Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 06 January 08 >

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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Somali Sports Federation

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

Nowhere near significant coverage to meet N:ORG. Creator will not accept draft space, so we're here. Star Mississippi 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. While they arguably may not satisfy WP:NORG (in terms of WP:AUD), User:Jweiss11 has provided sources that show enough notability to meet WP:GNG; I said I'd withdraw the nomination for WP:BLAR if that was provided, and it has been. Since nobody else has commented anything other than a "Keep" rationale, I am withdrawing this. (non-admin closure) Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Guardians

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

Per WP:BLAR, the article is being brought here since it should be redirected to XFL (2020)#Teams. The article was copy-pasted from a draft to bypass the AfC process, but it is not ready for mainspace because the article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG (WP:NTEAM directs us to WP:GNG; there is no presumed notability for the team simply having played games). Source assessment tables have been provided at Talk:Orlando Guardians#Notability concern; of the 11 sources in the article and the 20 provided on the talk page, only 1 constitutes significant coverage in an independent third-party source, the rest is trivial or non-independent routine coverage. Notability must be demonstrated, and the sources in the article show plenty of notability for the XFL as a whole, but none for this team specifically. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing that would demonstrate notability. ESPN for example only has trivial coverage and press releases. There's some routine local coverage but per WP:AUD is not sufficient. It may be an issue of WP:TOOSOON but it's certainly not ready for a standalone article at this time. Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and quite frankly not even worth discussing, as the original poster has made several blatant false claims about the sources. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example? You've written a significant amount of the article so I can see why you'd want to keep it (discounting a blocked sockpuppet you are its primary author), but you can't say "several blatant false claims" without at least an example. - Aoidh (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources just added here and here are yet more examples of the trivial sources that can be found, but they are about former players and only make passing mentions of the team; per WP:NTEAM coverage of a (former) player doesn't contribute to notability of the team. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The most glaring is the Middletown Press article, which discusses the 2020 Guardians' season in depth, far beyond what would be considered routine. I have also added a second source discussing the New York Guardians' quarterback situation from well outside the NYC metro area, a newspaper in Harrisburg. That is two reliable, independent, non-routine sources, which meets the GNG threshold. Several of the other sources cited are from independent newspapers, going beyond what I (and probably most Wikipedia editors) would consider "routine." "Routine" coverage is birth announcements, obituaries, individual entries on a scoreboard—items far more trivial than the coverage that the Orlando Sentinel and New York Post articles have provided. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're not referring to this interview with and about the coach since interviews aren't independent, so would you mind linking what article you're referring to? As I said above the quarterback article is about a player and makes only a passing mention of the team, that's not significant coverage. I'm interested in what Middletown Press article you're referring to, but this is in no way significant coverage of the (at the time) New York Guardians. - Aoidh (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there it is. That's the blatant falsehood I'm talking about. Your standard for establishing something beyond routine/trivial is beyond what could realistically be achieved for any entity. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There what is? Is this your significant coverage? Information about some players and a passing mention that one had a touchdown to give the Guardians a 14-6 lead over the Los Angeles Wildcats entering halftime is significant coverage of the team? That is in no way significant coverage and I was worried I shouldn't have nominated this for deletion but if even the article's authors can't come up with better than this, it's very clearly not notable. - Aoidh (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion, this is a clearly notable topic. The team's already played a season of professional football in the XFL (2020), is going to be playing a second next month, and has received plenty of coverage. In addition to all the sources on the talk (and I disagree with some of those "assessments"), other sources I've found include: [1] [2] (a listing of Guardians articles) [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc etc. XFL teams are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline says that The team's already played a season of professional football in the XFL (2020) is something that makes it notable? Throwing another huge list at the wall to see what sticks only highlights the lack of notability of the subject. This is about a game and has only trivial information about the team. Rather than breaking down why each of those is insufficient (yet again) I'll ask again, what are the WP:THREE best sources? I certainly hope that isn't one of them. We don't need more "etc etc" and quantity we need quality in the sources. XFL teams are notable per what? - Aoidh (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"XFL teams are notable" – per what? – per having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, what are the WP:THREE sources for that? Where is this WP:SIGCOV? Out of the now 40+ sources that have been thrown together there's 1 that meets that definition. I'm only asking for two sources to meet the bare minimum of what is required of Wikipedia articles, I don't think that's unreasonable. Other than this, what are the two best sources for this article? I will happily speedy close this discussion if the bare minimum can be shown here, that's all I'm asking for. There's no doubt that there's a lot of WP:TRIVIAL sources, but quantity of sources is not an indicator of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're engaging in pooh-poohing. Watch it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of "dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration" is not only inaccurate since I very clearly gone to great lengths to examine and consider the points made, but that accusation is also serious projecting. I'm asking for sources, not for comments like that. Let's focus on the content. - Aoidh (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable subject with an abundance of significant converage in independent sources as demonstrated in article and by J. Myrle Fuller and BeanieFan1 1here. This is frankly a silly nomination highlighted by the absurd argument that an independent news coverage magically becomes not independent if it includes quotes from interviews with people related to the subject. Nomination should be withdrawn. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said, I said quotes in the article aren't independent, not that it invalidates the entire source as non-independent. But when the only relevant part of the source is quotes from the coach of the team, there's no independent coverage within that quote; it's from the team itself. Given that the list of sources is made up of things like this I have to ask, which sources exactly are providing the significant coverage? I have no problem withdrawing this nomination but when asked for examples, there's nothing but vague assertions of notability and lists of trivial mentions. If this nom is so "silly" why is this presented as significant coverage? That is silly. If it's so clearly notable it should be a simple thing to show where the coverage is rather than trying to bury it in a mountain of trivial mentions. - Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)s[reply]
Aoidh, the Guardians are mentioned outside of the Gilbride's quotes in The Middletown Press article. But even if they weren't, for the purposes of establishing notability, if a reliable source chooses to interview Kevin Gilbride about the the Guardians, and then publishes Gilbride's quotes about the Guardians, that demonstrates that the notability of the subject, even if Gilbride's comments contain falsehoods. You're wasting everyone's time arguing against this rolling snowball. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping with such "clear" notability someone could provide significant coverage, but unfortunately that has not materialized. I will not be withdrawing this AfD because the sources purported to show notability do nothing of the sort. Interviews like that do not contribute to notability. The issue isn't "falsehoods" it's independence from the subject. The mentions of the team in this source outside of the quotes are trivial, it's a passing mention in the beginning of a game they played in, and a passing mention that "players were finishing their after-practice meetings" something so basic and routine you can't do anything with. As for the snowball, a couple of the article's creators asserting notability isn't a snowball, especially when the keep arguments are inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Notability must be shown, and throwing everything one can Google at the wall to see what sticks does not show notability. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for WP:THREE but there's not even two. It wasn't my intention to respond to every comment but misrepresenting what I said needed to be addressed. I'm still happy to withdraw this nomination if the very basic standard of WP:GNG can be demonstrated, but what's been discussed so far falls short of even that, and stuffing as many links as one can into a discussion does not change that. The links do show notability for the XFL, and this is a reasonable target to redirect this page to until notability can be established at some point, but this article isn't there yet. Again, I'm more than happy to withdraw this if the bare minimum can be shown, but a lone interview isn't it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about these sources: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002894/the-orlando-sentinel/ and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002927/the-courier-news/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116003192/the-journal-news/? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I nominated this in good faith because I was specifically asked to bring this to AfD for discussion, and that I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. ALso, thank you very much for looking for those sources. Let me look over them after I attend to my kids for a minute. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11: thanks. I wish it didn't take the fourth editor in a deletion discussion to find sources like that (I'm including myself, I looked) but I'm true to my word; I asked for the bare minimum to meet WP:GNG and that surpasses what I asked for. Closing now. - Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 8 January 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! 03:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permak

