Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 19	August 21 >

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. So many short meaningless and non policy based votes here from users who do not regularly come to AFD. Where have they come from? Regardless votes not engaging with policy are a corded less weight then those that do so the outcome is clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles held only by one person

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)

What is the point of this list? It's not a notable subject or even a proper topic, it's just an indiscriminate list of crap; see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Richard75 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep. social-media-driven deletion. no thanks. --Deansfa (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That comment doesn't address the issue though. Richard75 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As nominator the onus should be on @Richard75 to explain why it's indiscriminate or not notable; just saying so doesn't help other editors to understand your rationale (nor do words like "not...a proper topic" or "crap"). It doesn't fit into any of the categories listed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and this is a pretty tightly defined list. Nor does it meet, say WP:NOTDIRECTORY which might have been a more relevant choice but still weak sauce. Oblivy (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful encyclopedic content. $ɱ$ (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a great 'keep' reason Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NLIST: never considered as a group. Every life peer is a one-shot deal, and a lot of tinpot dictators gave themselves or were given grandiose titles, e.g. Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution, Eternal President. Many officials of short-lived states would qualify, e.g. President of the Confederate States of America. (Also delete Category:Titles held only by one person?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend you make a good point about WP:NLIST as there's no source talking about this group as a group (as an aside, I'd love to see List of Embalmed Political Figures on Public Display which would definitely pass NLIST). Maybe there's an article about these names - I gave it a quick look and couldn't find one but that's not conclusive. If that's the sticking point, then I suppose I'd go with WP:AIR.

You're 100% right that this list illustrates how leaders give themselves grandiose titles, or states/kingdoms last so briefly only one person gets the title. Aside from a few marginal cases, your slippery slope doesn't seem to have happened, though. Maybe the answer is a better definition of the category, to exclude things like life peer names and self-proclaimed kingdoms (should exclude Emperor Norton and potentially modern folks like Romana Didulo). I'd be OK with Jefferson Davis making the list. Oblivy (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Iggypoptarts 21 August 2023 - completely disagree that this article isn’t noteworthy. I believe it shows interesting parallels across various cultures and times and is a worthy jumping off point into a number of interesting figures and histories. The article has also sat untouched for many months and only received criticism when it was highlighted by the twitter account Depths of Wikipedia. Joyless and cynical to remove it without good reason — Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep: contains worthwhile and interesting information.---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a great 'keep' reason Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Clarityfiend. Fails WP:NLIST, never treated together as a group. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies here. Pilaz (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Last edit by Pilaz (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, this feels rife with WP:OR, but plainly fails WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it fits being on an encyclopedia. Opok2021 (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? Richard75 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The criterion for inclusion in this list (titles, ranks, "other official positions of authority that have only ever been held by one person") has not itself received coverage and thus fails NLIST. Determination of whether any given subject even meets this criterion seems to be arbitrary and at the discretion of individual editors rather than requiring sourced RS statements that explicitly note the title was a one-off. There also does not appear to be a consistent distinction between epithets, purely descriptive terms, popular nicknames, sundry self-assigned designations by authoritarians, and actual official titles. Nor is there any cohesion between the entries other than their holding "titles" of vastly differing importance, attestation, general recognition, legitimacy, and sourced acknowledgement of uniqueness. A similar 20-page list of nicknames of European royalty and nobility was deleted last year on OR and LISTN grounds. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NLIST; enough arguments have been provided above. Such a list hardly makes sense, and should be deleted. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NLIST and INDISCRIMINATE per above. No sources discuss the group of "titles that had one holder" as a group, for the obvious reason that this is a nonsensical set whose members have next to nothing to do with each other. AryKun (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete specifically as failing SELCRIT. We cannot say that a list's criteria are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" when, as JoelleJay points out, There also does not appear to be a consistent distinction between epithets, purely descriptive terms, popular nicknames, sundry self-assigned designations by authoritarians, and actual official titles. As an AtD, rename the list to List of offices held only by one person and purge the [bleep] like Emperor Norton and other self-aggrandisement (or in the case of Peron and Kim, posthumous-aggrandisement). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- This fails NLIST and INDISCRIMINATE as given above. The group has no coverage as a group (even if small subgroups do, these are groups such as "authoritarians who gave themselves honors" and not anyone who has been the sole holder of a title). The list here is so wide in scope as to include democratic offices which were abolished without a second holder, offices that do exist but still have their first holder, epithets made up by people who apply them to themselves ("Emperor Norton"), British peerages that were not inherited (there are thousands that could be added), etc. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iggypoptarts and Oblivy. Emphrase (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NLIST. I am in agreement with JoelleJay's articulation of the issues. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list criterion is not discussed in reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment Two points in support:

regarding NLIST, this tendency for powerful leaders give themselves has been noted as a group. The article doesn't cite any soures, but I did a quick search and here are two examples:

Michele Ferrero, The Latin Translations of Confucian Terminology on Government and Rule in a 16th Century Manuscript of Michele Ruggieri, S.J., in Empire and Politics In the Eastern and Western Civilizations Vol. 2(2002) pp.86-87 [1]
"In recent history we have had certain titles that have come to be associated with spe cific people, not with a specific role in an institution. Il Duce (Mussolini), der Führer (Hitler), The Great Helmsman or The Chairman (Mao), El líder máximo (Castro), Vozhd, ‘leader’ (Stalin), Maršal, Serbian for ‘general’ or ‘leader’ (Tito), El caudillo de España, ‘the Chieftain of Spain’ (Franco), Dear Leader (KimJong-il), Coronel (Gaddafi). From the outside it seems each one of these leaderssought out a unique way to be called by this own people."
Chicago Sun Times, A Military Parade Would Only Be to Honor Celebrate and Defend Trump (Feb. 2018)[2] ("military parades...are always about the man — “dear leader” or “der fuhrer” or “il duce,” etc.")

Ferrero has published more than once on this point, but I only included one citation.

there has been some limited discussion (credit @Clarityfiend and @JoelleJay) of why this list definition is unmanageably broad, but I suggest a reasonable approach to this issue would be not to delete the article but to split it into two sections - short, single monarch/leader regimes, and cult-of-personality dictator names (not the actual section titles, but the theme). Note that there's already an article on List of titles used by dictators which could be merged into the 2nd list.

Oblivy (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or we should just delete this list and keep the dictators list, which is the only topic to which the sources you found would apply anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid information list and most things listed have their own articles so a valid navigational list as well. Dream Focus 19:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and indiscriminate list. Nagol0929 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Sceats-Basil

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only sources I could find were a few passing mentions ala this, no SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee cultural citizenship

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

The page is entirely original research. Talk page consensus was there was no content justifying a merge or redirect. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and talk page. No way to source it because it's WP:OR. Someone's essay. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. As CorbieVreccan says, it is an essay of unclear purpose. - Donald Albury 13:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails GNG several ways (SIGCOV, obviously), and appears to hit NOR and NOTESSAY. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn’t a thing. The term does not appear in published literature and is completely original research / opinion. Yuchitown (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Delete - The stuff is purely WP:OR! The subject is hardly notable; content seems like an essay. Simply unencyclopedic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekdalian (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator has now requested the article be kept. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laszlo Birinyi

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

Article created likely as part of a WP:UPE campaign, see [[3]]

A BEFORE doesn't turn up anything of note. BrigadierG (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, and Hungary. BrigadierG (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as nom I'd copied his name wrong when doing my BEFORE, he's likely notable BrigadierG (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus Nova

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

Was looking to de-orphan this article and realized its had notability tags since 2016. I couldn't find any sigcov on a WP:BEFORE, and it's an American company so I probably didn't miss any sources in other languages. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a Wall Street Journal reference but appears to be more of a routine announcement of an investment. Everything else is business directory listings and brief mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP no independent sources with any depth. Skynxnex (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP also I believe fails WP:SIGCOV. Equine-man (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I leave Category:Dirty District albums for CfD, if necessary. Star Mississippi 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Gangsters from the Dirty District

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

No sufficient in-depth coverage: fails WP:GNG and is possibly original research. Band that made the album is also being nominated for deletion by another user. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (the band's other albums) for the same reasons above:

Sgubaldo (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirty_District NotAGenious (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Note that the band's article has now been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty District. If nobody was able to argue that the band is notable, it is unlikely that any evidence will be found to support the album articles. For each, I can only find the usual retail and directory sites, and even those are sparse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus here is to delete, Admins should also take action on the potentially empty Category:Dirty District albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Did not find significant coverage of the albums other than music databases like Discog.com. No written reviews of the albums from WP:RSMUSIC either. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Wax: The Surf Movie

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim in evidence here is that the film exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of third-party media coverage about the film to externally validate its significance -- but the sourcing consists of two directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, and one short blurb on a blog that doesn't represent enough coverage to vault this over GNG all by itself.
In fact, I strongly suspect that this was really meant as a WP:COATRACK for the soundtrack album, since the creator's edit history pertains much more strongly to music (including the band credited with the soundtrack's creation) than it does to film -- but albums aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist either, and still have to be shown to have GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them, but absolutely none of the sourcing here addresses any potential notability under WP:NMUSIC either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film, or its soundtrack album, from having to be the subject of quite a bit more media coverage and analysis than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found a few articles that may be enough to establish notability: [4][5] WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is a user-generated blogging platform, and thus doesn't count as GNG-building coverage per WP:MEDIUM, and the Forte link isn't taking me to an article about this film, but just to a blank page that keeps feeding me "recommended" other articles it wants me to read. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Forte link does dwell upon the film and is signed (John Foss). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only a COATRACK for the soundtrack, but it was certainly also made as an infomercial for the surfboard manufacturer's products, as most surf and ski films are. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources exist:

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for blogs, directory entries or glancing namechecks of its existence in lists, we're looking for analytical coverage about the film in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add. The film is repeatedly presented as a cult-classic of its genre. See:

etc. There are many other sources. This film seems clearly notable and I will leave it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

Comment But are there any sources outside of the surf industry? That's what's more important; we don't want circular references. Nate • (chatter) 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circular references is a valid concern, but sources being industry specific is not, only reliability matters for sources.★Trekker (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it hasn't been adequately established that the sources being shown here are reliable or WP:GNG-worthy at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sure, there is a source for the film's release and its spinoff. But what about the soundtrack? As of now, I don't see it. Also, because of Wikipedia's demand for sources, just having one clearly isn't enough. HarukaAmaranth (話) 02:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is the first in google search, then a surf website, then pinterest and amazon. There is nothing to be found for this film, making it non-notable. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NF; clearly not notable at all! Ekdalian (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Union for Reform Judaism#History. Using sources identified here. Weak consensus appears to be there isn't enough for a standalone Star Mississippi 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KESHER

AfDs for this article:

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

Propose deletion or merging into Union for Reform Judaism, the parent organization. Non-notable arm of a larger movement, has been defunct for 15 years, with no WP:SIGCOV that would justify a stand alone article. In the previous AfD discussion, editors suggested the existence of WP:RS that could enhance the article. I did a WP:BEFORE, finding none of import. Longhornsg (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Longhornsg (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhat selectively and without prejudice into Union for Reform Judaism#History. Kudos to nom for nominating (even though nominated 2 years ago – usually not a good idea, this time it was) and suggesting an ATD. This SPINOUT is yet another example of excessive fragmentation! Previous debate was as usual down the rabbit hole of notability. People forget that we also govern information through AfDs :-( gidonb (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to the merge-without-discussion based solely on the article's content making some claims of notability--didn't see the previous AFD at the time. Indeed it's (still) hard to find sources due to the name itself and its fading into the past. Found a few details:
- Had national conventions.[6] Not an independent source, but sufficient for the claim and demonstrates that the group at the time did at least some major things.
- Was the only formal Reform-centric outreach/project for the approximately-college-age demographic.[7] Independent ref that specifically makes that analysis (New Voices (magazine) is itself a notable publication), and the fact that this commentary focuses on it adds notability itself.

