a top tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MDK (series)

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

The "series" only got two entries, with a third cancelled. Much of the information on the page is duplicated from the articles about the individual games. The additional info about the 3rd game is also already in MDK2. The page doesn't pass the criteria for a series article and I don't think any info here is not already in the other pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this article is redundant.Nwhyte (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: Content seems to be a direct duplicate of both MDK and MDK 2. I don't think there is anything here that isn't already mentioned in that two articles. OceanHok (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Appears to be duplicative with the other articles, unless someone can point out the difference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I always thought this article was superfluous despite working on it in the past. Bertaut (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Fraudelent — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CONTENTFORK. Mann Mann (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty much just a content fork. Pilaz (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Gnosjö municipal election

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

Not notable small community (Under 5,000) election. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created in the good faith that Wikipedia was supposed to be a repository of such information, but it is not. Unremarkable locality and event in every way. Geschichte (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shine (French band)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No citations, and was personally unable to find any coverage of this band in any reliable sources. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources in the French wiki article. They did an interview in Aquitaine Online, [[5]] and they were at SXSW in 2010 and I think at Glastonbury. A bit of a deeper look shows not much else. They almost made it, then just vanished. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any coverage of the band, album reviews, etc. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an interview they did with a website called Live4Ever who also reviewed their collaborative EP with Terry Reid, but that's still only one other source with questionable reliability. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzintars Cers

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

WP:BLP of a radio news reporter, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, a journalist doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's possible to verify that he exists -- the notability test requires external validation of the significance of his work, such as noteworthy journalism awards and/or the reception of media coverage about him in sources independent of his career (i.e. not just his own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer). But this just states that he exists, and is referenced entirely to sources that are not support for notability at all: staff profile of course, a glancing namecheck of his existence in an organizational blog that isn't about him, a transcript of a piece of journalism where he was the reporter and not the subject, and a film narration credit circularly sourced to the film itself rather than any evidence of coverage about his work on the film. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned nomination of the nominator. Not every radio presenter is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

York@54

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

A channel that only ever operated on a series of Restricted Service Licences fails to meet the WP:GNG. Deleted on AfD in 2007 with an article that sounds like it was quite similar to this one with just three references. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. Of the three sources in the ref list, one is an archived primary source from the station itself thus not independent, while another is a dead link that even if it were WP:V, appears to have been self published and unreliable. The third is an editorial piece from a local paper that discussing the case for a community digital TV station broadcasting local content. It makes reference to the subject of the article briefly. This is in the form of comments by the stations manager that "it is unlikely many people watch or even know of the station’s existence. It is mainly now a ‘toe-hold’ so that the company can take advantage of any changes in TV broadcasting". While perhaps more than a trivial mention, this is hardly significant coverage and somewhat ironically leans towards arguing the that the station is not notable. Dfadden (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Bezzina

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 21:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A1 x J1

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

Doing a Google search yields very limited coverage and the sources in the article currently are just from official charts, no independent coverage. Andise1 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An act with a number 2 hit in the main chart of an important music market, and a featured appearance on a further top 5 hit, is overwhelmingly likely to be notable. That they have not been Elgarised by the post-Blair/Cameron "new establishment" does not mean we should not cover them just as much as we cover Elgarised rock. For a significant audience, they are very notable indeed, and we cannot discount and dismiss that audience. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete per nom, this seems to be WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two charting singles, one of which hit #2 and charted in four countries, and a platinum certification. Easily passes WP:NMUSIC. Mlb96 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete sure they charted, but that's not enough on it's own for WP:GNG to be met and there doesn't seem to be any in-depth references that would get them there. I'm on the weak delete side though because they did chart, but it would probably be better to delete the article for now anyway per WP:TOOSOON. For all we know they could be a one or two hit wonder. In the mean time "A1 x J1 charted", which is 99% of article currently, is extremely WP:MILL and not encyclopedic. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO with having charting singles. It's enough. The criteria says taht they need to meet at least one item and they meet criterion #2. MartinWilder (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A charting single establishes notability per the guidelines, and a charting single is a charting single - it's not open to interpretation. JSFarman (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO, as of writing the article has had over 4,700 views in the past month and I just heard their single "Coming for You" on daytime BBC Radio 1 today so its likely the artist will receive more coverage in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those citing WP:TOOSOON are correct. We can see this whole year if coverage has increased. TolWol56 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people accessing and reading this article so I just don't see how deleting it now would improve the encyclopedia especially if it gets recreated in the future - that is just creating additional work for editors and discouraing improvement of the article (folks are much more likely to improve the article if it already exists). NemesisAT (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not too soon at all. They've already had major chart hits, a Brit Award nomination ([6]), GRM Daily Rated Award nomination ([7]) and have significant coverage including [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More information will be added over time. Gusfriend (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Numerous sources have been presented which discuss the topic, refuting the central concept of the detele arguments. These sources remain unchallenged after several days, indicating GNG is met and therefore the topic is notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball

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

To me, this falls more along the lines of WP:NOTESSAY, just listing certain aspects of Nippon Professional Baseball that are different than that of Major League Baseball, as opposed to a flat-out comparison between the two, which even if it was, I don’t would be necessary. Why chose only MLB to compare NPB to? Why not the KBO League? Or Chinese Professional Baseball League? The are seemingly endless differences you could find between leagues. This was created with content from the NPB page, so anything worth including is probably best suited there. Penale52 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable point. As the creator of this article, I moved content from the Nippon Professional Baseball to something new, as having this section as part of the NPB article seemed a bit of a US-centric view i.e. that Major League Baseball is the default. If it was to be re-merged into the NPB article, it would seem balanced to also have an equivalent section in the MLB article. Or perhaps a more suitable article would be one comparing all the different types of baseball in one place? Cripesohblimey (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the Professional baseball article is pretty slim at the moment and probably the best place to compare the style of baseball played in the different countries. Spanneraol (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Sourced and written in good faith, much of the material is probably salvageable, but the choices of league seem arbitrary -- if anything it probably creates more US-centricism to have an article expressly choosing the US league to compare to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure if the information would be best served in the international baseball article, this seems to have enough substance to have an article on its own. The first half could use more citations, but the second half has more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to be a reasonable article, well-reffed enough, important enough subject. As the project moves forward thru the years we need to be expecting new material like this coming in and not be too resistant... It's not really an essay. There's nothing about "Oh well the pace and attitude is different in Japan" or whatever (altho that could be added if ref'd). It is synthesis, but then many of our articles are, and it's functional and appropriate synthesis. As to OPs point "Why chose only MLB to compare NPB to? Why not the KBO League? Or Chinese Professional Baseball League? The are seemingly endless differences you could find between leagues", well for one things, are those AAAA level, and if so (or even not) by all means let's expand the article to include those down the line, maybe, rather than a procrustean chopping. You could say "why have this when we don't have that" about a lot of things.