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

Cites do not show it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:34, 7 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven City Diner

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

Advertisement for non-notable restaurant. The NPR source is just an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I excluded sources from Chicago (Tribune, etc), in an attempt to show notability. Manny's Deli, which is notable, has many Chicago area sources and yet hasn't been nominated for deletion. If I add these sources I excluded, would that help make the notability case (sticking to top local publications). Eleven City Diner and Kaufman's (as well as Steingolds - but I didn't add an article for that one) have had a number of references in articles from publications from outside the Chicago area, and/or intended for a national audience.
I acknowledge that these other delis are not as notable as Mannys. But I attempt to make the case that they pass the notability test.
For example, if these articles are deleted, why is Kenny & Zuke's Delicatessen still not deleted. It has articles of similar quality and they are more of a local area nature than what I used here.
I have no connection to these businesses other than I live in the same city / metro area. Sblument (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added additional content and sources Sblument (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sblument: No reason to not include Chicagoland sources, of course having non-local sources can help show notability but local sources can often provide more detailed information. Skynxnex (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given the added sources and the continued coverage in sources, incl the Chicago area not included yet such as:
"Diner elevates usual soup-and-sandwich. By: Bianchi, Laura, Crain's Chicago Business, 01496956, 6/12/2006, Vol. 29, Issue 24": Open just a few months, Eleven City Diner already feels like an old-timer in the South Loop. ebsco.
How to Throw a Perfect Summer Picnic Never before have so many restaurants offered food to go. Here, a guide to what to pick up and what to pack it in, plus two easy recipes for dining al fresco. By Marian Bull PRINT EDITIONHow to; Putting On a Perfect Summer Picnic|July 25, 2021, Page ST3 (NYT)
A significant (more than ten paragraphs) feature in "Rewriting the rules. By: JENNINGS, LISA, Nation's Restaurant News, 00280518, 10/6/2014, Vol. 48, Issue 19" ebsco
Skynxnex (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added all these references plus a few more Sblument (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new sources added passes GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. Restaurants are a difficult topic because there's an entire industry build up around reviewing restaurants, from "influencers" to travel books, TV and Michelin stars which begs the question, how do we evaluate notability of restaurants. There is the section WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS at NCORP which provides some pointers such as discounting brief and routine reviews (including Zagat), etc, but it still falls short of resolving many of the issues surrounding restaurant notability in general. There were a few attempts in the past (e,g, WP:REST) to write guidelines specifically for restaurants but none were adopted. So we're left with NCORP and we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability so we need at least two deep or significant sources 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. Here's my take on the sources against NCORP guidelines:
    • Nation's Restaurant News article is based on an interview with the owner so all the information has been provided by the owner/company. This fails ORGIND as there's no "Independent Content"
    • The Chicago Tribune is a mere two sentence mention about the deli in The Loop opening. It fails CORPDEPTH.
    • Chicago Business article is a run-of-the-mill review consisting of 9 sentences briefly describing the decor and the food. It is not significant and contains no in-depth information about the restaurant. Fails CORPDEPTH
    • The Jewish Times article is a mere single instance mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH
    • The Nosher article is also a single sentence mention with not in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • This in a magazine from the University of Washington is also a mere single sentence mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH
    • There's a bunch of sources from eater.com - this is a puff piece written before the restaurant opened a location in LA and relies entirely on information provided by the owner/company and the journalist did not add sufficient "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. This next one is a "hidden history of root beer floats in Chicago" which includes profiles of restaurants that continue to sell beer floats. The topic company has a paragraph but again, all the information is provided by the owner/company, fails ORGIND. This next is a mention consisting of two sentences, fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, this announces the closure of the Lincoln Park location and is based on a announcement by the company on Facebook. It is not significant and there is insufficient detail to meet CORPDEPTH.
    • This from npr.org is a comedic description of eating a sandwich from the topic company. It contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • This from food network is a recipe, fails CORPDEPTH
    • This from NYTimes magazine has a couple of sentences mentioning the diner with no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 15:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
would the following articles pass this same test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_%26_Zuke%27s_Delicatessen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kornblatt%27s_Delicatessen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent%27s_Deli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loeb%27s_NY_Deli Sblument (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some sort of project or way for us in the Wiki community to solve this problem - to come up with a general notability guideline for restaurants, I am willing to volunteer some time/effort. I understand the risks involved in not wanting Wiki to be a place to promote restaurants. But although there may not be an easy consensus rubric that will satisfy every case, perhaps Wikipedia could benefit from some kind of "floor" guidelines. I also bet there are many articles of restaurants that may or may not meet current notability standards.
Also, a confounding factor is that wiki has virtually unlimited space, so the standard should not be so harsh as it would be in a space limited encyclopedia. ~~ Sblument (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Just be aware of WP:WHATABOUTX at AfD. If you believe there are topics here that aren't notable, feel free to nominate them for deletion. On the other hand, in my experience, there are editors who, at a fundamental level, don't like the idea of carving out different guidelines for different topics. For me, I've encountered a number of topic areas where the project might benefit from specific guidelines and Restaurants are one of them. Although to be fair from what I've seen of available sources, this Diner still would still fail the guidelines I have in mind. We would need a lot more than common or garden restaurant reviews and announcements of opening and closing branches. For example, if the restaurant was associated with a notable chef or if the restaurant won a prestigious annual award (as opposed to "Restaurant of the Week!) or awarded something from Michelin, etc. If you do decide to request/campaign for restaurant-specific guidelines, please ping me as I would also like to participate. HighKing++ 12:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I'll look into this more and decide if I want to request/campaign as you suggest. One thing in particular with Jewish delis - there could be an idea that these delis are notable for the Jewish community, whereas the most notable Jewish delis (in Chicago, Manny's, in New York, Katz's) that feel notable in general. Michelin doesn't give stars to delis of course, and I would guess that most Michelin 1 star restaurants (even those with notable chefs) do not have a wiki article. For example in Chicago, Beverly Kim has an article as a notable chef, but her restaurants don't, even Parachute which has had many years of 1 Michelin star. Sblument (talk) Sblument (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some research and think there may or may not be a need for a notability guideline for restaurants. It looks like wikiproject food and drink would be a good place, maybe for an essay? I would be willing to write one that talks about notability for restaurants and bars. Sblument (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that if there aren't any specific guidelines for Restaurants, they'll continue to fall under NCORP but Food and Drink is the best place to start a discussion for sure. HighKing++ 13:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 7 January 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 Scarling. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Lime