I'm torn, as it seems to have some but not major notability, and that is mostly as a project or sub-organization of URJ. Given that it morphed from "part of URJ" to "fore-runner of, or remnants absorbed by, Birthright Foundation" (each of those has own article), it's an intersection-topic. I tilt towards keeping such pages as stand-alone because it increases navigability and prevents it from gradually getting discarded altogether from the merge-target. So I see "barely keepable" on notability grounds and "somewhat useful to have" on editorial grounds. DMacks (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate is also down the rabbit hole of notability. gidonb (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge. If you oppose merging, then please offer what you think should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mody Kidon

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO: totally lacks any sources about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A previous AfD seemed to determine that there was enough WP:SIGCOV in Hebrew language outlets to keep this article. Did you check such outlets before nominating this article for deletion? @Clarityfiend Let'srun (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well, no, but:

It was a 2-1 lvote, and the Hebrew sources that one of the keep lvoters promised to add never materialized, and that was 10 years ago.
If he's so well known, there should be some English-language sources, and I wasn't able to find any. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My research did not convince me that Kidon passes the WP:GNG. As there is no good ATD target, I support Clarityfiend's motion to delete. If indeed deleted, please also remove the links to the article from his school and town. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Valley2city^‽ 04:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fitch Law Firm

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

Not finding anything which would lend to this subject meeting WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. None of the secondary sources actually mention the firm itself, rather they are quotes from the founder about some cases and issues. Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A law firm would fall under either GNG or WP:NCORP. My search for references found nothing that would meet either. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very obviously fails WP:CORP due to a lack of significant coverage. Steven Walling • talk 01:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decision House

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

Non-notable television series. Only passing coverage ViperSnake151 Talk 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 01:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage I could find beyond IMDb and a couple of tv guides was a single NYT article from 2007. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Also noting that I consider there to be sufficient participation to delete after 3 weeks; soft deletion doesn't need to come into play. There's two people arguing for deletion and no one has objected in that time frame. It's a weak consensus but it is sufficient for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq Nachaya

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2016. PROD removed with zero improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Previous PROD, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources found are limited to passing mentions. [8], [9], [10] DareshMohan (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2wenty

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 20:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any RS in a WP:BEFORE. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. All I'm finding in a BEFORE search are primary sources, user-submitted content, hyper-local coverage and the like, rather than SIGCOV in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as above. I am not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources, just blogs and the like. The best thing I found was this brief item from Wired but that is just a single, short source, far less than there has been for other articles that have been deleted. Elspea756 (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found nothing. Timur9008 (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Oyedemi

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

Disputed draftification. Puff piece for yet another entrepreneur. How rarely are they notable. Fails WP:BIO. WP:ROTM businessman doing business. I doubt there to be any point in sending back to draft 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable businessman Princess of Ara 16:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — entity does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm... another PR/PUFF article. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nom withdrawn, see article talk page discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poybo Media

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

Not notable, fails WP:NCORP. There's a source assessment on the talk page for the sources in the article; I'll put that here too for convenience.

Most of the sources cover the founder of this company rather than providing any in-depth coverage of the company itself; see also WP:ORGDEPTH. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table Plus

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence of this meeting NCORP. Note: I came by intending to close this as "soft delete", but the article has been deprodded previously and is thus ineligible. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Im really sorry but I am not an expert user and don't know what these terms mean. "soft delete" "deprodded". I dont understand what is ineligible. Please could you explain what the issue here is. Thank you. Martin Martinneame (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinneame: If you're a reader of this article, it's nothing you need worry about; it's procedural stuff. See WP:SOFTDELETE and WP:PROD. The article was proposed for deletion ("PRODed") in 2009; the tag was removed, which is part of that process; as such this discussion could not simply be closed with minimal participation, per WP:SOFTDELETE. Hope that makes sense. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Does that mean that this article is safe and will not be deleted? Martinneame (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vanamonde. Agree with his analysis and am in the same boat. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Im really sorry but I am not an expert user and don't know what these terms mean. "soft delete" "deprodded". I dont understand what is ineligible. Please could you explain what the issue here is. Thank you. Martin Martinneame (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Bodycombe

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Sources currently in the article are not independent. A WP:BEFORE search found this piece in the Guardian. Note that it's a blogpost and therefore insufficiently reliable to establish notability; see WP:RSPSS. Claims of his credits are insufficient to establish notability and unsourced; establishing notability requires verifiable evidence.

This is not relevant to notability, but we should be aware of it during the discussion: The Twitter/X account @lateralcast, which is ostensibly run by Bodycombe, has previously canvassed followers to prevent article deletion of a different article here. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was asking people to make the article better, so it wasn't deleted. He was not telling people to participate in the deletion discussion. History6042 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panju railway station

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

apparently located on the Panju Island
the station might have been constructed in the 1860s
The station was mentioned in a train graph published in a BB&CI Magazine dated Dec 1923, implying that the station was in service at least till the mid-1920s, however, there was no mention of the station in a 1937 timetable. The station seems to have been demolished since
If we can't even state a single definitive fact about this train station, it certainly should not have an article. Half of the article does not discuss its supposed subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both of the two cited sources are more focus on the overall rail line instead of this particular station. Found no significant coverage of the station, does mot seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK3 (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Jin

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

I propose that the article on Andrea Jin, a Canadian comedian, be deleted. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the [Notability guidelines for entertainers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers_and_broadcasters), specifically the criteria for comedians.

While Jin is a self proclaimed comedian, the article does not provide reliable secondary sources that discuss her in detail (literally only one paragraph), nor does it demonstrate that she has made significant, recognized contributions to the field of comedy. Only one secondary reference is in English. The only other primary link is to her website which is not considered independent, reliable sources according to Wikipedia's [guidelines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources).

From the information presented, it seems that this article may have been created primarily for promotional purposes rather than as an informative entry. Therefore, it may fall under Wikipedia's [guidelines on promotional content and advertising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion).

I encourage other editors to contribute to this discussion so we can reach a consensus on the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.231.121.150 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Entertainment, and Women. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite aside from the fact that you've done many, many things incorrectly here which have had to be corrected, including creating the discussion page in talk space, not formatting it correctly and not even linking to Wikipedia guidelines correctly, you're not even reading the guidelines correctly in the first place.
There's nothing "promotional" in the article's tone, for starters, and even more importantly the notability guidelines for comedians most certainly are met by having won a top-level award like the Juno Awards — the Junos are one of those top-level national awards that are in and of themselves an automatic notability clinch for the winners per "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", and that's not up for any debate. Could the article be better? Yeah, I'll grant that in its current form it isn't very long and could potentially be expanded with more information. But is it unacceptable in its existing state? Not at all. And furthermore, it does not matter whether references are in English or not — as long as references are reliable, we simply don't care what language they are or aren't written in at all.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that trying to nominate this for deletion was your first Wikipedia edit ever under this IP number, suggesting that you have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines, such as personal animus against Andrea Jin for reasons that are absolutely none of our concern. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO through the Juno Award and I would say Vulture and The Georgia Straight are WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Juno win is fine, it's the Canadian Emmy award. Also have an article in macleans.ca [11] Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's more like a Grammy than an Emmy, but it is indeed still a notable award. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have pointed out, a Juno win indicates notability, and the article is not promotional. The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Due to the subject winning a Juno Award. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. We generally hold that articles on fictional subjects require substantive coverage that is more than plot detail: as such I do not find the "keep" votes here very strong, and there is consensus to delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scorponok

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

Doubt this meets WP:GNG, not every Transformer deserves its own article, see WP:Pokémon test. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huon has mass nominated Transformers articles clearly without any BEFORE (based on the number of nominations and the fact that they nominated Arcee which just had an AFD in June).★Trekker (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment concur; a quick check of GNews on a couple of noms brings up some hits (admittedly not top quality) but that's Before 101. @Grandmaster Huon should not "doubt" that it meets the standard but should check first. It feels like lots of pages are getting nominated lately for being shit and in need of vast improvement, which isn't what AfDs are for. The subject is a magnet for fancruft and it doesn't help that there are hundreds of versions of many characters but again, not what AfDs are for. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I wanted to nominate Optimus Prime for that same reason, not because of notability, but rather quality, thank you for telling me how to properly improve article quality. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Wikipedia is meant to be the sum of all human knowledge and the english wikipedia article count is the largest of all wikipedias, but the vast majority of articles are mostly useless stubs, wikipedia should focus on quality, not quantity.
  
  Wikipedia is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia, but a lot of GAs are mostly nonessential stuff like TV shows, movies and video games that will only be useful to a minority of people, wikipedia should be focusing on getting all vital articles GA or higher. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Problem is they get called away from editing when people do crap like this. You're not exactly contributing edits about essential subjects yourself.
  