As to merge, enh, that's a matter of opinion. The creator didn't think it best, and I'm good with that. Article is not perfect... I would consider making a lot of it into a table... I don't know if that'd be an improvement or not. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A (well-written) WP:ESSAY. Useful content could be incorporated in the articles for the leagues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the sources listed by Fulmard below. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is well-sourced enough to meet the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 04:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now, if the differences between MLB and NPB baseball were something that was written about in reliable sources, then I could see an article here. As it stands, though, this looks like it's pretty much original research via synthesis, and should probably be deleted. (I can't access the NYT source, so I don't know about that one.) (Unrelated but I really need to work on my run-on sentences, wow) casualdejekyll (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: The two leagues and their rules are clearly notable, but the comparison between them does not seem to be something that's covered by reliable sources. No objection to retaining in draft space if folks think the content can be used elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 13:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- MLB is the largest baseball league, so this isn't about being America centric as far as I can see.Article can be improved, but does not merit deletion.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SYNTH. None of the sources are about comparisons. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course it is notable. Whenever baseball in Japan is discussed in sources it is compared to the American game too.Fulmard (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some examples of such sources? MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Baseball, "Besuboru, Yakyu": Comparing the American and Japanese Games, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, The Scientific Differences Between Masahiro Tanaka Pitching in Japan and Major League Baseball, Analysis of Injuries and Pitching Performance Between Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball: A 2-Team Comparison Between 2015 to 2019, Japan’s Standardized Baseballs Are Popular With Pitchers, Labor in Nippon Professional Baseball and the Future of Player Transfers to Major League Baseball.Fulmard (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fulmard. Due to these sources, I would now agree that the topic is notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 22:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Choky Ice

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

The sources are all adult industry publicity, not significant coverage. The article itself makes no statements about the subject's notability and reads like promotional material. Ficaia (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD was not transcluded to the daily log. It is now transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 30. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. 2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Cristian

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

Sources are all adult industry publicity, not significant coverage. The article itself reads like promotional material complete with the subject's LinkedIn profile. Ficaia (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD was not transcluded to the daily log. It is now transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 30. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 22:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Saari

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

No significant coverage. Ficaia (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD was not transcluded to the daily log. It is now transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 30. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensively covered by Finnish media on both national and regional levels, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Also appears to have been extensively covered in a 2004 book entitled (transl.) Henry and I according to [19]. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC), edited 12:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you outline why you believe coverage including a 4.5k character bio in the biggest newspaper in Finland, a 17.5k character bio in a large Finnish cultural magazine and a published book are clearly insufficient to pass GNG"? -Ljleppan (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was called "the most famous porn star in Finland" here; has appeared in mainstream projects, such as Sing, talk shows, and a show on MTV3; and was a Mr. Finland. While there are very few English sources, that doesn't matter (see WP:RSUE) because there are plenty of Finnish ones even from a cursory Google search. --Kbabej (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered adequately in non-english sources (as demonstrated by those above), and may also meet WP:ENT #3. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Perhaps a merge discussion should be commenced. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort zone

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

As is, the article should be deleted because it rehashes the content of one non-scientific source, White (2009)—which itself errs in its reference to Yerkes's work on the Dancing Mouse, and makes reference to an apparently untested "TPR" model of small-group psychology. The rest of White's citations are mostly indirect citations and citations to non-peer-reviewed sources, business leadership manuals where the context would imply psychological or sociological research reports.

Closer examination reveals that few or none of the article's current claims are actually proven. Given the overreliance on a single source, the article could very well be thinly veiled original research.

All of the above results in misleading information on the internet at large, including a significant number of mistaken citations to Yerkes sharing the same wording as the article, as well as potential careless citation to White's self-published manuscript as though it were peer-reviewed.

Alternatively to deletion, the article could be trimmed down and merged with another, on, say, flow.

Comment I'm torn on this one. "Comfort Zone" is CLEARLY a phrase widely used. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I feel like there's probably a reasonably well sourced article to be written on the concept, but I'm not volunteering to do so, and I'm pretty certain it's NOT what we have now. Maybe the best choice would be a redirect to Flow (psychology) without prejudice against recreating the article from scratch as less of a soapbox for this one interpretation? PianoDan (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] All of the issues highlighted by the nominator can resolved through editing.

References

^ Brown, M. (2008). "Comfort zone: Model or metaphor?" (pdf). Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education. 12 (1): 3–12.
^ Kiknadze, N.C.; Leary, M.R. (2021). "Comfort zone orientation: Individual differences in the motivation to move beyond one's comfort zone" (pdf). Personality and Individual Differences. 181. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111024.
^ Folmo, E.J.; Karterud, S.W.; Kongerslev, M.T.; Kvarstein, E.H.; Stänicke, E. (2019). "Battles of the comfort zone: modelling therapeutic strategy, alliance, and epistemic trust—a qualitative study of mentalization-based therapy for borderline personality disorder" (pdf). Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy. 49 (3): 141–151.
^ Suppiah, H.; Govind, S.K.P. (2018). "Transforming Leadership Performance-Breaking Comfort-Zone Barriers" (pdf). Educational Leader (PEMIMPIN PENDIDIKAN). 6: 64–89.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SailingInABathTub. Lots of sources, books, etc. about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Comfort, unless and until there is more content on this topic than a stub. BD2412 T 02:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article isn't in great shape but looks to be capable of development. There's clearly a substantial literature on this topic following Luckner and Nadler (1997), which introduced the model, and the first of the references provided by SailingInABathTub covers enough ground and provides enough criticism to take this material out of stub territory. I'll note that the concept seems to have arisen in adventure education but there is little sign of that in the AfDed article as it stands. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of management of The Walt Disney Company

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

Superfluous over detailed list that shouldn’t be separate from the main company article. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom, this is overkill and undersourced. Swing the axe. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The referencing is abysmal with only four sources cited, the newest of which was published 57 years ago. The vast majority of the content fails Verifiability. The list selection criteria are unstated and seemingly arbitrary. A very large percentage of the people listed are not notable and are simply corporate functionaries. As far as I know, we have no comparable article for any other corporation. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Cytkory has been around WP for nine years, and I'm absolutely baffled why he thinks this is an appropriate encyclopedia article. Nowhere else on this entire project do we list hundreds of non-notable people in corporate management like this. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bulk of this page utterly fails WP:V, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people listed here do not meet GNG or SNG, other articles (The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries) already cover the most important information (i.e. key executives), and significantly larger companies (Apple Inc., Microsoft, Meta Platforms) do not have standalone articles for their management, so I don't see why Disney should. The remaining relevant and sourced information can be incorporated into the The Walt Disney Company article. Colonestarrice (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredible WP:NOTDIR violation with a paucity of sources and a whole host of people who don't meet GNG, and an article form we have for no other company; also considering certain properties and their fanbases, I'm very uncomfortable with some wayward fan using this unsourced list to figure out an email/social presence and attack someone without cause to try to 'right a great wrong'. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator is absolutely correct. This is groteque visualition of what we do not want in lists. gidonb (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to just edit the list down to notable people or job titles (AKA- bluelinks) and it was pathetic. a totally unnecessary page that should not exist. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks like all of the notable Disney execs already have pages. Also, it seems like this would change as people get promoted or fired without enough coverage of these events to even make sure its up to date. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or even with coverage somewhere. It is too much for even a near decent job of keeping up with. gidonb (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per V arguments and by extension BLP. Where's the SNOW deletion option? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence this is a topic in its own right and poor sourcing. HighKing 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 22:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devpack

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

This is non-notable article about dead-provided and dead-developed PaaS Product. The article has been "Notability" template noticed since 12/2016, for 6 years (6 years is very long on IT field). And also, even the link to homepage site is no incoming longer time (since 2016). The article is stub, awfully shorter, and only source is a reprinted press release, so this have to delete.