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; member of one notable band but does not appear to be independently notable. MIDI (talk) 22:00, 7 January 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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat

[edit]
2015–16 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, season of a possibly non-professional league. Avilich (talk) 21:42, 7 January 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat

[edit]
2016–17 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, season of a possibly non-professional league. Avilich (talk) 21:40, 7 January 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat

[edit]
2017–18 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, season of a possibly non-professional league. Avilich (talk) 21:38, 7 January 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan (Wanita)

[edit]
2017 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan (Wanita) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan. Avilich (talk) 21:34, 7 January 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subang United

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

Non-notable semipro club, sourced to Facebook only. Avilich (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hill (American football)

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

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Onel, thanks for giving advice for the article. While the article is not complete, my last edits were made to highlight the importance of the athletic training in the longterm perspective of the Detroit Lions. Due to its nature, research in this field is not trivial and my personal resources are at a low right now. Further SIGCOV can and should be integrated in the article in the future. Dopeious (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:54, 7 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakkai Eightraid

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

Unreleased (since 2018). Lack of notability. Alex Spade (talk) 19:11, 7 January 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 Timber Timbre#Albums. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Shakes

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

Only source on page is the band's own website, found no other coverage beyond a few passing mentions and a couple brief but not-very-promising selections. Redirect to Timber_Timbre#Albums. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicinals. QuietHere (talk) 18:23, 7 January 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. Feel free to start an RM if there's a desire to discuss the title further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinals

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

Article contains one review from a website I've never heard of. Whether that site is reliable or not, I couldn't tell you, but I can say that I didn't find any other reliable coverage on this album in my search. Redirect to Timber_Timbre#Albums. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Shakes. QuietHere (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Album did not chart and I found no RS reviews, only passing mentions in the context of the band. Regarding the existing source, obscuresound.com is a blog, so WP:SPS applies. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per the sourcing found by Bearcat. (In my defense, the Exclaim! review does not appear on the first page of search results for me, and the coverage in Ontario papers is not indexed by Wikipedia Library.) Jfire (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll grant that this is the album before this band really broke through in a big way, so there hasn't been as much written about it as there has been about the albums that came after it, but it was not at all difficult to find more sourcing for it than the nomination suggests — it's already up to four footnotes now, all from reliable sources. (One of which, further, was easily found in the first page of a simple Google search, even if the others required a bit more effort to locate.) I will grant that 10 to 15 years ago, Wikipedia's notability standard for albums was "any album recorded by a notable band is 'inherently' notable regardless of sourcing issues", and has since wisely shifted away from that toward "the album's notability has to be individually established by sourcing that's actually about the album itself", so sometimes old articles created under the old notability standards are indeed poorly sourced — but they are sometimes salvageable with stronger sourcing than the rules that were applicable in 2010 required. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems improvable. Prob rename tho. Ought to point to Medicinal. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always love to see these things end in keeps with improved articles. I guess I missed that Exclaim! article, surprising as that is. I definitely don't remember seeing it, and while even if I had I still wouldn't've called this notable on that alone, the rest of the coverage Bearcat found looks like it seals the deal.
As for the renaming proposal, I had thought about that as well, but I don't see any other significant uses of the word "medicinals" on the site aside from the PJ Harvey song. The word doesn't even appear on Medicine (disambiguation), nor does its singular form. Disambiguating seems unnecessary to me. QuietHere (talk) 15:34, 8 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Moo

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards based on the cited references. If there are other opinions, please share here. JRed176 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is about reliable sources in the plural, not just one source. One cited source is the case now after the review of the article i.e. the subject's voice over career, barring the external links. I don't believe the case can be made for being a notable bartender in this instance. The bar owned by the subject in question appears to be notable but a Wikipedia article could not be written only about a notable bartender with those sources presented (and could practically anyone good at their job with a few write ups online by extension have a Wikipedia article? I think not). Therefore, notability, if granted for purposes of a Wikipedia article is about the subject's voice over career and that alone primarily. If it is decided to keep the article, those who favor doing so should ideally find proper additional sources and cite them accordingly regarding the subject's work and impact. JRed176 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went through the article and consolidated the sections due to the short length, making a "Personal life and career" section instead. I added where citations are needed. The consensus appears to be to keep the article. Due to its present state, I feel it's ok to keep it and simply put a references needed notice at the top. Thanks
JRed176 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Fariz