  More seriously, you do not get to dictate what people should and shouldn't do on Wikipedia beyond what is set out by the various guidelines in place for this sort of things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Quick Gnews hits:

- https://www.cbr.com/transformers-rise-of-the-beasts-scorponok-introduction-possibility/

- https://movieweb.com/beast-wars-every-predacon-ranked/

- https://www.ign.com/articles/hasbro-announces-galvatron-predacon-scorponok-and-the-autobot-ark-upcoming-transformers-war-for-cybertron-figures

- https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2018/11/scorponok-joins-transformers-forged-to-fight/

Suggests lack of Before and that there are sources that can be used to improve the article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But these sources are not enough to justify Scorpinok his own article, if you believe your case, then write a GA level alternate article for Scorpinok in your own sandbox. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, it doesn't work like that. But good try. It isn't a case of a GA level article or a redirect are the only options available.

Tell you what, you do a GA level article on Hookjaw and I'll do one on Scorpinok. Whoever the heck that is. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does Hookjaw pass GNG? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to ask you shouldn't be nominating. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

😳 Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CBR piece mentions him few times but I don't seeit going beyond a plot summary. Movieweb is a crappy listicle. IGN is a press release for a toy. flickeringmyth is... I am not even sure how to describe how bad this is, reads like a social media comment, fails SIGCOV and likely RS. Given no reception/analysis in the article, and if those are the best sources found, this is an easy delete or prefered, redirect (I like SOFTDELETE). Nothing here or in the article suggests this character meets GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION as there are multiple variants of the character mentioned in various media. Most of the comments here are disappointing WP:ADHOMINEM arguments, which aren't proper for AfD. Ignoring all the arguments to the person and focusing solely on the character themselves, the sources presented here as supposedly definitive evidence are extremely weak and insufficient to pass WP:GNG. CBR, in particular, writes about almost everything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the high road while putting words like "supposedly definitive evidence" in people's mouths is a bold move, certainly. I also love the way a source can be disregarded because it "writes about almost anything". What's the point in using Gnews as an option for sources if people turn around and say "but not those sources"? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet sources are widely known as content farms, it's telling that the main source for every Transformer article nominated for deletion is a CBR one. Content farms, by definition, have no editorial discretion and write about as many pieces of fictional content as possible from a popular franchise. Using them to prove notability goes against the entire concept that "sources will only write about something if they believe it is notable" because a lot of it is SEO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of CBR, isn't it frequently used as a source to begin with? It's still allowed on the site to my knowledge, and I've seen it used on Wikipedia articles before. While I've mostly been sticking out of properly voting in these Transformers discussions, the CBR article provided for Scorponok does have something to say about the character, so I'd say it's viable, in this instance. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using it as a source is different than using it as the basis for a standalone article. People generally agree content farms are accurately researched, just not indicative of anything special about the subject in particular, because their job is literally to write the most possible about X or Y franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean, that makes sense. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Scorponok has had many different roles in the Tranformers franchise such as the comics, American and Japanese cartoons, and live action movies and the sources listed above are good as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in your sentence above provides a rationale for keeping this. Are you saying WP:ITSINTERESTING, perhaps? Or WP:ITSIMPORTANT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good place to search for character sources is GBooks, but here I'm finding plot summaries with Scorponok's name included. There's not enough I've found to establish meeting GNG. There is a one-page database-y entry in this book, though. (It's also funny that the article references [two https://www.deviantart.com/transformers-mosaic/art/THE-STING-OF-SCORPONOK-93734755] photos.) SWinxy (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Claimed sources have been impeached and keep arguments otherwise don't make a policy based case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blaster (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:

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

Doubt this meets WP:GNG, not every Transformer deserves its own article, see WP:Pokémon test. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Quick Gnews hits:

- https://movieweb.com/transformers-autobots-that-dont-appear-in-the-movies/

- https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/turn-up-the-tunes-with-transformers-twincast-and-autobot-rewind/

- https://www.cbr.com/cybertronians-who-should-be-playable-in-transformers-reactivate/

- https://www.ign.com/articles/transformers-vintage-g1-autobot-blaster-now-available-for-preorder

Suggests lack of Before and that there are sources that can be used to improve the article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But these sources are not enough to justify Blaster his own article, if you believe your case, then write a GA level alternate article for Blaster in your own sandbox. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't command someone to write something you feel is lacking. If you feel it should be improved, then that lies on you exclusively. You can ask for help for things like brief reviews and copy editing and the like, but you can't force someone to write something. It's not the job of us at the AfDs to write these articles or improve them, only to decide on outcomes of what is kept and what stays. We can leave comments that ask for improvement, but it takes too much time for us to be editing every article that comes through here to a GA level standard. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

movieweb source is a poor quality listicle. bleedingcool entry is a review of a single toy. cbr is another weak listicle. IGN is not even a review but a short note about a preorder for another toy. If this is the best that was found - sorry, this is very bad. Given that the article itself has nothing better (no reception/analysis sections), GNG has not been estabilished by either the article or the discusion here, and so my vote is to redirect this to Autobot or a list of relevant charcter. Technically you can also consider my vote as one for delete but with preference for WP:SOFTDELETE. IF better sources are found, ping me and I'll review them. But, @BoomboxTestarossa, with all due respect, WP:GOOGLEHITS are not a good way to argue that something is notable. Please provide SIGCOV analysis of sources in the future, because I am sorry to say I have not been impressed by many links provided in those recent Transformer discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is zero notability here, and the previous two keep !votes either cite very trivial coverage or are nonsensical. He can be disambiguated as a DABMENTION on the Blaster page, that's about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education Station

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Program lacks notability beyond the regional level.TH1980 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article moved to User space‎. Editor bypassed this AFD process and moved this article in the midst of an AFD deletion discussion. It would be preferable, in the future, for page creators to come to an AFD and request this outcome but the deed's been done so I'm closing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 IFK Norrköping season/Matches

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

Contested PROD.

My rationale As far as I am aware, we don't split the matches from the season article unless there are issues with the article length for the parent article. Looking at 2023 IFK Norrköping season, I can't see how that would be the case. That article is way shorter than any of the season articles at WP:FA, such as 1994–95 Gillingham F.C. season, so I see no reason for this split. Also, the current content duplicates what is already in the parent article.

Contested with I am asking to keep this page because the acticle contains 30 games, and each game conatains multiple lines, therefore it is a headache to update a single match, while when it is outside the article, we may use subtitles and therefore subsections, which help find the right match easier. Thanks.

The fact that the season contains 30 games is not sufficient for a split imho. Every Premier League team plays 38 league games and several cup games a season and we never split the matches out. I have consulted WP:SIZESPLIT for guidance and, at 20KB, the article 2023 IFK Norrköping season does not meet criteria for a split based on size and I don't see any other valid reason. If consensus is that we do indeed need to split the matches into a separate article then I think that this will have repercussions for most if not all season articles moving forward. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe it is time to start splitting these articles. Mind for example 2022–23 UEFA Champions League where each Group was separated. It does make life so much easier to use separate page for template-base articles, especially when one needs to update half-season-back (April-August) on realtime. If there's a possibility to keep it that way, or maybe even make it the new Standard for a 2023 world, why not? Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 13:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on text like "This subpage is intended to make edits easier. After each match played, please update the following tags:", this seems to be some sort of weird sandbox thing (in article space) rather than a genuine attempt to split the article? As per the nom, I can see no rational reason to split the list of matches from a season out into a "subpage"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I would have no objection to the content being moved to, say, User:Anderssøn79/sandbox/2023 IFK Norrköping season or similar but just don't see the need for it in mainspace. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not persuaded that a split is necessary, nor that it is desirable. This article cannot be a list per se, nor can it be an article. I appreciate the creating editor's intentions, but we have no requirement for the implementation. I am further concerned that it is a "Mainspace Sandbox" with request to use templates that do not belong in articles. It has no references. It is a WP:POVFORK, and fails WP:MOS and WP:V. WP:N is only passed if part of the parent article on the team. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to userspace if the user wants it. We don't have separate articles for matches, not a valid WP:SPLIT. And this looks like a sandbox article (with how-to instructions), not an encyclopedic article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folk. I moved it to my Userspace. You may want to delete 2023 IFK Norrköping season/Matches (as now it is not used anymore). I moved the matches list back to its section inside 2023 IFK Norrköping season#Matches. Hope now it is better. Please notify me if there's anything else I should have done. Thanks. Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 10:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has now become a mess. Anderssøn79 has moved it to their sandbox, one of the possible putcomes of this discussion, and has removed the AfD notice, limiting potential discussion. Regardless of what takes plave in their sandbox I suggest:

That this be allowed to reach a conclusion and a formal closure regardless ofthe location of the user sandbox
That a non involved admin (in view of the mess I do not believe non admin closure to be appropriate) considers early closure, simply to seek to prevent any further mess. This might be an IAR closure.

I thinh the editor moved the aerticle in good faith being unaware of the conventions of AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs)

Disagree, it's perfectly fine for the user to move this to their userspace, and thus close the AFD. It's unnecessarily bureaucractic to demand that this AFD runs 7 days. There is a consensus for it not to be in article space, and it isn't anymore. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Timtrent @Spiderone @Joseph2302. I'm not sure what I did wrong, so I will let you do whatever needed and won't touch it until further notice. Please let me know whenever it's all done. Anderssøn79 🦔 (talk) 🦔 💛💙 10:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am happy with a procedural close - article is no longer in mainspace but I have no issue with it being in sandbox space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. ✗plicit 13:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kabyle Wikipedia

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

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Africa, Algeria, and Florida. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources. NotAGenious (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Common WP:ATD is a redirect to its section in List of Wikipedias (ex. WP:Articles for deletion/Cebuano Wikipedia). Curbon7 (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. No coverage independent of the Wikipedia, so fails GNG. AryKun (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AryKun Mach61 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Death

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. McNamara, Mary (2013-11-01). "Review: 'Time of Death' is a moving but too tidy look at dying persons". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.
  The review notes: "“Time of Death” is powerful stuff and difficult to watch. It’s also impossible not to admire the courage and generosity of all those who agreed to be filmed during such a time. The unifying effect of the stricken may offer the strongest proof of our essential humanity — watching a man apologize for his sins with his final breaths, we eagerly forgive just as we would be forgiven. Still, “Time of Death” is so determined to celebrate the power of a “good” death that it often tidies away the very things that makes bedside vigils so inspiring. The grimmer realities of the dying body are not dealt with — there isn’t an adult diaper in sight — and with the exception of Maria, no voice is raised except in song."
2. Stuever, Hank (2013-10-31). "Showtime's 'Time of Death': An Important and Honest Look at What Death Is Really Like". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.
  The review notes: "I watched all the episodes consecutively and came away exhausted, but I also came away with a sense of comfort that I still can’t quite describe. It was gratitude, in part, to the subjects and their families for letting the cameras in. “Time of Death” is vital and meaningful television; if you watch, I hope it gives you the same peace and understanding it gave me."
3. Ostrow, Joanne (2013-10-24). ""Time of Death" a Difficult Six-Part Documentary Series on Showtime". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.
  The review notes: "The tone is unobtrusive, although occasionally the voice of an interviewer is present, coaxing the subjects. Executive producers used small crews embedded with the subjects to track these stories, from doctors’ offices and hospitals to homes, all the way to deathbeds. The camera is discreet, cutting away at the very end, giving privacy when taste requires. The families involved are brave in ways not required of ordinary “reality TV” subjects. Even when they appear to be speaking for the camera, the situations are not manipulated. The impact is quite powerful."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Time of Death to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources Cunard found meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Songshan Airport (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER Lightoil (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Disambiguations, and Taiwan. Lightoil (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree the actual airport is the primary topic, and page views [12] are clearly consistent with this as well. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER; there is a clear primary topic per the pageviews and only one other topic makes the disambiguation page unnecessary. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Cripps, Baroness Parmoor