And addition, in 2/2017, it seems settled "Proposed deletion" template and Proposed deletion, but not found on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/~~. Haruka Sato (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the gnews hits are limited and not in depth. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks for the find. It might be easier to make the case for the company KT DS, and merge this into that article. But it appears that one was deleted in 2017 due to being advertising. The company seems still around, but sources are often in Korean, so would be work. The service by itself is not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the source with google translator and found that it's a self thoughts not any particular news. No new sources has been provided since 2016 and the 5th[20] one is a dead link... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 22:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.

One Day at HorrorLand

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SL93 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Czar is trying to get this article merged to one or more articles on the article's talk page due to notability concerns. This article passed WP:DYK and WP:GA in 2013 and currently has two FA reviewers that supports its claims to notability. Per WP:BK, the novel has resulted in notable adaptations - including two episodes, a Walt Disney World them park attraction (per talk page), video games, and spin-off book series. For the book itself, the book has coursework available to students per the talk page and the article has a reception section. I'm nominating this here for either a result of keep, merge, or delete to end this. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. AfD is for deletion discussions only and you are not recommending deletion. czar 15:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am as a possibility and you certainly aren't doing anything rather than pushing your personal opinions. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need consensus since I refuse to do anything per one person's opinion and you have not even attempted to gain consensus. So I'm doing it for you. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close No rationale for deletion presented and no one here actually supports outright deleting (or blanking-and-redirecting) the article. If the current talk page discussion does not resolve the issue, the preferred approach for generating a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus would be to propose a merger and list it at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. DanCherek (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- DanCherek Great, but I hope Czar gets to it so that isn't closed as procedural. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  As I see it, Czar thinks the article should be merged and you disagree. If neither of you do anything else, the article will continue to exist, the FAC will proceed, etc. If Czar wants to open a proposed merge discussion, they can do so and that will hopefully invite some additional opinions. For that reason I don't think the discussion needs to be held at AfD right here, right now. DanCherek (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not so sure. Now, prose issues are being mentioned by a FA reviewer who did not mention it before and who, at the moment, has not told me what those issues are. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a false statement. In my original comments, I pointed out two areas where the prose needed further work so I did discuss issues with the prose before. You are not accurately representing my review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry for not speaking clearly enough. I meant besides that. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: This can be closed. Although I don't remember how to close it myself. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the instructions on how to withdraw a AFD as the nominator. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teenmar Mallanna

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

Looked at this several times, over the past couple weeks. Fails WP:NPOL. Routine coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candidate for the 2015 and 2021 Graduate MLC elections in Nalgonda-Khammam-Warangal. Fails WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this passes neither of the tests that a candidate actually has to clear to earn special treatment: properly sourced evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of unsuccessful election candidacies, or a credible reason to deem his candidacies much more special than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 Search

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

Poorly sourced non-notable article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no RS coverage. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Potential to recreate when there is more published research. RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1972

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Single source, a preprint and apparently not yet even accepted for publication. Even accepting the source, this is not a notable object and fails on the WP:NASTCRIT criteria. At best, it is too soon. Lithopsian (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2022 for now. I could find no evidence of notability. Praemonitus (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We still can wait until NASA reveals a system, is it a option can you at least remove this page, unless it proved they exist by Publishers, i only found one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11459 - TriNguyen12348 10:56 January, 30th, 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also last sentence of article makes no sense. Nwhyte (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Unless NASA will published its system soon), Welp... i should edit in my sandbox because we can't search everywhere but I know, i found another minimal evidence: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/TTVs-for-Kepler-1972-b-top-and-Kepler-1972-c-bottom-The-black-errorbars-represent_fig2_358164104. Sciences searched its system, i'm sure NASA verifies a report about Kepler-1972 - TriNguyen12348 10:04, 30, January 2022 (GMT-8)

I'm not convinced that full publication of the discovery paper or addition to the standard databases would be enough to make this notable, but you can certainly take a copy to your sandbox, or to draft. Lithopsian (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, i promise i will edit in the sandbox therefore i accidentally made a page as the normal page, one more thing, i noticed that NASA waits for a queue report about Kepler-1972 - TriNguyen12348 - 6:35 - Febuary 1st, 2022. (GMT-8) — Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And hey! I already copy the entire page to my sandbox, should you delete that page (Kepler-1972)? - TriNguyen12348 10:04 (11:43 in UTC) - 1, Febuary 2022 (GMT-8)

Delete or redirect to 'Exoplanets discovered in 2022' upon publication. This is not 'published in Cornell University', this is a preprint hosted on the arxiv. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Love?. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 14:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Run the World

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an album track that obviously fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. As stated by NSONGS: chart positions and album reviews do not justify notability, and even if third-party coverage exists: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Sources in the listed article is limited to album reviews and there are only three sources that solely discuss the song, which obviously fail notability. My suggestion is to redirect this article into it's parent album's article. --Fullmoon211 (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: No charts, no awards, mostly album reviews. Most definitely fails WP:NSONGS. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love?. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 14:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sócrates Oliveira Fonseca

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

Fails WP:GNG, as there are no in-depth articles about him. Also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a professional league. ~~Draft:Sócrates Oliveira Fonseca, which is identical to this article, already exists.~~ Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet NFOOTY and lacks significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG as I believe there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Unless sourcing is found, I must lean delete. GauchoDude (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Star Mississippi 03:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Islamia Faiz-e-Aam

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

The only notability is that the Madrasa has been approved by the UP Madrasa Board of Education and nothing else. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Approval and recognition of this university by the Education Board of one of the largest Indian states (Uttar Pradesh in this case) should not be taken lightly and made fun of? The Deletion nominator may or may not like this article? We are supposed to show tolerance and respect for all faiths and their different sects per Wikipedia policy. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1:Which university? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'Jamia' in the above article title in Arabic language means 'University' as we all know. Technical questions like this, I'm sure were observed by the Uttar Pradesh Education Board before they gave their approval to this institution. This article obviously needs improvement which anyone of us can attempt to do. This Discussion Forum is NOT FOR CLEANUP - WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the full list of board-approved madrassas, schools and colleges in 2015. Do you think all institutions are eligible to be included here? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am against erasing this page with the motives of maslak conflict. Of course, it is desirable to enrich the source of this page. Deleting the page violates the following two policies:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary 2.Dictionary entries.[21] Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. Wikipedia is not a battleground [22] Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. DarulPak (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DarulPak,those are not the issues at hand here, unless you feel that this nomination has been made in bad faith. The relevant policy here is WP:N, which this clearly fails. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage of this place seems to be extremely trivial and there's clearly some COI editing Etc. Etc. going on that shouldn't be support. Nor is it worth having an article on this if it will just be used as a promotional tool. I'm not a fan of people badgering the nominator either. That said, I'm mostly voting delete because of the lack of adequate sourcing. It should go without saying that the other nonsense people have brought up for this is notable do nothing in that regard. Notability isn't based on some rando's recognition. Especially an education board since that's literally what they exist for. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability apart from the fact it exists, and is recognised by the government. The list for educational institutes qualifying these parameters would be in the tens of thousands. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Jacques

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

Fails notability guidelines (specifically WP:MUSICBIO); former child singer whose only notable achievement was competing at Eurovision (WP:BLP1E) and almost no sources pertain to the individual beyond basic facts that they competed at the contest Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sustained coverage to pass GNG or any clear passing of our notability guidelines for musicians.14:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Only notable for one event and the depth of coverage is adequately accommodated by other articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 1969. Grk1011 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Yewdale