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

Was draftified with the hopes of improvement, but no such luck, simply moved back referencing WP:NFOOTY as the reason for notability. Since that has been deprecated, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "in depth media coverage" above is 3 quote heavy articles that barely discuss Fariz and focus on other topics. Dougal18 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 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. czar 18:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hernandez

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

Local politician who does not meet WP:NPOL, and cannot find enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk to Spider)]] 17:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Without prejudice to a 'category' in its place, as suggested by some participants in the discussion below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions

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

WP:D doesn't seem like an appropriate way to tag this list. Can we get a bot to convert this to Category:Cultural depictions? I'd propose List of cultural depictions but there is no cultural depiction or any actual content beyond the bare list, so moving to category space sounds more appropriate. --Joy (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't a list of cultural depictions, it's a list of pages that happened to be split out from their main articles. There are countless more sections within articles that list cultural depictions which are just as valid content but there were not length issues resulting in a split. There's lot more pages like Walter Raleigh in popular culture, and categories work better here. Reywas92Talk 22:35, 7 January 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. czar 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–Southern Miss football rivalry

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

This does not appear to be a notable rivalry. Cited sources do not establish it as a rivalry, and a cursory search doesn't turn up much either. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 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 2024 Indonesian general election. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change Coalition (Indonesia)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:39, 7 January 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. czar 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Student News

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

Non-notable website that fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The subject, a short-lived/limited-scope/run-of-the-mill website meets none of the notability criteria. It seemingly didn't win the only award for which it was (self?)nominated. The only mentions in news sources are trivial passing mentions (like these in the Irish Examiner [12][13][14]). With zero mentions (even in passing) in Irish Times, Irish Independent, etc. In my WP:BEFORE, the only sources that I could find to confirm the basic facts (launch/closure/etc) are primary sources. Which is telling. The clear SPA/COI/PROMO intent also doesn't help. (I would've PRODed, but was speedied previously.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural keep. No prejudice against renominating these individually if a valid rationale is provided. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season

[edit]
2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Penepi (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unfinished, incomplete and/or pretty much empty articles:[reply]

2013–14 MŠK Žilina season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015–16 MFK Zemplín Michalovce season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021–22 MŠK Žilina season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022–23 AS Trenčín season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022–23 FC DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Different clubs, different seasons, with different sources, this is a terrible nomination. @GiantSnowman: You should know better than to allow this as an admin. Govvy (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundling is allowed for related articles, and I see no reason why it should not be permitted here. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy I really can't see what is terrible about nominating empty articles. If you said that about two articles from the current season, potentially about the one from the 2021–22 season, I might incline to agree that they deserve some more time, but otherwise the only terrible thing is the logic to keep the other articles. The 2013–14 and 2015–16 articles haven't been edited in years, so it's very unlikely that anything will change about this in the future, and what's the point of having incomplete/empty articles here? But if you like, feel free to complete all of them, I'll be more than happy. Penepi (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Penepi: The country league is the only thing that keeps them together, different seasons can have different results, different clubs can actually have different results. The way you have bundled is a lot of work to review each season article and not only that you're asking people to delete these, when they need to be assessed differently. This is not a good nomination. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These pages are mostly for the top league in Slovakia - a fully professional league. As such WP:NSEASONS is met. Furthermore, the reason for nomination appears to be that the pages need improving. Which means as per WP:ATD they should be improved not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. WP:NSEASONS specifically states: In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. On that basis, my question is: Is there any way that some of these individual seasons could be combined together in a single article, incorporating at least a paragraph or two of meaningful prose citing reliable sources? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cielquiparle: Why would you group a season from 2013-14 with a season from 2022-23, there is no logic in doing that. Yet we have multiple seasons from different years in one AfD here. This is not a practical way to run an AfD. Govvy (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think the combining would be mostly done in cases where a team for a season or two had slipped into a lower league which many not meet NSEASONS. Some (all?) of these nominations are for top league seasons. There's no prejudice against trying to merge articles once the AFD is over. That's more of a content issue. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep (reject and invalidate nomination). Deeply troubling that nominator has used the term "empty articles" in the original nomination, and twice in a subsequent comment. The concern is that it misrepresents the current state of not only one, but a bundle of articles nominated for deletion, and that it could easily mislead participants into believing that each of those articles is completely devoid of content and sources, which is not the case at all. This alone is sufficient reason to invalidate this nomination, IMO. In addition, the other two reasons given in the nomination – "unfinished" and "incomplete" – are not grounds for deletion; all Wikipedia articles are by definition works in progress. The subsequent comment of "haven't been edited in years" is also not grounds for deletion per WP:NEGLECT; and the comment "feel free to complete all of them" obviously flouts WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Strongly recommend that the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:Deletion policy and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I oppose bundling this many articles into one discussion as it's almost impossible to have a constructive debate about each individual one so, to some extent, I'm looking for a procedural keep. There will be some coverage of 2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, for example, since they won the league that season. In fact, definitely 'keep' for Slovan's 2013–14 season due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Webnoviny, which discusses at length their potential for a league and cup double, Teraz, from which I found several articles about Slovan's season and Dobrenoviny, which also discusses Slovan's title prospects and the further prospect of a record-breaking attendance in a crucial match. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 12 January 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. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs on Earth Then...and Now 1995

[edit]
Dinosaurs on Earth Then...and Now 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything about this 25 min instructional video other than that it exists and can apparently still be ordered on DVD [15] (wonder what the sales rate is :). No independent 3rd party coverage. Notability appears insufficient. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:07, 7 January 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 Wings West Airlines as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 15:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Morro

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

While certainly accomplished, I can't find any in-depth sourcing on this business executive. He definitely gets mentioned, but no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 7 January 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. When there are multiple reliable sources, send through WP:AFC for review rather than directly moving into mainspace. czar 18:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syun Koide