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

Well, this is embarrassing. 11 years ago I created this article and now I do not know what I was thinking. I can hardly find any information about the subject other than basic genealogical data such as whom she married and to whom she gave birth, so this falls under WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The title is also nonsensical, as noted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where to move an article?. In my defense, I was young, very young. Let's get this over with and never speak of it again, please :) Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as proposed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. There's this passing mention about her interests here, which is not SIGCOV. Not sure what the proper redirect target could be, given her numerous marriages and being initially born into a baronetage herself. Pilaz (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only mention I can find outside genealogy is that she was "A leading member of the Society of Friends she had been connected with peace movements in Britain and the Continent for nearly 50 years, and has been for some years president of the Women's International League." but nothing to flesh out anything encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect...she was of some note as Violet Duchess of Westminster if you search on that name but the article on her second husband (the 2nd Duke of Westminster) could be the best place to cover her.108.29.145.226 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A note of admiration to the nominator for not only admitting to a well-intentioned error from a long time ago, but also taking a very public step to correct it. This is wonderful to see. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I don't love the UPE aspect here, but as the argument for deletion rests on the history, rather than the present state of the article and the state of the sourcing, I don't see how another conclusion is possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Khan (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was written by a globally locked account from a large UPE spam sockfarm. No substantive edits by anyone else, so would be eligible for WP:G5, but it survived a previous AfD discussion (only just), with two of the keep !voters noting that it needs a rewrite. In situations like this I think it is better to delete the spam version per WP:TNT and let someone who is acting in good faith recreate the article if and when they want to. Pinging the folk who !voted in the last discussion: Worldiswide, Siroxo, Citadeol, DareshMohan, Aviram7, Ravensfire, Actualcpscm, and closing admin Liz. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. delete per WP:5P4, which this type of WP:UPE is against the spirit of.

(One minor note that doesn't affect this discussion, I have that setting turned on that strikes blocked en Wikipedia account names, but I guess it doesn't seem to cross out globally blocked accounts. Does anyone know if I can do anything about that?) —siro χ o 11:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I run the following script: User:GeneralNotability/mark-locked.js. Globally locked accounts appear as greyed out, rather than struck through (and if they are blocked and locked, they get greyed out and stuck through). Girth Summit _(blether) 12:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have made some changes, particularly to clean up the citations in the article and to remove puffery and improperly sourced content; does this address your TNT/spam concerns? If that's resolved, are there any additional reasons deletion would be necessary? Thanks for your time. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 11:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo @Girth Summit Thoughts? :) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome some clean-up of the article, but since the notability question seemed to be finely balanced in the last discussion I think it would be worth coming to a firm conclusion about that now that everyone is aware of the context. I'll say one thing: one trick that some UPE spammers like to pull is to write negatively slanted articles about people, and then blackmail them into paying them to get the article 'fixed'. I don't know if that is the case here, but I note that the largest section in the article is entitled '2021 Controversy' (improperly capitalised, naturally), in which he was arrested then cleared of all charges. Is that WP:DUE, I wonder? Was it put in there by spammers hoping to get payment to remove/rewrite it later? Is anyone else going to be watching the article to check? I'm just saying that low-notability BLPs written by spammers are a major attack vector. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Re. notability, I‘ll do a source assessment a bit later.

I wasn‘t aware of the UPE blackmail scam you describe. It is weird that the article omitted both Khan‘s innocence („cleared of all charges“) and the fact that the entire investigation may have been a set-up. Certainly concerning. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.harpersbazaar.in/celebrity/story/aryan-khan-working-with-my-father-is-never-challenging-he-makes-everyones-job-easier-on-set-565417-2023-04-29	? No RSN, RSPSS, NPPSG, etc. entry. Presumably reliable		? Unknown
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/aryan-khan-confirms-bollywood-debut-with-dad-shah-rukh-khan-s-production-101670339481223.html			✔ Yes
https://indianexpress.com/web-stories/bollywood/step-inside-shah-rukh-khan-and-gauri-khan-home-mannat/			✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65606608			✔ Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/shah-rukh-khans-fun-banter-with-aryan-khan-in-this-old-video-leaves-fans-in-awe-call-him-the-coolest-dad/articleshow/102036912.cms?from=mdr	WP:TOI	Describes video but probably not WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.news18.com/movies/shah-rukh-khans-son-aryan-khan-preps-to-film-an-important-scene-for-his-debut-show-stardom-watch-8401039.html	? Presumably reliable	~ Coverage of his project	? Unknown
https://www.indiatimes.com/entertainment/celebs/shah-rukh-khans-cutesy-throwback-video-with-young-aryan-khan-goes-viral-609867.html		Describes video but probably not WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.sentinelassam.com/web-stories/5-films-aryan-khan-has-worked-in-as-an-actor-258	Presumably reliable		✔ Yes
https://www.news18.com/entertainment/did-you-know-shah-rukh-khans-son-aryan-khan-made-his-debut-in-kabhi-khushi-kabhie-gham-7540123.html			✔ Yes
https://www.ottplay.com/news/20-years-of-kabhi-khushi-kabhie-gham-heres-what-the-child-artists-in-karan-johars-film-up-to-now/0d34ae2af447	?		✘ No
https://www.indiatimes.com/entertainment/celebs/aryan-khan-in-kabhi-khushi-kabhie-gham-608264.html			✔ Yes
https://scroll.in/reel/927295/shah-rukh-khan-and-son-aryan-to-voice-hindi-version-of-the-lion-king	[[13]]; probably not reliable enough for notability		✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/gauri-khan-can-t-stop-listening-to-aryan-khan-s-voice-as-simba-in-the-lion-king-1567269-2019-07-12	Presumably reliable	? A bit thin for SIGCOV	✘ No
https://in.mashable.com/entertainment/4123/aryan-khan-makes-his-film-debut-will-dub-alongside-dad-shah-rukh-khan-for-the-lion-king-remake	WP:MASHABLE		✔ Yes
https://www.missmalini.com/2018/05/29/kajol-will-be-the-voice-of-elastigirl-in-incredibles-2-hindi-and-we-cant-keep-calm	Personal blog (?)		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/bollywood-celebs-who-dubbed-for-animated-films/shah-rukh-khan-incredibles/photostory/64445372.cms	WP:TOI		✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/cbi-probe-agency-investigating-sameer-wankhede-summons-munmun-dhamecha-2408916-2023-07-19	Presumably reliable	Event coverage	✘ No
https://www.news18.com/india/drug-case-against-aryan-khan-a-set-up-ex-ncb-official-make-shocking-claims-about-sameer-wankhede-8368171.html		Event coverage	✘ No
https://newsable.asianetnews.com/entertainment/cbi-calls-munmun-dhamecha-in-aryan-khan-s-extortion-investigation-against-sameer-wankhede-vma-ry372e	Presumably reliable	Event coverage	✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/television/celebrity/story/ajaz-reveals-he-met-aryan-khan-in-jail-says-you-wouldnt-want-your-worst-enemy-there-2399405-2023-06-29			✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58788548		Event coverage	✘ No
https://mirchi.in/stories/celebrity/key-witness-in-aryan-khan-drugs-case-kiran-gosavi-roped-in-after-sameer-wankhedes-approval/101855568	? Unclear	Event coverage	✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/drugsoncruise-case-other-than-aryan-khan-who-all-have-got-bail-till-now-101635676470308.html		Event coverage	✘ No
https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/aryan-khan-lends-his-voice-as-simba-papa-shah-rukh-khan-is-mufasa-for-hindi-version-of-the-lion-king/articleshow/69837507.cms			✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comments: I just went through the sources in the article in order until 22, then picked a few others to evaluate here as well. I think this is sufficient for making my case for keeping, see below. Table by Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 13:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we disregard the coverage that's just of the event (the drug case), there's probably still enough here for WP:BASIC. WP:NACTOR is also met with the roles in Incredibles and The Lion King. Regarding WP:BLP1E, condition 1 is not met (reliable sources have covered Khan outside the event), and neither is condition 2 – Khan is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, so coverage of Khan in the context of the event contributes to notability. Remember that WP:BASIC allows us to combine non-SIGCOV coverage from multiple sources to establish notability, even though that may not even be necessary here. WP:BIO1E indicates that separate articles on both him and the event are probably appropriate, so I wouldn't oppose a split. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 13:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a deeper look later, but wanted to point out that the Lion King and Incredible roles are both dubbing. I question if that meets the NACTOR significant role criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it does, at least for such a widely-distributed dub (there are over half a billion native speakers of Hindi). If it doesn‘t, the NACTOR threshold may not be fulfilled, but per WP:BASIC: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below, and we have enough for BASIC. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dubbing, given how community consensus has explicitly moved various forms of acting/entertainment into the the NACTOR criteria over the years, I believe voice acting for the purposes of dubbing should fall in to that bucket, absent a clear consensus in the other direction.