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

WP:BEFORE done. While it would appear there was verifiably a Canadian artist of this (also Muriel Agnes Yewdale, Mer Yewdale) name and dates of birth and death - Library and Archives Canada says so here, it would also appear that she does not meet WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO, and any number of policies and guidelines you may cite when you please - as always - do prove me wrong about this. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When editors are evaluating this biography they should be sure to check the page history. Large sections were recently excised, including potentially valuable references. pburka (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I expanded the article so I think it makes a decent stub now. This is one of those artists who is mainly discovered after their death. Judging by some of the prominent British Columbia artists who recommended her art, I expect her works will become better known with time. Incidentally, although she signed her paintings 'M. A. Yewdale', I think the name of the article should be changed to Muriel Agnes Yewdale. Curiocurio (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Government of Canada lists her under 5 different names: M.A. Yewdale, Muriel Agnes Yewdale, Mer Yewdale, Muriel Yewdale; M. Yewdale.; so in WP:BEFORE searches it would make sense to search under all of those names. Thus far, I've found an exhibiton catalog devoted to her work, published by the Burnaby Art Gallery.[23] and added to the article, along with the citation for the Govt. of Canada. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tried "Muriel Agnes Fraser Yewdale" and "MA Yewdale" in Google, GScholar, Jstor and ULAN, nothing comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraser' is her maiden name and can be omitted in searches. I'm going to retrieve the exhibition catalog this afternoon and see if there is any useful information there. Curiocurio (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's listed at Mutual Art, but the birth date is 1931. I am pretty sure it is the same artist. hmmmm. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go by the Government of Canada citation, also the article in The Vancouver Sun said she died at 91 years, so the earlier date makes sense. Netherzone (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 1908 as correct birth date, it's just a shame we can't link out to it for images of her work. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find a reference for date of death exactly 6 January 2000. I am changing it to 2000 as stated on Artists in Canada. I also updated Wikidata WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article expansion and adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG has enough sourcing now, and per WP:HEY due to the excellent improvements by Curiocurio and WomenArtistUpdates and others. It's now a nice little biographic article on an under-recognized artist who shunned the marketplace during her lifetime who made a significant contribution to the arts of the Pacific Northwest with her body of work. Netherzone (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to all who worked on it. I hope it is kept up-to-date as her work is exhibited and discussed in the future. Lamona (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. Also, I don't know how a BEFORE doesn't find the 2006 Vancouver Sun articles, User:Shirt58, right at the top of the first Proquest search I found - and #2 at newspapers.com. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. WP:SNOW. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Dream Island

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

Insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources cited in the article appear to constitute sufficient coverage for notability and I cannot find such sources after doing a search either. Cary Huang might be notable, though I'm not sure, but I doubt that this series is. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage of this show in independent, reliable sources. Current sources are either primary or unreliable, and vast swaths of the text is unreferenced, which fails the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cullen328; I too can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 10:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, best I could find was a passing mention in the caption of an image in this forbes article, which wouldn't even count as WP:SIGCOV. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And salt, per subsequent comments. BilledMammal (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-salt Yet again, this web series does not meet WP:SIGCOV. It's been created and recreated numerous times. Until there is some sources that show this meets WP:SIGCOV, it's time to leave this locked up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I would strongly recommend against salting, as it only encourages more creations at variant article titles such as differing capitalizations. It’s preferable to keep them in a single article history for the future in which, inevitably, a reliable source publishes something about it and it become eligible for an article. — Timwi (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-salt I have been able to find zero reliable sources giving this any coverage at all. The Forbes article mentioned above is from a contributor - even if it gave the subject significant coverage (which it doesn't), it wouldn't be reliable, and so would not help establish notability. When there is just nothing out there from reliable sources we stay silent - Fandom is the place for this sort of stuff, not here. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding whoever may vote Keep: If anyone is that desperate for Wikipedia to have information on Battle for Dream Island despite independent, reliable sources never bothering to give it enough coverage to meet criteria, why haven't any of them ever considered trying to create an article about its creators, Michael and Cary Huang, instead? After all, TomSka has an article, but asdfmovie merely redirects to it. If BFDI fans are lucky enough to find significant reliable coverage of the Huang twins (regardless of whether or not those sources even mention BFDI at all), then they might finally see Wikipedia have information on not only Battle for Dream Island, but also Scale of the Universe as well. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- why haven't any of them ever considered trying to create an article about its creators — I already said this everywhere. Literally everybody I know immediately says “what’s the point, it gets deleted anyway”. This is the perception that you’ve curated among the general public and you don’t even realize it. — Timwi (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this would be a better avenue. --Meester Tweester (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We’re working on it Idamensional 20:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and trout since SALT won't protect it from another out of process admin re-creation. Disappointing that an 18 year admin has zero familiarity with criteria for inclusion, which this meets none of. Star Mississippi 15:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with the criteria, it’s that I apply common sense, disagree with them where appropriate, and I try to make Wikipedia palatable to more non-admin contributors. It is very unfortunate that Wikipedia has turned into this rigid rules machine that cannot see when its concept of “notability” starkly contradicts everyday common sense, would rather destroy people’s work instead of helping it, and as a result, discourages almost anyone who would otherwise be a passionate contributor from contributing. — Timwi (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If your suggestion is that we instead accept articles sourced entirely to blogs and fandom wikis, then the remedy is worse than the disease. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no idea what you mean by that. Deleting an article that other people have worked on is objectively worse than keeping it and letting people find out about the topic. No-one’s even asking for it to be promoted or featured or anything. By all means slap a notice on it telling readers that it’s “sourced entirely to blogs and fandom wikis”. I have never heard any good reason from anyone why any good-faith contribution to Wikipedia (that isn’t vandalism, libel, or just garbage) needs to be deleted. All that serves to do is give a massive middle finger to anyone trying to give something to the world, and produces an inferior encyclopedia with less coverage. — Timwi (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you are an admin, and don't understand what reliable sources are and what general notability is, and more important why they are REQUIRED for an article to stay published, resign your tools now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The general consensus is that it results in a better encyclopedia, which admittedly has less coverage, but which is more authoritative and has better levels of verifisbility and accuracy. Folk who want to find out about subjects like this can look at Fandom; folk who want to write about it can do so over there too. If we start allowing articles that are sourced to Fandom, WordPress blogs and the like then we will rapidly become Fandom.
      