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

Has been redirected, has been draftified, in hopes of improving the sourcing. With no effect. Currently it is sourced by two primary and one unreliable source. Searches only turned up coverage in that same unreliable source. Onel5969 TT me 15:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - Most sources are either primary like Honda Racing or WP:ROUTINE like Formula Scout - both reliable, but neither WP:SIGCOV. I could only find one in-depth, independent, non-routine article (and it was by searching his name in Japanese), so for now it appears that he doesn't meet GNG – maybe someone with better knowledge of Japanese can find more. Either way, his recent F4 title, affiliation to Honda and promotion to Super Formula Lights (the step inmediately below Super Formula) suggest that WP:POTENTIAL for notability is high, so I think incubating in draftspace until more sources appear and/or he wins in SFL is the way to go here. MSport1005 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have draftified, except it had already been sent to draft. If it is sent to draft, it should only be allowed to be moved into mainspace with Admin approval. Onel5969 TT me 23:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – This shouldn't have been moved to mainspace, there's no way it's ready. I agree with MSport1005's assessment, the subject doesn't meet GNG for now. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skathi (moon)

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

Despite the GA status, this article is in my view artificially inflated by re-explaining common facts to all irregular natural satellites, e.g. origins (which is mostly a glorified "we don't know much"), or even worse, explaining common facts to all astronomical objects, e.g. orbital inclination and eccentricity. Once one removes this, there is precious little content that is actually specific to Skathi: simply discovery, naming, rotation period, and the specific orbital elements, which is only enough to fill a table row rather than a full article. (And even the naming story is shared with other moons.) There are no specific sources only about this moon and thus notability does not appear to be met; see also discussion at Talk:Moons of Jupiter#Should we stop creating articles for newly-discovered irregular moons? that makes the same point for almost all the irregular moons and found a broad consensus to redirect almost all of them. Propose redirection to Moons of Saturn#Skathi, which already gives the orbital elements and discovery year (LaundryPizza03 has already added name etymologies to the Uranus and Neptune moon articles, and presumably etymologies will similarly be added soon to the Jupiter and Saturn ones). Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I am not completely convinced by the evidence provided, but consensus is unanimously for keeping, so there's no point in having this run any further. Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At issue is whether or not the page passes GNG as the subject of multiple in-depth reliable sources. This NASA page is fully devoted to Skathi and is called "Skathi In Depth". Two different books devote at least a few paragraphs to Skathi itself: the Solar System Moons book by Blunck and the chapter on Saturn's icy moons in Enceladus and the Icy Moons of Saturn; both are cited with page numbers in the article. The book by Blunck particularly singles out Skathi's naming as a distinguishing feature. Skathi also appears as a useful and distinct case, either for its name or its physical features, in a number of scientific articles and books. In these links its features are dealt with as a separate entity distinct from other objects, and things about it are deemed interesting or informative enough to mention it specifically by name (With varying levels of detail: 1 2 3 4 5). Also, as a simple heuristic for GNG, the page had a thorough GA review and all of the questions about it were answerable using the sources available. The circumstances of this page have always been strange (its view counts are still the subject of an open phabricator ticket), but all that matters is that the page passes GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Blunck book (which I have) covers every single moon then known in the Solar System. Considering that consensus found most of them to be not notable enough, this does not by itself seem to be enough evidence (and besides, it talks more about the namesakes than about the moons). Similarly, such NASA pages exist for all the moons, and the sources presented are about irregulars in general, not Skathi specifically. Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with discounting content related to the namesakes is that the naming of Skathi is probably its most important distinguishing feature, and the thing that reliable sources focus most on. This, and its usefulness (together with other objects in the same group) for testing theories about the formation of Saturn's moons, is probably the feature that its encyclopedic notability hinges on. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that is more naturally covered by our article on the namesake: Skaði herself. Likewise, the usefulness of the irregulars in testing theories on Solar System formation is more naturally covered by the main article irregular satellite. Your argumentation would suggest copying and pasting the exact same content over a bunch of almost identical articles, one for each moon; IMO, that would seem to be an inefficient organisation, not to mention a maintenance nightmare. Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is about WP:OTHERSTUFF. The overall intellectual organization of Wikipedia writ large is not of issue at the deletion discussion for this specific page. What matters is that this page passes GNG. Incidentally, I think this is enough back-and-forth, and I'll make this my last reply for a while. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. Well sourced and a Good article. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not agree with speedy-closing a nomination that other editors (at a different venue) agreed with. Especially when my argument is precisely that the sources are sourcing irrelevant content, coverage is not in depth, and that the article in my view should not be a GA. To paraphrase it in a more familiar context: this article is in my view kind of like writing a full article about one nondescript stop on a long railway that has gotten no coverage outside the railway as a whole. Sure it can look excellent if the railway is well-covered by RS and we spend a whole lot of paragraphs writing about the railway instead of the nondescript stop, but is notability truly demonstrated by this? Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments by Astrophobe. There is verifiable information available on the topic that comes from verifiable, independent secondary sources, and the topic is far more than merely mentioned in these sources. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In at least one of those sources (19) the extent of the topic's mention is literally one entry in a table. That is certainly not "far more than merely mentioned" and is in fact pretty much precisely what WP:NASTRO warns about: Coverage must be specific and substantial: notability is not ensured just because an object is listed in a scientific paper or included in a large-scale astronomical survey. To establish notability, the astronomical object must have significant commentary in reliable sources, such as being one of the primary targets of a study with in-depth discussion (beyond discovery and basic parameters). On my phone now, will check the others later, but if memory serves it was similar. Double sharp (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it has enough sources to demonstrate notability. Moreover, I don't see what would be the benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this article. The problem with obscure astronomical objects is that nobody cares about writing a good article about them, and they end up as poorly maintained stubs forever. This is clearly not the case here. Tercer (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view the benefit would be that we avoid having an article on something RS have not covered in depth per WP:NASTRO, and most of whose non-data content is not about Skathi, but about irregular moons in general, or about Skaði the goddess. Double sharp (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask that you please not tendentiously hector every Keep !voter? I don't want to respond to all of your responses and get into an exchange under every single !vote, but it's not productive for every comment by any editor to be followed by a rebuttal from the person who opened the AfD. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if that's what you'd prefer. Need to sleep anyway, tomorrow I'll probably post a separate comment (not a reply) analysing the sources in detail. Double sharp (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
WP:NASTRO 3 no? Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:NASTRO, there is significant coverage about this object. It is one of the original 17 Norse moons and one of the 10 being given a name, some of which have articles of their own as well. Though I do agree that most of the references about this moon are just mere mentions of it. And by that reason I do not recommend this to be a GA article. Maybe lower it to B or C-class, perhaps? SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expected that removing small Saturnian moons that have nontrivial shape and size data would be controversial and possibly overzealous; the final decisions regarding the Saturnian moon articles were largely based only on size. For example, the light curves of the following moons were studied in Denk et al. (2018):[1] Phoebe, Kiviuq, Ijiraq, Paaliaq, Tarqeq, Siarnaq, Albiorix, Bebhionn, Erriapus, Tarvos, Narvi (moon), Bestla, Skathi, Skoll, Hyrrokkin, Greip, Suttungr, Thrymr, Mundilfari, Hati, Bergelmir, Kari, Loge, Ymir, and Fornjot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that this is the kind of thing I expect to see when I open an encyclopedia. The topic is well-defined and conceptually separate enough to warrant a page of its own;; the claims are supported by references that appear reasonably trustworthy. The point that such NASA pages exist for all the moons is an argument to have articles about all the moons, not an argument to delete this one. It's not conclusive by itself, but it leans in that direction. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the person who started the discussion of limiting the number of irregular moon articles, I'll give this one a pass. Yes, there is not a lot known about it, but it's still a relevant subject (as with many others) of Denk et al.'s ongoing work on the Saturnian irregulars' rotation periods and poles. Skathi is the first known example of an outlier of the Norse group;[16] even for multiple centuries, it remains on a relatively high inclination and is Saturn's closest retrograde irregular besides Phoebe.[17][[18] Although I did say I keep the largest 8 out of the 12 irregulars discovered in 2000, I didn't mean that authoritatively and it ended up being taken for granted unilaterally. I should have mentioned about having leeways in restricting articles, so I apologize for not making that clear beforehand. This article is well-written—calling it out for "glorifying" uncertainties and unknowns is a rather hyperbolic excuse. By your arguments for notability, that would mean deleting articles like 2010 FX86 and 2021 RR205. Nrco0e (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. This goes beyond what was originally proposed at Talk:Moons of Jupiter. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOWBALL Keep: notable. I have no issue with re-explaining facts common to other articles. We shouldn't be assuming that the reader already has that background, and WP:NOTPAPER applies. Praemonitus (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this nomination for deletion of an article about a near-earth celestial object is an absurd waste of everyone's time and a perfect example of tunnel vision in re Wikipedia management jengod (talk) 06:49, 8 January 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. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 20:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada v Mexico (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification)