As for significant, specifically, I think that needs to be a case-by-case thing. Various forms of acting themselves come in so many flavors, I think us as editors picking and choosing which types of acting/entertainment can be considered significant would be a violation of NPOV. As such, as with every other form of acting/entertaining, we need to examine the specific performances to determine whether they are significant. (And in this case Actualcpscm) has probably made the case here better than I did in the previous AfD)

All that said, for this specific AfD discussion I am sympathetic to Girth Summit's concerns, but I guess I am making it clear I support re-creation of this article by a good faith editor once those concerns are addressed. —siro χ o 19:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo I'm a little confused by this; why does the article need to be deleted and recreated for cleanup purposes? I think those concerns have been addressed here, and if not, what remains to be done? Thanks :) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, I am not up-to-date on the modern scams targeting subjects of Wikipedia articles. Nor am I familiar enough with the specific subject at this time to evaluate WP:DUE for this article. As such, I am deferring to the editor concerned about the specific issues, as to me they sound like legitimate concerns. I apologize if this is not a satisfying answer, but I hope it explains where I'm coming from. —siro χ o 19:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! Further input would be appreciated @Girth Summit :) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the community is satisfied that notability has been established, and that the article has been cleaned up and uses reliable sources, then no it doesn't need to be deleted and recreated (although some early versions may warrant revdeletion for the BLP concerns). The 'write a bad article then blackmail the subject' scam is, unfortunately, fairly common. If the page is kept, it would be good if some participants were to watchlist it in case the spammers return to it. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to keep an eye on it. The revisions affected by the BLP concerns are here, I think applying RevDel to them is reasonable given the circumstances. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source table. Many good sources, some not so much. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does the voice dubbing artist meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR ?. If not, then it should be redirect till the lead role is played. Worldiswide (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source table and good assessment by the editor. Citadeol(talk) 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for his acting, the drug case, and, if nothing else, for being a nepo baby. He's in the tabloids at least once a week, so I can't imagine there being a dearth of coverage for GNG. AryKun (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antimetal

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the provided sources are a WSJ article about AI in cloud services more generally and only briefly mentions Antimetal, and a TechCrunch article (RSP entry) that reads like a lightly edited press release. Searching online, I was able to find blogs and churnalism coverage, but nothing significant; nothing on Google Scholar or Books; I searched for terms like "Antimetal" tech, "Antimetal" AI, "Antimetal" company to avoid the many results about "antimetal" in other contexts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom; article also feels slightly self-promotional. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find RSs besides the WSJ and TechCrunch ones. SWinxy (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG/NCORP and only serves as promotional at this stage, TOOSOON. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much notable coverage. Salsakesh (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Rainbow S.p.A.#Television series. Clear consensus against a standalone article, no rebuttal to a redirect specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy e Oscar

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

No indication of being notable. Previously deleted per prod and undelete with the mess left on mainspace. Previous message is still valid. Appears to fail WP:NTV, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to establish notability which is has been tagged for since 2020 scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a cartoon series of 52 episodes that aired nationally (edit: internationally actually) one would think that this should be notable, but since yesterday I've been trying really hard to find some actual sources on this, and couldn't. Information in the article is unverifiable.—Alalch E. 11:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there are some tv-guide sources like [14] and [15] —Alalch E. 11:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the series is noteworthy as the first cartoon of Rainbow S.p.A. which subsequently created the mega popular Winx franchise —Alalch E. 11:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here are 4 refs behind a paywall; I can only see summaries:[16]

Corriere della Sera (via the Wikipedia Library) has something at [17] but I can't get it to load.

One of the article's refs[18] is from Film.it. which redirects to La Stampa. Film.it is also connected to Il Secolo XIX

Another Italian ref:[19] it.wikipedia uses La Folla del XXI Secolo as a ref for several articles; we don't. Article is comprehensive and bylined. Editorial oversight uncertain. Independent, not churnalism.

There's more to check at the Google.it search for Italian-only URLs: [20]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a search on search on several Italian sites, but it was a mixed back of mostly profile and short descriptions. Nothing of depth. There is 52 episodes on it, so there should writeups, reviews that sort of thing, but I couldn't see much. It seems to be all listing sites. scope_creep^Talk 22:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen all of those articles I think while searching for sources after the article was restored. La Folla del XXI Secolo doesn't have editorial oversight. —Alalch E. 22:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The programmme was created at the turn of the century. If there is anything, it will mentioned in Google Books, perhaps a review of the work, if it has lasting impact. scope_creep^Talk 07:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rainbow S.p.A. § Television series as an inevitable last resort. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 FIFA Women's World Cup seeding

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

We don't need a separate article for how the seeding worked. This is covered adequately in 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup#Draw, and there is no need for a separate article. Just delete this, or redirect to 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup#Draw if people think this is a plausible search term (I don't personally think it is a sensible search term). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Australia, and New Zealand. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be a valid WP:SPLIT but at the moment is needlessly duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just showing information which is covered by the main article and not too big there. Kante4 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the main article already covers this sufficiently Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup#Draw. The article just duplicates information already found in 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information is not significantly different from what is provided 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup#Draw. Demt1298 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Klein (Survivor contestant)

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

Notable for winning only Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X. He also finished 12th in Survivor: Winners at War, but I doubt that makes him also notable. Furthermore, he hosted only one local TV program and no other. I've yet to see his notability outside Survivor. WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does. Moreover, appearing at least twice on Survivor doesn't make the person notable. George Ho (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and California. George Ho (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: it should be redirected to Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with everything George Ho says... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheeseistalking99 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as George says. GNG not met Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I also agree with George. It is not very notable. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have a target for redirecting the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment - @Shadow345110, Belichickoverbrady, and Thecheeseistalking99: How about Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X as the page's redirect target? That's what I'm going for primarily (or by default if no objections). --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good as it seems like that's more relevant than the entire list if he was the winner. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Shadow345110 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Adeku

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

Article about an Artists that does not meet WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. The sources cited are not enough to to satisfy WP:N and are merely passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a number of publications that discussed the artist beyond passing mentions. Please see this^[1] and this ^[2]though it is an interview, I read that if the introductory paragraphs before the interview excerpt is up to two paragraphs the source can be used in an article. This^[3] also count and many others that have not been cited here. Capoof (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A Tale of Shared Values Between a Father and His Son… - THISDAYLIVE". www.thisdaylive.com.
^ Saint, Ekpali. "FROM PLASTIC WASTE TO A WORK OF ART". Fairplanet. Retrieved 21 July 2023.
^ Mirror, The African (30 November 2022). "Gallery: Three visual artists in Nigeria are turning trash into impressive valuable artworks". The African Mirror.

Delete - WP:BEFORE shows most of the coverage is quasi-promotional, back-patting for upcycling. The subject fails WP:ARTIST. Not in any collections or noteworthy exhibitions. WP:TOOSOON --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this young emerging artist. Maybe in a few years after there is more coverage, but at this time there is not enough to pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Changi Airport MRT station. If people prefer a different target, they can change it boldly. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changi Airport Terminal 5 MRT station

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

The MRT station in question has not yet been exactly been confirmed by authorities and mostly on speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. The google search to Changi Airport Terminal 5 MRT station mainly brings up the Land Transport Guru pages, which is a user-based transport blog and should not be confused with the Land Transport Authority, which has issued no official confirmation of the station. Henceforth I propose deleting this article until the station has been officially confirmed by the LTA. ZKang123 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
looks crystal to me. either delete per nom or redirect to Changi Airport as a possible search term. – robertsky (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was initially thinking redirect to preserve page history given there had been no action since 2019, however, I now see tenders for tunnels to this station were awarded this year and so it would seem this project is proceeding. Garuda3 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but they do not include mention of the station itself. Neither the alignment of tunnels. So it's really a lot of speculation.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps the article should be re-written to clarify that the details aren't set in stone yet. However, I think the concept of a Terminal 5 MRT station has attracted significant attention and so passes notability guidelines, and it would be good to preserve the history as this content would likely be included in any Termainl 5 station article anyway Garuda3 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concede there are actually plans for a station to serve T5, but it's pretty much conjecture for everything at the moment, including the name. The content could be shifted to TEL or CRL under future plans to extend to Terminal 5.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true that none of the plans including many of its details are not set in stone. There has been considerable proof of the existence of the station and it's name. The name can be a tentative one and can edited to include that.Such as in the Land transport master plan 2040. This should not be a part of the TEL or CRL as part of extention as it is basically confirmed to be it's own station. If stations such as sungei kadut have a page I see why not this cannot have its own page. More disclaimers can simply be added to indicate to readers that these are not 100% confirmed. GE Raiden (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern, but it is completely conjectured unlike Sungei Kadut MRT station. And if you disagree, might as well delete it. Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus the name isn’t confirmed. Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Changi Airport#Ground Transportation. An obvious case of WP:CRYSTAL! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, I was intending to make an AfD nomination, but you r/BeatMeToIt. Plus, WP:CRYSTAL. Best to redirect to Cross Island MRT line or Thomson-East Coast MRT line of not deleted. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)<[reply]
Delete or Redirect: WP:CRYSTALBALL as contracts do not indicate name of station, etc. Can be a plain redirect to TEL or information merged into future development of TEL. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Changi Airport MRT station: WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL Lightoil (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON & WP:CRYSTAL. No opinions on the specific target article. Alternatively, merge to Changi Airport#Ground Transportation. S5A-0043^Talk 02:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Bit early, but if I would've come across this earlier, I would've closed as snow keep. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube headquarters shooting

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

A minor incident with one fatality (the shooter). WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT don't appear to be met - coverage is limited to the few days following the incident, which wouldn't even get any coverage if it happened at a less famous company. I recommend redirecting to History of YouTube where this is already mentioned. Perhaps merge a few sentences, as this incident is covered there in just one sentence. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PERSISTENCE and thus WP:EVENT, with coverage over several years after the event, as an academic case study. Non-exhaustive search:
1. Hundreds of words of of SIGCOV in 2023 paper in Journal of Criminal Psychology by Emerald Group Publishing [21]
2. ~130 words in 2022, Feminist Studies [22] that references the next item
3. Seems to be a few pages of SIGCOV in 2020 book Politics of Rightful Killing Civil Society, Gender, and Sexuality in Weblogistan By Sima Shakhsari, Duke University Press [23]
4. Brief but nontrivial mention in a 2022 journal article in CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, Purdue University Press [24]
5. Short coverage in 2023 El Mañana (Nuevo Laredo), Spanish language newspaper [25]

—siro χ o 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. Normally an event like this wouldn't be notable (and we could really benefit from cleaning this area up), but it seems that because the perpetrator was a woman, it's become a WP:CASESTUDY (that shortcut was just created today and it's already useful). Of course, if there were a proposal to merge this into a larger topic, I wouldn't object. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. Killuminator (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. Hypotheticals aren't really strong arguments: if JFK was just an unknown guy when he was shot, his death wouldn't get the same kind of coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the event's notoriety goes beyond number of victims and targeted company, as shown above. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. This is very obviously not just a routine event covered in local news, as reflected in the sources mentioned. Steven Walling • talk 01:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK1 (withdrawn), no other deletes. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KAGI