      I don't know what sort of subjects your friends have tried writing about, or what sort of sources they used. If they think there is no use writing articles about obscure shows, based off of blogs, they are correct that that's a waste of time. However, lots of new articles are being written every hour of every day, without being nominated for deletion: they just have to provide reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Tell your friends that. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You've been told that's what draft space is for (helping people's work). This article is wholly inappropriate for the main article space, and there's no sourcing to fix it, therefore it cannot stand. Your personal beliefs are out of alignment with the community's consensus. We're not a directory of everything that exists, they're welcome to go to Fandom or a blog to learn about this, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Not sure whether to take your argument as a plan to recreate it. If it is deleted and you do so, you will undoubtedly be blocked. Just food for thought. Star Mississippi 23:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and resalt for now, but The guys behind the show, Cary and Michael Huang are responsible for "The Scale of the Universe", which has received some substantial coverage, still probably not enough for notability, but I could imagine this eventually being a redirect to them, if they ever gets more substantial coverage and become notable in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and resalt - sourcing is completely unacceptable, and there doesn't seem to be any RS coverage of this. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per above discusion. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 23:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 22:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland (2012 film)

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

All sourcing is industry awards and promotion and this article therefore does not mean notability. TheFinalMigration (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not have sourcing that actually meets GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Extremely Delete this should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. Pilaz (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have regular experience with WP:NFILM, but a WP:BEFORE search comes with articles from Vice and Veintitrés, describing the film as "high art" porn. I agree that current citations are useless for establishing notability. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Rewenig

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

Fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV provided or identifiable. WP:NFOOTBALL is met, but per WP:NSPORTS that only provides a presumption of notability, and GNG is still required. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY #1, having played in 24 international matches and scoring two goals. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 24 caps is notable. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player with 24 caps for his country = clearly notable. Has nom followed BEFORE? unsurprising that sources are not online given when he was active. GiantSnowman 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I was unable to identify any significant coverage without which the article cannot be kept; WP:GNG must still be met as WP:NSPORTS does not replace it, and the article currently violates the core policy WP:OR which forbids us from basing articles entirely on primary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he did play 24 matches so he's notable. Dr Salvus 10:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GS' rationale above. Clog Wolf _Howl 10:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played international football, there must be better sources out there for his time at international level. I bet this article can be improved greatly with correct research. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:NFOOTY with 24 (!) international caps. In-depth sources will naturally be difficult to find online for a 1940s player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others above; notable. Eagleash (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above. I can understand deleting articles on players who only ever made one club appearance, but this is a guy who represented his country in international competition for six years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - these AFDs are becoming a bit ridiculous, I think for international players there should be some protection.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the others. Kante4 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a primary source in Wikipedia's sense is a source produced by the subject himself or someone immediately connected to the subject. "A secondary source provides an author's own [...] synthesis of the facts [...] taken from primary sources". It is not original research to inform of Rewenig playing those 24 matches, nor that he captained the team in over half of those matches. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Statistical databases are primary sources; they neither "contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (secondary sources) nor do they "summarize primary and secondary sources" (tertiary sources). The article also fails WP:GNG, and since WP:NSPORTS states that it does not replace GNG it cannot be used to justify that failure. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, I think it's fair to assume there are enough proper sources out there for a player who made 24 appearances for his national team. It's just hard to find them because Rewenig played in pre-internet times. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be correct, although given the prominence of the team, the fact that most of those matches were friendlies, and the fact that there was less coverage in the era he played in we cannot be confident that there are. Further, unless we can identify those sources, the article violates both policy and guidelines, and needs to be deleted - or as an alternative that I would support, moved to draft space to give editors extra time to find those sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They contain a synthesis of sources. They collect sources from somewhere and thus builds a secondary source upon those sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source doesn't become a secondary source because it is placed in a database with other primary sources; a group of first hand accounts are no less primary than a single first hand account. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assertions that playing 24 matches means he's notable are directly at odds with our guidelines and should be disregarded. No one in this AfD or at NFOOTY has offered any evidence that 95% of players of his time period and location meet GNG, nor has anyone pointed to a particular newspaper or book that could credibly contain SIGCOV. Without such assurances we have zero basis to claim 24 games means anything at all with regards to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting articles just because they don't have "modern" every-match coverage is pointless. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played 24 International matches.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Needs improving not deleting. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting this. It was already listed at Wikiproject Football's "list of association football-related deletions", as well as "list of Football-related deletion discussions", and to post it a second time to a partisan audience seems to be a WP:CANVASS violation. I ask that the closer take this into account when closing, particularly considering the number of people who have presented arguments that appear to have been suggested by the title of that thread - that he was an international footballer, and so must be notable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some of the keepers can actually provide some substantial coverage instead of simply parroting a heavily disputed SNG which states that articles still have to meet the GNG even if they meet the standards of the SNG, a fact they happily ignore. Fram (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article and this pointless AFD provide clear evidence that GNG is deeply flawed and should be removed from WP:N. It is obvious that someone who played in 24 international football matches is a notable topic per NFOOTY. To say that Assertions that playing 24 matches means he's notable are directly at odds with our guidelines and should be disregarded defies WP:COMMONSENSE and breaches WP:IAR. The fact that this guy doesn't meet the GNG means that the GNG is out of touch and is "at odds" with reality. As for "substantial coverage", how do you measure substantial? The article cites three sources and no one has said any of them fail WP:RS so that is sufficient coverage for an article with 65 words. Finally, I think there is a wider concern here around excessive AFD nominations and I recall that someone was blocked a year or more ago for that sort of indiscriminate activity. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware, NSPORT is explicitly subordinate to GNG, so invoking NFOOTY to assert he is notable is directly at odds with what NSPORT says.

It is obvious that someone who played in 24 international football matches is a notable topic per ~~NFOOTY~~ football project editors. FTFY. That project is a tiny subset of the overall Wikipedia community and its opinion should be given proportional weight as such.

As for the sources: 1. Is a broad database and clearly not sufficient for notability, as stated by NSPORT itself: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. 2. See 1. 3. He is mentioned alongside dozens of pre-War Luxembourgish footballers in a cultural magazine with historical and cultural articles on the social development of Luxembourg City. Since 1979, the magazine has been distributed free of charge to all households in the city with a circulation of over 50,000 copies. This is plainly trivial coverage as well. 4. See 1. An article based on these sources fails WP:NOT by virtue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:MEMORIAL (which has the added guidance re: biographies Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.) JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't done a thorough search yet (so no definitive statement on the suitability of the article), but all (and I mean every single one) of the keep votes (they are not !votes) should be dismissed, as they are fundamentally at odds with policy (and on top of that, many are clearly canvassed, see the ANI thread, here). Articles do not get a special exemption from meeting GNG and other policies and guidelines because their topic is a sportsperson, and merely meeting an arbitrary criteria is not grounds for inclusion (as very clearly and unambiguously stated in NSPORTS, and seemingly ignored by every single one of the keep votes): Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of [sic.] any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. [...] (emphasis mine); and from the FAQ: Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.. Arguments deliberately ignoring this should hold no weight, as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not superior to community consensus. As for the IAR argument, I don't see how this article subject is exceptional enough to warrant such a treatment (again, IAR is supposed to be an exception, not a get-out-of-jail-free card used to avoid community consensus when one disagrees with it), and keeping a short article which is not much more than a database entry (sourced, accordingly, to four different databases...) is not an "improvement to the encyclopedia" - it very much furthers systematic bias and does not provide much useful information to the reader in return (as those readers could just as likely look up the relevant databases, which are also openly accessible....) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Easily meets NFOOTBALL. This isn't a borderline case, but a player with numerous international caps. We assume such historical players are notable, because it's very unlikely that if we had access to Luxembourgish archives, that we'd not be able to find significant coverage. I can't fathom why anyone would be wasting everyone's time with such nominations. Nfitz (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your argument holds no weight. Passing NFOOTBALL is not a criterion for keeping. It's an indication that there might be sources (it is not proof, either, that sources "must exist"). If these hypothetical sources cannot be presented in a timely manner, then the article should be deleted or redirected to a suitable target. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is a shortcut to a bit in WP:N. At the top of WP:N it clearly gives equal weight to GNG and SNG (section starting with A topic is presumed to merit an article if: .... Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if we look at the SNG in question (NSPORT) it clearly says in at least five different places that it is subordinate to GNG. Regardless of how we interpret what N says about GNG vs SNG, athlete articles still require GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be difficult, User:JoelleJay, but I don't see any of those places in WP:NSPORT - there's only 11 references to GNG in NSPORT, most in sections for each sport, saying if you don't meet SNG you can meet GNG. Can you point me to these? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to expand the FAQ at the top of the page. BilledMammal (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I've never considered the FAQ as part of the guideline. Surely if the FAQ contradicts guidelines, then the guideline takes precedent. Though even the FAQ isn't conclusive, with Q1 giving an out of when you think there are sources available, but just need to find them (which is surely the case here, with a pre-modern era player where sources would be in foreign languages). Q2 simply says sources must be found eventually. Q4 doesn't define the timeframe. I'd say that by applying the WP:NORUSH, then the appropriate timeframe to source a player like this, is when Luxembourgish newspaper archives from the relevant time period are available. It's not like this is a case of a player with one or two matches, or a player from a country with a very good newspaper archive, and no trace of coverage. In fact, we do get traces for this player, even now, implying he was a major force. Nfitz (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it is on the page of the guideline, rather than just the talk, it is part of the guideline. #1 gives an out to stop the article being "quickly deleted" - ie, PROD or CSD. It can't apply to AFD, otherwise articles passing a guideline within NSPORT could never be deleted, which is clearly not the case. BilledMammal (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of NSPORT: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.