[edit]
Canada v Mexico (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per Rosguill, "No coverage since the week of the game, does not appear to meet WP:LASTING". Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 7 January 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. czar 18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biswanath College

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

In a WP:BEFORE, the existence can be verified, but there was no significant coverage in reliable sources, failing general notability guidelines.

The college also fails notability guidelines for organisations. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:50, 7 January 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. czar 18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Markus

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and Cannot see how they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 14:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, Austria, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JSTOR isn't working for me right now but searching Google Scholar for intitle:"Manfred Markus" finds plenty of reviews of his books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: JSTOR issues and a need to over gender sterilize, as "they" almost confused me. The subject appears to be an author, did have co-authors (21 scholarly books and over 100 articles), and the article seems to not be in question that the subject is a male, married with children, and I have seen no evidence there is any gender questioning. If I am wrong the article needs to reflect that as a grave error. Being presented a Festschriften seems to be a milestone, even if some of the content does not reflect all major achievements, but does indicate peer reviews. However, the article states: In 1981 he was appointed chairholder as a full professor of English linguistics and medieval English literature at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and has been a professor emeritus since 2009. Being a "chairholder" is not the same as being awarded a Named chair, but the notability criteria #5 states; The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. If I or anyone else has issues with WP:NPROF, lacking any verifiable issues with the sentence, this is not the venue for discussion. If the subject held a named chair, it seems he passes the criteria for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per User:Otr500. Shoerack (talk) 17:25, 10 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umayartuvarankulam

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

No source and a WP:BEFORE doesn't produce much other than Wikipedia and its derivatives. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: - the sources are published sources from reliable / reputable organisations. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC on the GNIS says otherwise. @Phil Bridger mentioned GNIS is not an RS for populated places per GEOLAND before. If a source of colonial times is seen as an RS, is a point of view. And the third source I can not access. If you'd add also the name of the source to what is meant to be an URL it would be great. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then also, was there more information on the settlement in the source or is that it? If there is, someone might try to get access to the source an add some more information. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On the good faith assumption that the Report on the Census of Ceylon source provided by Dan arndt does verify that Umayartuvarankulam was, at least at one point in history, a legally recognised populated settlement. If Dan arndt has access to the source and can provide further information for the article (in particular, a population figure for 1921) that would help. If we can verify that the settlement was at one point legally recognised and populated (even if only in the past) then it passes WP:GEOLAND and should be presumed notable. I am also influenced by the fact Wikipedia suffers from systematic bias concerning places such as Umayartuvarankulam; in a case such as this we must consider the possibility that sources exist which are either not available online or not in English (or both). If we can verify that this is (or once was) a legally recognised populated settlement, then I think we can assume that reliable sources are likely to exist - even if we cannot find them right now. Keeping the article allows editors who might have better access to relevant sources to come across this article and improve it in the future. WJ94 (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1921 census lists it as an uninhabited village [19] (bracket 180). Rupples (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that - much appereciated. In which case we do not have any reliable sources verifying that this was ever a populated settlement, so my !vote is delete unless/until someone turns up another source. WJ94 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madiu Bari

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

Amateur footballer from Portugal / Guinea Bissau who has basically no significant WP:SIGCOV, therefore failing WP:GNG. A Google search returns solely empty stats pages and a couple transfer reports, and nothing else. [20] Angelo (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Katsiaris

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

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches in Google News and DDG came back fruitless. 24 sports is just a basic contract renewal announcement, most of which is copied from his club's press release, so is not WP:IS. Sport FM is just a quote from him, with no analysis from third parties. He is mentioned once in passing in Sportime regarding yellow cards received. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Dhabiani