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

No references Greatder (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't evaluated them, but there are some refs in the section labeled "External links". You can also tag such articles with {{no footnotes}}. —siro χ o 10:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jefferson Public Radio. This station is just a rebroadcaster of that network and originates no programming. Flip Format (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jefferson Public Radio for now. Granted, I do think this would be an {{R with possibilities}}; I'd think that a station that has been around since ~1940, and (as far as I can find) has only been part of a public radio network since 1991, should potentially have more sourceable content and potential notability (which is not temporary, of course). As it stands, though, this is another one of those stubs written in 2011 (replacing a preexisting redirect to Jefferson Public Radio) when our (over)presumption of notability in this topic area was still so overly broad that we were creating stubs on seemingly every transmitter of the public radio networks, even if they have never had any separate on-air content (and that was largely curtailed even before GNG enforcement was stepped up in 2021). If this were created as-is today, it would probably be redirected within days or even hours, without the need for AfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pivoting to at least a weak keep; if nothing else, the entire rationale for the nomination (which was the lack of references) appears to have been rectified with Sammi Brie's rewrite/expansion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did a full rewrite. The main problem is newspaper availability. It may say something that I don't have a radio DYK from the Medford market—though this would qualify. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent recovery! I would definitely vote Keep now! Greatder (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Sammi Brie (talk · contribs · count) for the additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi Brie's excellent WP:HEY —siro χ o 00:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Striking my Redirect !vote. Flip Format (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbet

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

Clearly fails WP:NSINGER. Not notable. A BLP with no references at all. The external links are a self published web page and IMDb which is user generated. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Germany, and Turkey. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets WP:NSINGER #2 several times over, having had songs chart in three countries. Here's[26] an article about him in a magazine run by Deutsche Welle and another[27] in the same magazine. There's an article in Der Spiegel [28]. Additional sources, including links to the charts justifying the WP:Singer pass are available on German Wikipedia. Jahaza (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SINGER#C2 with no shortage of verifiability as Jahaza has shown above. And thanks to Jahaza for first steps in improving article. —siro χ o 10:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in German reliable sources identified in this discussion and the fact that he has charting singles in three countries so passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep partially due to the lack of a valid and strong deletion rationale. You have to present an argument for why Deletion is the correct resolution for an article with problems instead of regular editing choices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffjumper

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been languishing in the notability issue for three months now, let's bring it to the chopping block. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: setting aside outright fan sites there is some spammy stuff on notable sites at least:

-https://screenrant.com/new-transformers-why-no-bumblebee-cliffjumper/

-https://www.cbr.com/transformers-cliffjumper-redemption-image-skybound/

-https://wikiofnerds.com/dwayne-johnsons-character-killed-in-transformers-rock-rejects-lead-role-later/

-https://comicbook.com/anime/news/netflix-transformers-war-for-cybertron-cliff-jumper-clip/

etc.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That could be turned into content for list of transformers characters#cliffjumper, so the Cliffjumper page can be turned into a redirect. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's every chance there are even more sources out there (I haven't done a full check, but then I didn't nominate if for AfD without doing Before); what's your rush? With other noms and your apparent confession that you don't actually know what AfDs are *for* it's not adding up to a good look. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with what Boombox is getting at here. You're new to AfDs, and thus I can forgive making mistakes. (I mean, I was the guy who nominated like sixty in a day once) But really, there is no rush. These articles have existed for years on Wikipedia, and typically if they've been lying around for that long, then you can wait a bit to perform a BEFORE in advance.

In the future, when nominating articles, perform a BEFORE. A BEFORE basically means looking for sources prior to deletion. Are there sources in News articles about the subject? Are there sources in books or scholarly sources? If you can find enough sources that say something about the subject to justify a separate article, then it doesn't need an AfD and you can use those sources to further improve the article. Try to avoid trivial mentions, as those typically don't have much to say about the subject in question. Look for sources that really say something about them.

If an article needs reworking or a cleanup, I'd suggest trying your hand at it, or suggesting improvements on the article talk page. I'm a bit more unfamiliar with this kind of thing, so I can't really suggest more than that, but the motto when it comes to Wikipedia is improvement before deletion. Try your best to patch up the article before nominating it. If you really can't find anything at all, then the article likely can't be improved and should be nominated. I say likely because some exceptions exist, but that's a rabbit hole I feel will confuse more than anything else.

But yeah, TLDR, search for sources beforehand, and try to improve an article before nominating. Just a scroll here should show that we do delete articles that genuinely aren't able to meet the article criteria, but it shouldn't be used as a way to request improvement. Establish if an article meets the criteria, and then work from there. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources seem ok-ihs, the other two I'd call unreliable or just too poor (SIGCOV failing). The character may be notable, but this really could use a WP:TNT treatment, the article has no reception section and ton of plot summary/mechandise info WP:FANCRUFT. I vote for 'weak redirect to the list of characters, with no prejudice to this being rewritten from scratch. But let's face it, 95% of the current content in the article needs to be deleted (blanked). Keeping this as it is is sending a bad messeage to the readers - that this is encyclopedic, or that Wikipedia is no better than fandom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [29] is a good example of reliable SIGCOV already referenced in the article. Comics Bulletin from that era should be reliable as well. Not as sure on MTV Movies Blog but likely reliable. I think this meets WP:GNG based on sources in the article, and there's certainly more out there as BoomboxTestarossa has pointed out. —siro χ o 02:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't we should treat this type of collector's catalogue entry as useful for the purpose of estabilshing notability. "this unparalleled guide presents every character in robot and alternate modes with accessories". I don't think that listing of merchandise for collectors is a type of souce we want to rely on. This way lies the argument that we should have a separate article for each collectible item (baseball card, Magic the Gathering card, gum wrapper, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, like most of these Transformers topics have coverage of varying overlapping depths as toys, collectibles, characters in comic books, characters in TV shows, characters in movies, characters in video games, etc. I don't think the same can be said for most collectables.

If there's a gum wrapper that has this level of coverage, such that we can write an article on it, then we should do it: The first paragraph of WP:N suggests Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics.

I agree that this does desperately need cleanup. But I do feel like we as editors need some better approaches to cleanup. The dichotomy of letting it sit vs redirecting as TNT is not healthy for the development of articles in this state.

Getting out of scope for the AfD but, maybe we need to embrace a role of "tag percolation" of some sort. I'll point you at two edits on Mandelbrot Set. At one point I removed "more citations needed" with an explanation: [30], then another editor took me up on that offer and interspersed the cn tags throughout [31]. I feel like doing this process for other issues (including ones of ALLPLOT and FANCRUFT) could help the collaborative editing process. —siro χ o 01:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there definitely needs to be some sort of middle ground between broad tagging and AfD. Taking the time to actually break down the issues with a page in a way they're evident to passing would-be editors rather than going to AfD when no real intermediate work has been done is something that needs work, it might attract more editors with knowledge of the area that way. Inline tagging of OR/CN, removal of unsuitable material line by line and constructive feedback on talk pages all need to be used more. Some people just edit Wikipedia and don't follow AfDs, after all. There also needs to be more aftercare for any merges or redirects. Is List of Transformers a viable article in itself or are we just kicking the can down the road? Does it have a section on Jazz/Sideswipe/Cliffjumper/Blaster or is that just going to be a hole? How does the list handle that there are multiple versions of these characters as best as I can tell, which are sometimes quite different to each other (e.g. when I was a kid Scorponok was a big chap who was in charge of the Deceptions but in the films he's a drone-type minion).

I think most of us have gone through a phase of finding Twinkle and tagging/prodding stuff like it's a computer game. I know I did. But you have to back the driveby stuff up with some work. There are far, far too many redirects on Wikipedia to pages that tell you nothing about the redirect, and from what I've seen here the past few months this "vote and do nothing constructive afterwards" attitude in AfDs is a major factor in that. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was a prominent member of the Autobots in the cartoon as he was an equal to Autobot Bumblebee being seen as much in the series, which is saying a lot. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathering Jarquín

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Attempted to look for sources for this player, didn't see any references for this player which means that it does fail WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bittersweet Bundle of Misery

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

It seems to fail WP:MUSIC. A Google search confirms the chart position mentioned, but other than that, it seemingly lacks significant coverage. Losipov (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Losipov (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONG and peaking at 22 on the UK national chart. Note that searching proquest this song is noted in quite literally dozens of independent RS. There is enough factual / critical coverage out there to build up a start class article or better over time. Keeping in mind we don't need coverage to the level of GNG when meeting an SNG, we have, for example [32] His voice on tracks like Bittersweet Bundle Of Misery has a slightly out of tune, but intentional, quality about it., [33] 'No Good Time' and 'Bittersweet Bundle of Misery' also contradict the received opinion that Damon was the tunesmith in Blur and Graham was the obscurantist., or [34]The recent single Bittersweet Bundle of Misery resembles The Archies' Sugar Sugar as much as Blur's Coffee and TV, So NSONG holds up well in this case. —siro χ o 06:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo I don't quite follow your argument here. NSONG makes clear that the chart criterion does not on its own establish notability. The sources you refer to, as well as everything else I could find, through proquest and elsewhere, is passing mentions. The song is frequently mentioned as an example or illustration of the musician's abilities, but I haven't found any analysis of the song itself. I don't think we should Keep based on the shaky grounds of NSONG, and I'm not seeing any sources that meet WP:GNG. We also aren't looking at other SNG criteria, so I do think we need GNG-level coverage. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this one may meet GNG, as I didn't do an exhaustive search, I don't think NSONG actually requires GNG-level, or the SNG wouldn't need to exist at all. Note that this subject does not fall afoul of the exclusionary criteria If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, as I saw coverage unrelated to the album, or articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. I am confident we can write a start-class or longer article on this song. Since it doesn't meet either of the exclusionary criteria, and meets other guidelines, I am satisfied the SNG is met. —siro χ o 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in these sources, the song is never the subject of the article/review/etc: The coverage required by NSONG is non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment. Even in the best examples, the song is mentioned and perhaps used as an example of a quality of the singer's voice, but that's it. This is not substantive detail treatment, even by the lower standards of NSONG. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NSONG makes clear that chart listing is not enough on its own to establish notability, and none of the other sources provide any analysis of the song. We have plenty of mentions, but no analysis of the song out of which to establish notability and build an article. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over how WP:NSONG is to be interpreted with regard to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we still need to hear from additional editors on varying interpretations of the relevance to WP:NSONG in the context of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this itnis a great song. Do not be a spoilsport :( 84.67.12.174 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel and Esk College

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

There are no references and the college no longer exists after merging with two other colleges over 10 years ago to former Edinburgh College.