The third sentence of NSPORT: If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

The second and third sentences of the Applicable policies and guidelines section: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.

The first and second sentences of SPORTCRIT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.

NSPORT is supposed to be used to identify subjects that are likely to meet the GNG, and the above sentences repeatedly state GNG (or BASIC, which is derived from GNG) is the inclusion criterion for a standalone athlete biography. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very unique readiing of the criteria. it's quite clear from the consensus in the project that articles for players like this who are not only meeting NSPORTS, but very much exceeding it, from the pre-modern era, in an absence of available material to even search for sources, are kept. Please indicate which Luxembourg media archives you've searched to find sources Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a unique reading of the criteria. It is literally what the outcome of a 2017 RfC determined: NSPORT is subordinate to GNG, and arguments at AfD must go beyond stating the subject meets a sport-specific guideline. This has been affirmed in the admin close statements of numerous deletions of people who met an SSG but not GNG and had a substantial number of editors !voting keep based on the SSG, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. etc.

And please indicate which Luxembourg media archives you would expect to have SIGCOV of this person. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Le Archives nationales de Luxembourg. Veuillez indiquer quelles archives de médias luxembourgeoises que vous ne attendriez pas d'avoir le SIGCOV a lui! In response to this AFD I think we are now at 20 keeps, and 2 deletes - consensus is very clear. Why do you insist on dying on this hill! Time for a topic ban? Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to propose a topic ban for either myself of JoelleJay at ANI, but this is the wrong place to do so and could be seen as an attempt to intimidate us. And consensus isn't based on votes, it is based on the weight of arguments, and "Keep per NFOOTY" votes have very little weight. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a failure of WP:AGF to assume that the suggestion of a topic ban in a discussion that's virtually a snow keep, and overwhelmingly a a keep, is intimidation! Please remember that AGF is paramount and is much more important than any guideline we've discussed here. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that I or JoelleJay warrant a topic ban, or if you believe my response to that suggestion violated WP:AGF, take it to ANI - this is the wrong place for that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to List of Luxembourg international footballers as there is no indication that there are suitable sources with which to write an encyclopedic article. No topic is inherently notable, and, particularly in the case of biographies, it would be better if more in-depth sources (with which to meet the basic requirements of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) could be presented. Since that does not appear to be the case, then the logical thing to do would be to redirect this to the appropriate list page. If someone in the future can bother to find actual encyclopedic coverage, nothing prevents them from re-writing this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NFOOTY. I'm sure that if I were given access to the old Luxembourg newspapers that Rewenig would pass the GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTY isn't a reason to keep. As for the rest, we can't write article based on hypothetical "old newspapers" (which may, or may not, cover the subject to significant depth...). Either show the sources, or stop making special pleading that "WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST". Sportsmen are not exempt from the rest of the encyclopedia's guidelines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well if NFOOTY is not a valid reason to keep (and I think it certainly is valid) then I'll be taking an IAR approach to this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I also said, IAR is not a get-out-of-jail-card-free-and-ignore-community-consensus option either. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override the basic requirement for articles not to be based on databases and routine non-significant coverage, nor can't it relieve the burden of proof of showing the existence of sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are already sources reliable and neutral enough for a stub. If GNG is a guideline there can still be exceptions, particularly in conflicts between GNG and SNG, and articles for which sources are less likely to be online. If there can be no exceptions then remove the guideline template from Wikipedia:Notability. A865 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict "between GNG and SNG". The SNG itself requires GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. That is an essay which has no authority and an AFD about a footybio is not uncommon. WP:IAR documents a policy and its purpose is to stop misapplication of rules from preventing the improvement and/or maintenance of the encyclopaedia. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If rules were to be ignored whenever they are even slightly inconvenient, then there's be absolutely no point in having them. Exceptions (as the word itself suggests) should not be the rule and there should be some exceptional reason why we should keep an article on somebody who doesn't meet GNG, and of whom we can say very little about. No such "exceptional reason" has been provided, nor could. Keeping such an article simply does not "improve the encyclopedia". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to List of Luxembourg international footballers. The appeal to NFOOTBALL has always been a nonsense/circular argument: "we've arbitrarily defined our favoured players/leagues as being inherently notable. One of them is up for deletion, but he meets our criteria... so he must be notable" Give me a break! What matters is WP:GNG and we don't even know the rudiments of this guy's biography, what he did for a living etc. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:NFOOTY states (for international players) - "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that's just clumsy wording which needs revision because that's not what happens in practice. On top of that, that sentence is quite at odds with what NSPORTS says, which, as I quoted above, is that meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. So NFOOTY is maybe an indication that coverage might possibly exist, but it is not a valid reason in and of itself to keep an article (as further clarified by the FAQ), nor is it positive proof that such coverage exists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We all know that's just clumsy wording which needs revision because that's not what happens in practice." If that is indeed the case, then it'll need an RfC to change it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wording doesn't look at all clumsy to me. It states categorically that international footballers attract media attention, as they do and always have done, and so it is futile to pretend that they might not be notable. The wording is correct and can be taken at face value. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be able to provide significant coverage. Further, WP:NSPORTS states "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline", which means that the awkward wording there is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has only 65 words and yet it is supported by three WP:RS. More than sufficient coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And of those 65 words, only 8 (the very last sentence) provide anything but basically statistical and mundane information (which, unsurprisingly, is sourced to sports databases with indiscriminate standards of inclusion). That is not "significant coverage", as understood for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia and not a sports database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a bold edit to add NFOOTY to the list of SNGs on WP:N, you are welcome to. But until such time there is a consensus for elevating NFOOTY to SNG status it will remain subordinate to NSPORT, which is itself subordinate to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well again I quote N:FOOTY which shows that GNG is already met (for international players) - "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to interpret it that way then I would suggest opening an RFC to change the wording of WP:NSPORTS to allow that interpretation - or, as JoelleJay said, seeking to remove WP:NFOOTY from under WP:NSPORT and establish it as an independent SNG. BilledMammal (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria" - accepted by who? A very narrow subset of WP:Football editors who have a vested interest in protecting their favoured articles, that's who. Calling it clumsy wording is actually pretty charitable. I'm an experienced football editor myself and I know that in practical terms it's arrant nonsense. It's based on a (historically illiterate) projection of modern-day rolling 24-hr media coverage into the distant past. I always think of the example of Mel Charles getting back from the 1958 FIFA World Cup and his neighbour asking him where he'd been on holiday! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, struggling to find much in the way of significant historical coverage, perhaps not that surprising. The best so far is this snippet in an article (with what I think is his photo) which suggests he "formed one of the best trios in the country with Jim Kremer and the new strike leader of the [Blau-Gelben Gales]" (this is a translation so isn't 100% assured). Also he features on a team photo here from 1950 in which he was part of the successful Spora side which won a 1950 final 5-1 "against the red boys" (probably the 1950 Luxembourg Cup). This is all using translation tools so I can't go very far with it. I am not saying this proves anything either way, it's just a passing comment. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clearly passes GNG via WP:NFOOTY. A lot of people basing their notability from online references they find via Google. Seems a bit slapdash and lazy to me. 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:FCD6:B2E9:53B5:2DFE (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC) — 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:FCD6:B2E9:53B5:2DFE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To be fair Bungle, who – with all due respect – seems much more competent than you (insofar as they seem to know where any coverage might have been), had a look and came up more or less empty handed. The best and brightest of WP:Football have presumably tried looking for some sources and failed too. I have a knack for ferreting out information about obscure footballers so I looked myself but found diddly-squat. Therefore unless anyone else finds some SIGCOV, even the "presumption of notability" suggested by the seriously flawed SNG is rebutted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 international caps for a nation is more than significant enough, we have entries for him on FIFA, the Olympics, and every major footballing database. We have articles linking him to his son Guy Rewenig, who also has Wikipedia page. He is clearly significant, and your silly and tired argument does not conform to reality, but instead a seemingly personal vendetta.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@the SPA IP: You can't "pass GNG via NFOOTY", unless you don't understand plain and simple English, because that is simply not what NFOOTY/NSPORTS says. As for the rest, databases are, explicitly, not significant coverage, and notability is not inherited, even if he were the father of the Queen of England (notability still has to be established independently, by the showing of the existence of proper sources). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point me, User:Bring back Daz Sampson to which Luxembourg newspaper archive that's been searched. At some point in the future when they have been searched, and if nothing is found, then it's possible that this would become a delete - though that would be very unusual with so many international caps - especially in an era when there were a lot less international games. Looking at Luxembourg's history of games, he must have played in every senior international match during that 8-year period. I'm really stunned anyone would suggest deleting this very strong pass of WP:SPORT. Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is still nothing more than special pleading. We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have. You can't write a proper article without access to the sources, and merely assuming their existence doesn't allow you to write an article based on non-existent sources. This can be redirected for the time being, and if, at some point, somebody finds something with which to write a proper encyclopedic article, then, yes, it can be made into one. As has been said countless times, and despite people ignoring it, NSPORTS is not a criteria for inclusion; since, very clearly, and it says so, in the very first sentence, This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline,. While it is true that most footballers with international caps are likely to meet GNG, that is not a 100% guaranteed case, and so far, the whole of the keep argument has been entirely off-the-mark. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm usually to be found in the keep camp at footballer AfDs, but experience has shown that to successfully fend off the deletionists there needs to be some sort of actual coverage. Invariably they'll look to find fault with it and there'll be some back and forth about whether or not it's enough. But here there's nothing – so frankly the deletionists are right and they win this one. Best we can do here is make a dignified concession. Dogmatically insisting on a false version of WP:NFOOTBALL won't cut it now (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11#Pete_Vainowski). It's just insulting everyone's intelligence, although I accept that strategy has found success in the past. We could always bring the article back if there's ever any mileage in these unevidenced claims of hypothetical coverage. Until then we only have enough for one sentence in the son's article: His father Marcel was a [? - butcher/baker/candlestick-maker] and keen amateur footballer, who appeared for the Luxembourg national team in the days before the sport enjoyed mainstream popularity. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No personal offence is meant, but why would you start this obviously fraught AfD while we're in the middle of changing the rule?? You know it's going to be extremely contentious. With respect, it seems like you're just trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. Curbon7 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize that it was going to be controversial; it seemed to be a clear case of failing WP:GNG and thus WP:NSPORTS, a situation that has recently resulted in the article in question usually being deleted. I also didn't consider the nomination in that context, although you make a good point that it would have been a good idea to wait till that discussion was over and then nominate it.