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

Badly sourced BLP. Zero evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC despite briefly playing at the professional level. Best source I can find is FilGoal, which is clearly a database source and therefore not acceptable for SPORTBASIC. Only other source I can find is Al-Hazm's Twitter, which is not reliable or independent. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abduraheem Al-Debbas

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

Played 29 mins of professional football before moving down to the semi-pro leagues. I am unable to find any substantial coverage so struggling to see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. In Arabic searches, the best sources I can find are Alyaum, a brief quote from him before a match with no third-party analysis, El Heddaf, a contract renewal announcement and Hasa News, a match report that mentions him once in the article as a goalscorer and once in the article title. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Jfire (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC) and promptly salted (see [21]). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtyar Aziz

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

This article was initially created on 13 August 2021 by BakhtyarAziiz who would appear to be the subject of the article. It has then been re-created and speedily deleted a number of times without formal review. Perhaps there may be reliable sources in Arabic and the Kurdish languages to support the assertions made here? WP:BEFORE done, and it would appear that an article about Mr Aziz would fail any number of tests for notability including but not limited to WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO. I usually add "always happy to be proved wrong" to WP:AFD-s. In this case, however, it would be reasonable for other editors to ask "why are using your admin permissions to start an WP:AFD instead of outright deleting the article?" Pete AU aka User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:35, 7 January 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. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 118 episodes

[edit]
List of 118 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A large portion of the article was written by 2679D, currently blocked for copyright violations, so the plots here are likely copyvio too. Even with the plots removed, the list would still be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so I don't recommend merging it back to the main article. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural WP:SNOW close. The nomination is essentially asking in part for information about the novel to be added to the page, and if the nominator wants the redirect to be deleted, then Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion would be the place for this. North America1000 06:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruby Circle

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

This page is meant to be about the novel itself, yet only contains a redirect to the author, which is misleading. Nikkisha16 (talk) 09:21, 7 January 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! 08:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal (cryptocurrency)

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

This was tagged as WP:CSD#G11, which I am uncertain about (the article has citations, at least claims notability, and has existed in mainspace since December 11). Nonetheless, it is not a particularly great article.

Almost all of the citations are to self-published sources. The sources that aren't self-published are questionable; being listed on CoinMarketCap is of dubious notability, for example, as there are tens of thousands of tokens, coins and chains listed there. Others, like the citations to cosmos.network, have nothing to do with Decimal. I have been unable to find any reliable sources talking about this company. jp×g 08:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At the risk of arguing with someone who otherwise largely agrees with my opinion on the article... having citations, claiming notability, and existing for a few weeks doesn't excuse an article from being deleted under G11. A7 requires a claim to significance, while G11 only cares about how promotional the article is, and it's very clear that this SPA-authored article is promotional. (It was worse before I removed a large unencyclopedic "features and functions" list.) In any case, the citations are indeed garbage and I located no significant reliable coverage outside of that. I don't speak Russian so can't search for sources in Russian, but on the other hand, frankly I wouldn't trust a Russian source on cryptocurrency as far as I could throw it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Best I can find are conversion calculators for the currency. No coverage in any sort of RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and my review of the sources in the article and a mild additional search. Skynxnex (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PMC. I'll be honest, if I'd came across the article in its original state I'd probably have processed the G11. firefly ( t · c ) 17:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:G11 concerns aside, I conducted an online search and I found that the article subject lacks significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (see WP:NCRYPTO w.r.t crypto-specific websites). As such, the article should be deleted for its subject lacking notability. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Twin

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

I was looking at this as part of writing a blurb for the featured picture which accompanies the article, and as far as I could tell there's a lack of significant coverage of this console, I couldn't really find any sources on which to construct a complete article. Many of the sources that are in the page currently don't really refer to this particular console, more general info about famiclones, while those that do mention it directly such as [22] and [23] are just lists of games that work on the console and a passing mention. I'm happy to be corrected if there are more serious sources around though.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be any actual sourcing besides the ones used in the article. And it overrelies on one source too many times so its notability is really questionable. GamerPro64 20:59, 7 January 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. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talamasca

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

Seems like a minor plot element, failing WP:GNG (SIGCOV). I can't even suggest a reasonable WP:ATD to redirect this to. The article is a pure plot summary, and its only redeeming quality is that it's referenced, but mentions in passing don't suffice to show notability. PS. Was prodded by User:Avilich , prod was removed by User:Spinningspark with "has entries in horror encyclopaedias". But the entry in The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead, despite being two pages long, seems to be a pure plot summary, and that fails WP:NOTPLOT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with Hellbus that discussion of plot in reliable sources is not the same as a Wikipedia editor's plot summary of the source work. The former adds to notability, the latter does not. The former tells us which plot elements reliable sources believe are significant. If that was all we had, that would still justify inclusion in Wikipedia (in some form), but when I deprodded the article I had much more to say on this than the nom's quote of my short edit summary would lead one to believe. I named a number of sources from which out-of-universe discussion can be extracted. You have to look for it, but it is there. Here are two quotes;

Together with Maharet's tapestry and the matrilineal family tree, the Talamasca provides a lineage, a coherent mythology,...

— Linda Badley, Writing Horror and the Body

In one sense or another, there are a number of anthropologists in the Mayfair trilogy. I wish to concentrate briefly , however, on the Talamasca, Ashlar, and Rowan Mayfair. These three provide sufficient examples to establish Rice's anthropological sensibility.