I don't believe it meets WP:GNG

I see Two Options, Deletion or Merge with Edinburgh college 1keyhole (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a notification at Talk:Edinburgh College. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Note the former name for the same institution "Jewel and Esk Valley College". This is one of those community schools with hundreds upon hundreds of news articles over many years, most short. (Search proquest, for example, for the phrase "Jewel and esk valley college").
- 800+ words of SIGCOV in Management Services Journal which is a trade magazine with relatively standard practices [35]
- MSP visit, 187 words [36]
- 600+ words about shuttering a small campus [37]
- A bit of history in this obit [38], about 120 words.
- Some coverage in Nursing Times, paywalled [39]. Not sure how deep this coverage is.
- This list is not close to being exhaustive, as, again, there are hundreds of articles in total.

Given that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and sigcov exists across several years, deletion would not be the best outcome here. A merge might be ok at some point, but Edinburgh College is not in the best of states at the moment either, so I don't necessarily recommend rushing it as part of an AFD. Long term this would slide nicely into a History of Edinburgh College article. —siro χ o 06:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of words spent on a subject is irrelevant towards notability. It is the depth of the coverage that counts. The Banner talk 12:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, The number of words, while an imperfect measure, provides some "depth perception". While six words is not likely to provide sufficient depth, 600 very likely does. Many thanks to Siroxo for providing this useful information. — Jacona (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disappoint you in this matter. The Banner talk 09:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, Indeed. — Jacona (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but lots of words spent on insignificant issues does not help notability but a limited text about a significant issue can do so. The Banner talk 18:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

visits by Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament to schools, colleges, and universities are quite common, and such visits do not necessarily augment the significance of these institutions. 1keyhole (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet the requirements per Siroxo, however no strong opinions between keeping it and merging into Edinburgh College or making a History of Edinburgh College article. Those references need to be added to the article by someone though. - Indefensible (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like more evaluation of the sources found and, hopefully, the decent ones added to the article. I'm reluctant to close as Keep a completely unsourced article. Also consider the nominator's suggestion of a Merge to Edinburgh College.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references and improved the article, the article looks good now! Tails Wx (they/them) 06:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Edinburgh College. Half of the present article is about the campus (i.e. the buildings) and not about the institute. On the other hand Edinburgh College is missing a history section and info about it predecessors. The Banner talk 19:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Sources have been found (non-admin closure) Lightoil (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eden (Korean musician)

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

Non Notable producer. Sources are mostly unreliable per WP:KO/RS#UR or primary sources. Could not find more sources in WP:BEFORE search in Korean and English. Lightoil (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. Lightoil (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question. Is this subject actually one of the main producers for both Ateez? If so, they would probably meet WP:PRODUCER. However the editor that created this article added that information to those articles, so I am not sure if it's over-represented. —siro χ o 03:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: He is the main producer for Ateez but I could not find any sources about him if you could I will withdraw this nomination. Lightoil (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Being the producer for such a group is a strong signal, but if there's no reliable verification then it will be tough. For an SNG like WP:PRODUCER, we don't need the full WP:GNG, just enough reliable coverage to verify. —siro χ o 05:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, A quick search on Naver returns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which should be sufficient as reliable secondary sources. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavan's Lloyds Vidya Niketan

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

Not notable enough for an article, only source I could find making a passing mention to this school is from Hitavada [40],fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Comment. Fixed malformed nomination with nested span with subst:afd2 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Fundamental disagreement over the quality of sources and whether or not they are sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shaw (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

It's not as abysmally sourced as the article previously deleted at AfD, but the underlying notability issue has not changed since the last AfD a few years ago. Nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, online coverage of the subject is trivial or else not independent. In principle could be redirected to Martin Shaw as {{r from child}}, but there's almost no information about Joe Shaw at that page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails Wikipedia:Notability. Only one acceptable source exists (if another is found I'll reconsider). Here's a source assessment table:

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Joe Shaw Online	This is a primary source.	? Unclear. Probably reliable?		✘ No
Digiguide.tv	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	?	Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Amazon	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.		Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.		Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
OpenDMB	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	?	Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Gov.uk	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.		Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	?	Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
MyLondon	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	A generally credible news outlet	Just a passing mention.	✘ No
The Mirror (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dad%27s+fame+spoiled+my+childhood+but+being+an+actor+was+all+I+ever...-a062135390)	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	A generally credible news outlet	An entire article.	✔ Yes
Brain Sharper	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	? Clickbait website with unclear journalistic standards.	No. Just a brief mention alongside the rest of the cast.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it took a lot of effort. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
- Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with Rhodes, Bad Girls and Murder Investigation Team.
- Seems to also meet WP:BASIC. Looking through proquest there are several different articles, including NYT[41], Chicago Tribune[42], etc [43] that have a few sentences of SIGCOV around his work in Rhodes along with his background. Additionally there is another Daily Mirror article from a different author, several years apart year that is an in-depth interview, but interspersed with independent assertions of facts about the subject [44]. Beyond that there's lots of varying coverage of subject's acting in various performances to sufficiently meet WP:BASIC.

—siro χ o 03:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to access the additional articles at the moment due to a paywall, but I'm concerned by the extent to which the Daily Mirror's coverage holding up the article, as it's of dubious reliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. WP:BASIC may not be met at least based on the sources we have so far. Borderline. I think NACTOR holds as verifiable. —siro χ o 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP:BASIC must be met. WP:NACTOR cannot be used as a signifier of notability when WP:BASIC is not met. WP:Notability says, referring to addition criteria such as NACTOR, People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Thus, Joe Shaw being an actor in a few shows makes it likely that he might have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. But until those sources can be found, we can't justify this article. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IAmHuitzilopochtli claims BASIC must be met. This is simply not true and is not a policy based argument. See the multitude of BLPs that get by by having a job as seen in afds that invoke wp:prof. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Duffbeerforme, in most cases meeting additional criteria suffices. If there were literally no sources available online or off for someone who met one of the additional criteria for the SNG, that would be a strong case for not including an article about a subject. However, there are clearly a plethora of sources here; we can use the additional criteria as intended, rather than spending hours building up a case for BASIC. —siro χ o 15:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above Salted and then canned meat product (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above table shows, WP:GNG has not been met --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC with two main roles, and has had main roles in films. The sourcing issue is a problem with retired actor BLP's

2A00:23EE:2869:12E0:F2:9CDF:8D26:241C (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. No response after the first relisting but I hope more editors will be returning to work on Wikipedia at the end of August and provide some source review this week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR with two significant roles and further sourcing has been added since this was listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:18F0:D42:2CF5:82E5:A6F6:A920 (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes BASIC and NACTOR. Sourcing could be improved but Shaw seems notable. – Meena • 20:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets NACTOR + WP:BASIC. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Control(human, data, sound)

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

Non-notable new media performance art piece. Most coverage is primary, and secondary source coverage does not appear to be WP:Sustained. The most significant recognition appears to be as a finalist for the 2015 CREATE festival - it's not even clear whether the work ended up being presented there or not. StereoFolic (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. StereoFolic (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable art performance. A BEFORE search reveals only social media, download sites and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. The article on the artist Bob van Luijt may also need to be looked at for notability. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and far too promotional. Look at the selection of links used as sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janaki Ram

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

Non notable author. Has a written a book on illustrious grand uncle V. K. Krishna Menon. She does not seem to have achieved any notability for it - the only reference on the page is a Page 3 news on an auction and searching does not provide anything better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Has written 3 books, all of which have received 0 ratings on Goodreads - [45]. Created by an editor with a probable WP:COI who has been editing articles on her family and her uncle. Jupitus Smart 02:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, India, Kerala, and United States of America. Jupitus Smart 02:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found online beyond the single book review referenced in the article, fails WP:GNG. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Female. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Female sex

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

The page does not disambiguate terms which readers may be confused by per our WP:D guideline. I see that it was redirected in 2018, and an IP editor changed it from a redirect on 8-19-23. Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely all that needs to be done is to undo the IP's recent edit, so it goes back to a redirect? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Female: Restore redirect as unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. Lightoil (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Female: Restore previous redirect, terms are not ambiguous.Demt1298 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Female per above logic. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if consensus is to redirect Female sex to Female, should the same be done with Male sex (where there is also currently a disambiguation page) and Male? A smart kitten (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back the Sun

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. Clearly WP:SELFPROMOTION of a local cover band by an undeclared WP:COI. PROD notice removed by article's creator without addressing issues. Dan arndt (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. Dan arndt (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article's creator has a significant undeclared conflict of interest, in that they have previously stated they are a "Member of Take Back the Sun, a Rock band located in southern Wisconsin." (see [46]). Dan arndt (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps just too soon, but I'm not seeing more than a handful of local references. We need more sources and sources for a wider geographic region. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Delgadillo

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

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant. Despite the wrath of sources, there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV here. ~~Article was originally created by an SPI who only ever edited the article for this subject.~~ Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability requirements for beauty pageant contestants. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are these "notability requirements for beauty pageant contenstants", and where are they recorded? Actualcpscm (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun As far as I can tell, User:Wikifamous has not been subject to an SPI investigation; what do you mean by this? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Thought I saw they had. Will strike that. Let'srun (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Won multiple pageants pre-internet era and more coverage exists.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2007-2011 is pre-internet era? And where is this coverage?Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage other than the Miss International win, nothing notable career-wise found. No hits in Gnews, Gsearch goes straight to social media for various individuals, likely not all for this person. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is more coverage that is not apparent in the article, please provide it in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree Elttaruuu (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Molly McGrann