However, we are here now, and your input, to keep or delete, would be welcomed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are now? You can always withdraw the nomination. Also, User:BilledMamma, where do you see in the guidelines that to pass NSPORTS you have to pass GNG. That would render all the SNGs irrelevant. Many times the guidance says needs to meet one or the other to be presumed notable. The project has been very clear about keeping players who aren't from the modern era, who would no doubt be notable if we had access to contemporary sources - and that includes any player with dozens of international matches! Also User:Curbon7 - change what rule? Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, the proposition to change/eliminate NSPORTS. It's been at the Village Pump for like 2 weeks. Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, since when User:Curbon7, did we do RFP's for notability at the Village Pump rather than at the relevant talk page, as directed by policy by the guidelines. Village Pump is supposed to be for new proposals and an incubator for other changes. Not the forum where we change existing policy. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I mean no personal offense, but I really don't care. I only minimally participated in that RfC, and want no more part in it. Additionally it's been listed at WP:CENT since the beginning. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's probably better to mention your concerns there than here. Curbon7 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed commented there. Such a poor idea, which would greatly increase the already problematic WP:BIAS against those not in the anglosphere. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz, passes WP:NFOOTY. WP:N makes it clear that notability is presumed if an article passes either GNG or an SNG. NemesisAT (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT Good thing the SNG in question explicitly says GNG must be met to merit a standalone article! That makes the "or" in WP:N completely irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring that WP:N overarches SPORT, NSPORT says that eventually sources must be found. There's every expectation that when material is available from this particular region, that sources will be found, given they have scores of international caps. As there is WP:NORUSH we can wait until such archives are digitized - or someone can visit the appropriate archives. Please don't exaggerate what NSPORT says, and make something that is shade of grey, black and white. Also N and NSPORT clearly allowed for discretion. I don't understand the need for debate here - it ignores that precedents have been long and clearly set. It's not like this is a borderline case! Also, I don't understand why you need to argue with each and every person, long after the outcome here is clear. Please follow WP:BATTLE and WP:WIN. Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - capped for his nation several times therefore clearly a prominent sports figure. If we had access to the necessary newspapers, I'm sure that we could build a lengthy and substantial article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Athletics at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Star Mississippi 03:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyene Legesse