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

Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG (WP:AUTHOR). Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites (her author website, her Spotify, etc). The article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, England, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: possibly notable:
- Selected by the BBC Radio 4 as a read-aloud audio program. Reader: Susan Jameson
- Book reviews:
  - Blackman, Janie (14 May 2015). "Review: Ladies of the House by Molly McGrann". Oxford Mail. Retrieved 30 July 2023.
  - Donaldson, Brian. "Molly McGrann". list.co.uk. short review of Exurbia: The List. Retrieved 30 July 2023.
  - Cook, Elinor (12 February 2007). "The kids in America". New Statesman. review of Exurbia. p. 61. Retrieved 30 July 2023.
  - Hibbert, Katharine. "FICTION-Exurbia-Molly McGrann." The Times Literary Supplement 5423 (2007): 19.
  - Barber, Laura (9 July 2004). "Skating on acid". Times Literary Supplement. review of 360-Flip. p. 21. Retrieved 30 July 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
- I found no substantially in-depth coverage in reliable sources about Ms. McGrann herself.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to A. B. for finding these book reviews. This gets the topic halfway to meeting WP:NAUTHOR #3, so are there any sources that shows Ms McGrann has "created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this[47] article in Bookseller, Exurbia was also reviewed in the Daily Telegraph on 17/3/2007. --Jahaza (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 paragraph Guardian review of 360-flip[48]
- One paragraph review of The Ladies of the House in the Sydney Morning Herald[49]
- Brief (very odd) article here[50] in Ham&High
- another book club feature in The Daily Mail[51].--Jahaza (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems very likely that Exurbia (book) and 360 Flip (book) meet WP:NBOOK. Seems possible that The Ladies of the House (book) does, too. But, despite being reasonably well-reviewed, I don't quite see any significance being attached to them by the reviewers or otherwise. —siro χ o 10:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR: multiple reviews of multiple books. pburka (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the book reviews are fine. Perhaps not as big an author as a Steven King, but we have more for sourcing that some "authors" we see at AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews from A. B. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's stil not apparent to me that a few book reviews justify keeping the article of their author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator here. There's nothing approaching reliable sources which directly details any aspect of her life except for her few writings, which may or may not be notable themselves. Spin contains a single bare mention of her name and profession, the Skidmore class paper clearly does not meet independence, MOJO (radioheadperu.com) is not an RS, Masthead is her bio page at her employer of the time. The rest of the presented sources are reviews. Note: none of the material asserted in her "biography" section is properly cited and could be deleted by any wikipedian as violating BLP. We owe living subjects better coverage than merely a list of writings. BusterD (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy though, it's completely fine for the notability of an article about an author to rest entirely on reviews of their work. Meanwhile, some of those reviews, e.g. [52] do include biographical information and could support that section of the article. Jahaza (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this meets WP:AUTHOR, if not as robustly as some. Otherwise, as an alternative to deletion, if not kept independently, it looks like Exurbia is independently notable and could be its own article and as very much a third choice, it could redirect to Colin Greenwood, where she's mentioned. --Jahaza (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Expanding on my keep reasoning above: WP:AUTHOR says a writer is notable if "The person has created...[a] well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Clearly McGrann's work has been the primary subject of independent reviews, and I believe it's apparent that her works or collective body of work are well known, as her books have been reviewed in widely circulated general interest periodicals such as The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald. Additional reviews can also be found in The Daily Telegraph:
- Leith, William (17 July 2004). "Suburb of Lost Souls". Daily Telegraph. p. 10.
- Leith, William (17 March 2007). "Clouds Break Through the Sun". Daily Telegraph. p. 27.
pburka (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do I understand the keep arguments correctly? We may base notability for a living person entirely on reviews for their work? I assert the collective body of work is neither well-known, nor has the subject produced a single well-known work. There are reviews, I'll concede. But there is not one single presented or found reliable source which directly details the subject of this living person. What shall we say about this subject? A list of works. That's all we may cite. Disagree with me. BusterD (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at any of the reviews, because some, like the Oxford Mail one contain a significant amount of material about her background. Jahaza (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, before my first comment on such AfDs, I check sources then perform my own reasonable BEFORE. By my reading, there is nothing in the (tabloid) Oxford Mail review that wouldn't be found on the inside of one of her books' jackets. I disagree with keep asserters' assessment of significant coverage. Most of what I'm seeing, even in reviews, is bare mention of the author. Zero which engages her body of work at all. Routine coverage of individual writings, but nothing which approaches our GNG standard of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject sufficiently to keep and maintain an article about a living person on Wikipedia. As a subject, she doesn't seem to meet ANYBIO or CREATIVE. I can't presume such sourcing exists. Without such sourcing, this biography as written is an original work and as such, synthesis. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's in line with our notability guidelines. We have lots of articles about people without needing to know biographical minutae. The encyclopedia is improved by the inclusion of articles about athletes, even if we know only about their athletic accomplishments; articles about politicians, even if we know only about their exercise of power; and articles about writers and artists, even if know only about their art. We could give these articles more precise names, I guess (Works of Molly McGrann, Athletic career of Fernanda Ribeiro, Medals of James Brady), but it's simpler to treat them as simple biographies. pburka (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler to whom? Certainly not simpler to the subject of a Wikipedia article which poorly or inaccurately represents that person. Certainly not simpler to the administrator who must close such AfDs. This is exactly why BLP policies were created. We must weigh our contributions against a possible harm. I hold that at least one source must be presented or shown to exist which meets the significant coverage direct detailing criteria. We have none. BusterD (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, as in concise. But if you agree that Works of Molly McGrann is a notable topic, then we're just quibbling over the title at this point. pburka (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quibbling in any way. You are clearly misreading my assertion. I have stated I do not find ANY discussion of her body of work, just a few disconnected reviews of individual works. I do NOT hold her body of work is notable. I do NOT hold a single work is notable. I find this is a subject which lacks reliable sources sufficient for a BLP ("works of..." would still fall under BLP policy). Based on presented and found sources, this is a minor figure without any direct detailing by RS. It's a clear delete. I can't find any reason to keep, and the arguments presented thus far are unpersuasive (and don't include RS supporting). BusterD (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's your position that not even her books are notable? In that case there's no persuading you, but I expect the closing admin will see that your position is contradicted by several SNGs and years of precedent at AfD that authors of two or more notable books are usually notable. pburka (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April Perry

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

Subject is not yet notable as a nominee to a political position. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we going through an AfD if all that has to happen is draftifying? Vote to Draftify since there's apparently a new standard now Snickers2686 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been opposition to the draftify option on other Biden nominees (not this specific nominee), so an AfD is what we have to do. Let'srun (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition in what sense? Can you cite it to me? Just want to check out the reasoning. Snickers2686 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify and salt‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miraheze

AfDs for this article:

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

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}}.

Deleted in 2021: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraheze. The sources are slightly better now as content is no longer entirely sourced to Miraheze sites, but the subject still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. The Website Planet blog post is not independent from the site (as required under WP:WEBCRIT), as it's based on the statements of the founder. Other references are mostly about individual wikis, to which WP:INHERITWEB applies. My WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything more. —Alalch E. 11:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 11:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved out of draft space as an act of vandalism and not by a user who has shown previous interest in the article. It needs to be returned to draft space, not deleted. Rob Kam (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. Drafting and AfC pior to publication, in principle, are optional. Editors can move drafts to article space unilaterally. Editors who do this don't need to have been contributors to the draft. You don't WP:OWN the draft as someone who worked on it. When the article is deleted, you can ask for a WP:REFUND. Alternatively you may !vote to draftify.—Alalch E. 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of RS. I can't find anything beyond mentions of the thing. Appears to make a yearly appearance, only to get deleted, based on past deletion discussions. See you in 2024. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep borderline notable, could be improved, but borderline notable IMO Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Wikipedia itself has this listed in its recomended alternate wiki companies/farms. It is Well writen and well referenced, it does meet WP:GNG & WP:ORG. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Return to draft namespace per WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:POTENTIAL. Start a deletion request for the draft if there is anything wrong with the article as-is in the draft namespace, per relevant draft policies. –Vipz (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the unilateral move: it's useful to not keep to the "letter of the law" of policies sometimes and apply common sense. The vandal who moved the article from Draft: to mainspace was clearly doing random things they found they could do with the article before receiving a block. If not WP:VANDALISM judged on its own merit, it is at least very WP:DISRUPTIVE. –Vipz (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to draftspace if necessary. I would certainly cut down on the amount of primary sources, but the website seems to meet our SIGCOV guidelines based on what is provided. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify Moved out of draft before ready, by a vandalism only account. Rob Kam (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak delete - just not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:NCORP. The thing is, search results are full of noise, so if someone could provide the three best sources I'd be happy to take a look. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that notability is borderline and could use more sources (if they even exist). However, I think the sourcing that does exist meets the minimum for notability. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miraheze exists as a website and is growing in userage and thus notability. TheDarkEnigma2 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) — TheDarkEnigma2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep While I admit that the sources on the article aren't the best, the article's issues aren't strong enough to warrant outright deletion, maybe a move back to draftspace at the most. Tali64^2 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Sorry, I just don't see it. Sources: 1-5 are all primary, 6 is not significant coverage of Miraheze itself as opposed to one specific wiki that it hosts (although this source comes closest), 7 is primary, 8 is a passing mention, 9 is an interview with the co-founder and interviews aren't normally considered notability-establishing, 10 is primary, 11 is another interview with the (other) co-founder, 12-14 are primary, 15 has the same problems as 6, 16 is a passing mention, 17 is both a passing mention and (in the context it's being used) a primary source, 18 is a primary source.
So what we have here is sources that talk about individual wikis that are hosted by Miraheze, but not the required in-depth coverage of the wiki host itself. Note that I occasionally contribute to the site, but found out about this when browsing Wikipedia unrelated to my contributions there.
Also suggest salting, so we don't end up here again without the article going through a third-party review by someone other than a locked long-term abuser. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support draftifying the article and salting the mainspace title so repeated unilateral page moves are avoided. I completely agree with the above assessment on sources. However, I also believe a proper procedure needs to take place, as expressed in my previous vote. –Vipz (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Salt I don't think that in its current state the sourcing is strong enough to prove notability but it's fairly decent attempt at an article if a few independent articles on Miraheze itself (not its Wikis) could be found. The move looks to be at least disruptive to me and given this is the 3rd time we are here. A salt should be added so it forces independent review. I do not dispute any characterisation of the Miraheze community as young and sometimes passionate about topics that is likely to mean we end up here again if salt is not applied. ~ RhinosF1 _(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 15:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in as a Miraheze webmaster^{read: bureaucrat} of two years' tenure myself (at a time when that wiki farm's future remains uncertain after a slew of events during June and July--long story). Since WP:WEB shortcomings for this topic are still in place--and much of what needs to be known about that host can be found on its own home sites--all that's viable from here is either:
1. a weak redirect to Comparison of wiki farms here (but as far as the rest of Wikimedia is concerned, cf. mw:Miraheze), or
2. in the very off-chance that WP:Library's databases provide some coverage a couple of years from now, a weak draftify at WP:AFC.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This got lost in the process so manually relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "A Tale of Shared Values Between a Father and His Son… - THISDAYLIVE". www.thisdaylive.com.

[2] Saint, Ekpali. "FROM PLASTIC WASTE TO A WORK OF ART". Fairplanet. Retrieved 21 July 2023.

[3] Mirror, The African (30 November 2022). "Gallery: Three visual artists in Nigeria are turning trash into impressive valuable artworks". The African Mirror.

[1]

[2]

[3]