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

Fails WP:GNG, as no WP:SIGCOV can be found or identified. Meets WP:NATH, so an AFD is required rather than a PROD. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this single reference microstub unless it can be expanded by referencing reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this athlete. If any such source is produced, I will gladly change my mind. Currently, this article is based on an Olympics database website that is closed down, calling verifiability into question. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though the original website (of the lone citation) was closed down in 2020, Wikipedia's own article on the company Sports Reference mentions the Olympics information was relaunched under a different domain name. I have updated the article with the current page for Beyene Legesse. Platonk (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if nothing can be found on this chap to Athletics at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect. We do not have enough information to show notability. If we follow the suggestion of redirecting all these non-notable Olympians, we will end up with some birth year categories being well over 10% redirects, maybe over 20% redirects. At present most birth years categories are well under 1% redirects. If the people are not notable we should just delete the articles. I can see exceptions when we have targets that actually say something about the person, but that is not really the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. There seem to be a few other Beyene Legesses out there but none are plausible as being the subjects of this article. I will point out that all 59 competitors in the 1956 Men's 100 metres have wikipedia articles, even runners who finished around the 12 second mark. The majority are stubs created by our colleague Lugnuts. Whatever consensus we reach may be relevant to these articles too. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fiachra10003: I'll try to boldly redirect the inappropriate ones once this AFD, and the ongoing NSPORTS RFC, is closed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Milinkovich

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

I set out trying to remove the information that is cited to wikipedia (!), other user-created content, and linkedin, but then all I had left was part of the lead and the last section, so I'm taking it here instead. He does pop up on cbc.ca and the Ottawa Citizen - for having beef with a landlord. Otherwise, what I came up with was press release-type stuff and passing mentions, so there's nothing really to rebuild this with. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced entirely to primary sources (content self-published by his own employers or other organizations he was directly affiliated with and a Q&A interview in which he's the interviewee and not the subject under discussion), which is not the kind of sourcing we need to see. We need reliable source coverage about his work in media, but there's none being shown here — and per nom, what comes up on Google is press releases, not notability-building media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I find are his social media (linkedIn, etc), his organization's pages, and bio's probably submitted by him for conferences he attended or spoke at. His organization does get some good coverage, like this, but that's not him. Lamona (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:Notability. One of many articles related to the Eclipse Foundation that is likely headed this way; at least this one doesn't seem to have any COI edits. Also, Lamona, that good coverage was actually a puff piece written by Milinkovich and another member of the Eclipse Foundation; technically a secondary source, but.... eh.Lkb335 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe White (Scottish footballer)

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

Article may scrape by WP:NFOOTY, but WP:GNG is failed comprehensively. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NFOOTBALL debatable, no evidence of GNG (which in any event is more important). Giant Snowman 10:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covereage is enough IMO, notwithstanding that this is a historical player where it's harder to find sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently two of the sources are on a fan website, and the third is Dundee United FC, which is not independent. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy White (footballer) is a possible redirect target; Joe is mentioned at that page in any case. Geschichte (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has 1 non-independent RS and 2 sources that are clearly not RS (database on a self-published fan site). If that is all anyone could find on this player in 13 years then he clearly fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and by a mile. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had a look in Pat Kelly's Dundee United Who's Who from 1998 and unusually he and his brother are grouped together as one entry - on p.180 - (with very limited info) which suggests a lack of notability regardless of the fact he made appearances in the Scottish top flight. It is noted that the two twins were identical and made at least one full appearance together in a league match for Dundee United (vs Aberdeen on 18 December 1971). Perhaps a redirect to Sandy White would be best as Joe can be covered there in basic detail. Dunarc (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, passing NFOOTY doesn't matter when it comes to AFD BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sandy White (footballer), his twin, which does mention him, as they played together at Dundee United (meeting NFOOTBALL), however his career was much more significant. Nfitz (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added to the reference to Joe at Sandy's article information from the source mentioned above. Dunarc (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL, as the Scottish top division was not anything like "fully professional" then (or until c. 1990). The more important matter is lack of WP:SIGCOV meaning it fails WP:GNG by some distance. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. If WP:SIGCOV does not exist, which it does not appear so, consensus exists at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES for someone who barely meets NFOOTY which results in delete. GauchoDude (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The topic is notable, meeting GNG (not unanimously) and NBOX (unanimously). However, by strength of argument, BLPSOURCES is not met, HEYMANN has not occurred, and therefore according to cited BLP "#Proposed deletion of biographies of living people" applies as an expired PROD. As the topic is demonstrably notable, it can and should be re-created with suitable reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Oliveira

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, some of them about other people with the same name. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and is currently unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from the WBU title fight he fought for two legimate version of the world title which means he will have been in the Top 10 of each body at that time which means he will have passed the criteria. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of editor want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree he meets WP:NBOX, but my search didn't find convincing evidence that he meets WP:GNG and the article has no references at all. Meeting an SNG creates a presumption, but not a guarantee, of notability. WP:NSPORT says "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." A similar discussion recently came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Dias (mixed martial artist) that resulted in the article about a fighter who met the SNG being deleted. I didn't vote yet in order to give those wanting to keep this article a chance to garner some sources. If I were to vote based on the current article's condition, I would vote to delete it. Papaursa (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there appears to be mountains of material about him if you google him.--Donniediamond (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source. Could you provide a couple of others in the "mountains of material about him" you say are out there. My search found the one you highlighted, but mainly lots of routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Coverage includes [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], and there's plenty more. For those editors stating that he 'fails GNG', where exactly did you look? --Michig (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of those (ESPN, TSS, WBN, Guardian, BBC, Manchester Eve News, Eurosport) are reports about fights or upcoming fights. While they include some background about the participants, it's not significant coverage of the individual. ... discospinster _talk 20:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. --Michig (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional "Keep otherwise Delete: While there are sources "out there", that I think can satisfy the notability criteria, this 2008 unsourced article wades deep into failing WP:BLP and would qualify for a lot of content removal leaving a pseudo biography. It was tagged as having no references or sources so does not satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES (also referred to as "WP:CHALLENGE" and "WP:BURDEN") that states: WP:Verifiability, states that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation}}, that is also reflected in the lead. The sources provided by {{noping|Michig]] indicate there is notability, to pass GNG and I imagine SPORTSPERSON. Being a BLP the issues above is generally satisfied by someone adding the provided references (as inline citations) that we call a HEYMANN. Some have argued that "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article" but BLP's are very clearly not included. If everyone is too busy I will justifiably wish this be counted as Delete. Also, multiple sources (added inline) that might not provide proof alone, can satisfy the sourcing requirements. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Jain

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

Only one significant role and one minor role along with some uncredited roles, lack of reliable sources , failing WP:NACTOR Pri2000 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. No multiple substantial roles to justify WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 21:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comment on failing GNG, limited coverage in one tabloid paper, and the fact that her co-star also doesn't have their own page. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, lack of sources.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Brown, M. (2008). "Comfort zone: Model or metaphor?" (pdf). Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education. 12 (1): 3–12.

[2] Kiknadze, N.C.; Leary, M.R. (2021). "Comfort zone orientation: Individual differences in the motivation to move beyond one's comfort zone" (pdf). Personality and Individual Differences. 181. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111024.

[3] Folmo, E.J.; Karterud, S.W.; Kongerslev, M.T.; Kvarstein, E.H.; Stänicke, E. (2019). "Battles of the comfort zone: modelling therapeutic strategy, alliance, and epistemic trust—a qualitative study of mentalization-based therapy for borderline personality disorder" (pdf). Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy. 49 (3): 141–151.

[4] Suppiah, H.; Govind, S.K.P. (2018). "Transforming Leadership Performance-Breaking Comfort-Zone Barriers" (pdf). Educational Leader (PEMIMPIN PENDIDIKAN). 6: 64–89.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]