— Gary G. Roberts, The Gothic World of Anne Rice
SpinningSpark 13:49, 7 January 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! 22:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ferry (footballer)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. Recreated after last AFD with more references which still don't amount to significant coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2022 (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! 07:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The previous instance was deleted at AfD a year ago, since when the subject has dropped down a tier to Ballinamallard United F.C.. Such coverage as is available relates to that loan move which then became permanent, and then match coverage. I am not seeing the evidence that specific biographical notability has been attained which would be needed to overturn the December 2021 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 16:33, 7 January 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 Swedish Masters International Badminton Championships. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Swedish International

[edit]
2007 Swedish International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a grand prix/grand prix gold event to justify a separate article. It is a series/challenger event, so should be either redirected to Swedish Masters International Badminton Championships or just deleted. zoglophie 06:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Masters International Badminton Championships. I could not find anything on google or Wikipedia Library. The title is also non detailed. There could be 100 other things that had a 2007 sweeden international.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:31, 11 January 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! 05:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Meghnaghat Power Limited

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

Holding company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. The power plant itself might be notable, but this isn't WP:INHERITED to its holding company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 7 January 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. This person sounds accomplished but on Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources that provide verification of notability. Please try again should his work be get some academic or media coverage in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asghar Mehdi Ashar

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

Google search does not reveal sources that would indicate notability. This draft the author created was rejected for lack of notability as well. Also serious copyright concerns as that draft was G12-delted and the images here all appear to be copyvios. funplussmart (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's spreading Marsya worldwide, but there is no explanation of what that is; the article then goes into some sort of listing for this "school of thought?". I don't find anything we can use for sourcing, and I'm not even sure what the article is trying to tell me. Delete for lack of sourcing and no clear subject or explanation given by the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • still recommend to update it instead of deleting this article. I deleted and updated this article for 2 hours last night with various changes. lets not delete and continue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.46.119 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Keep" as per the comment above 72.39.46.119 (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but he appears to be a religionist rather than an academic. In any case there is neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG notability evident, amid a big pile of unsourced promotional text. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    big pile of promotional list? Have you reviewed all references listed. Can you speak the language he has done this work? It is all there in provided references 72.39.46.119 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Keep" as per the comments above 72.39.46.119 (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are only allowed one bold keep/delete opinion per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Marsiya is a poetry in Urdu and known as highest rank of poetry in urdu literature. He is not a religionist but a writer and orator or this kind of poetry in urdu language 72.39.46.119 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation but it does not change my opinion. Removing the unreliable sources (facebook, linkedin, youtube, and emarsiya.com) and making sure that the entire content of the article is supported by references to major newspapers or other such reliable and independent sources could possibly change my opinion, though. They don't need to be in English, but they do need to be reliably published, by people unconnected to Ashar, and provide in-depth coverage of him and his work. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    well some people including academia may say the same for all internet sources as well.....
    Some may say about some newspapers in International/English languages are not reliable as well. We can discuss this all along and I am not asking for changing anyone's opinion as I have my own and I am not changing it either. Ashar's interview has been published in one of the newspaper included in reference and has all those details. Its published on the internet though. Included in the list of reference if you wanna dig deep.. 72.39.46.119 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And we can't use interviews for sourcing. We've vetted sources here for wikipedia, please start a discussion here: [24] Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 8 January 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. Almost unanimous opinion to Keep this article right now. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Gold Coast mid-air collision

[edit]
2023 Gold Coast mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the event is certainly tragic and has received wide coverage in the immediate aftermath, this article fails WP:NOTNEWS as a single event that has no established enduring notability. — CR4ZE (T • C) 05:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A very ridiculous tag to add to the article. It will have large implications on future helicopter safety in Australia and internationally. Per item 2 in NOTNEWS, It is not routine for helicopters to fatally crash into each other let alone in the tourism capital of Australia. There is large public interest and they have the right to be informed. The tag has been removed. Canolanext (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Canolanext: I've added the tag back to the page. This is an AfD, so you can't remove the tag as you would in a WP:DEPROD. _MB190417_ (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG & WP:COVERAGE with many reliable sources cited, some from major non-local news sites (CNA from Singapore[25] and BBC from UK[26] are 2 examples), thus passing WP:GEOSCOPE. Talking about lasting impacts, per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Besides, considering the nature of the collision (which took place when one heli was departing and one was landing), this event is likely going to result in recommendations or changes to how to avoid such future collisions. I would suggest that the article be nominated again after the final report by ATSB is published, should it be found to be non-notable. SBS6577P (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topics on aviation accidents, however, seemingly insignificant are likely to contribute to the body of knowledge on aviation. Wikipedia has many articles covering aviation incidents. For example, the article 2015 Villa Castelli mid-air collision covers a similar incident. The article does not meet the criteria for deletion. The assertion that the article lacks notability should be rejected for the following reasons:
    • The article describes a high-level aviation accident. I would agree that the article is not notable if the topic was on the pilot but this is not the case.
    • A report on the incident is being produced so knowledge is likely to persist (even after publicity on the accident itself fades over time).
    • The information is independently verifiable.
    • There is likely to be significant new facts about the topic so the article is likely to emerge beyond a stub article.
  • Keep. This event has global significance in the aviation industry as mid-air collisions of two helicopters are exceedingly rare, especially since the two helicopters were not formation flying (the 2015 Villa Castelli mid-air collision and 2019 Ménaka mid-air collision involved helicopters flying in formation). Stuart hc (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article should certainly be retained, as mentioned by others it has a significance and notability for aviation safety worldwide. Douge1999 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hrbm14 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • An alternative is to merge the content into an existing article. This should also be rejected for the following reasons:
    • The accident has many sub-topics and factors and so merits its own article to mention these factors.

Hrbm14 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The rationale provided for deleting this article is quite frankly ridiculous. There are innumerable articles on Wikipedia detailing similar tragedies, and this one in particular has national significance for Australia (it didn't just "make the news", but has indeed been a major news item broadcast across the entire country, particularly in light of two other recent tragedies that have occurred almost immediately beforehand; all three of these tragedies have occurred in the same state, Queensland). This tragedy also in particular has significant implications for aviation safety in Australia, which alone makes it notable enough to warrant its own article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the other two recent tragedies in Queensland are (1) cop killers and (2) a fatal home invasion. These sorts of events are pretty common in a country like the United States, but they are rare in Australia. These two, along with the helicopter collision, have caused something of a crisis here in Australia. The entire nation is shocked, and major reforms are being carried out or planned in response to these three tragedies. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many articles on wikipedia detailing aviation accidents of similar magnitude. This one is no different and should be kept. I don't feel like this is WP:NotNews because it is very likely that this tragedy has major impacts and may change and improve aviation safety in the future and it is a Major crash that has impacted Australia hard and there are many sources on it. PatrickChiao (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough in-depth coverage. Agreed with Jargo Nautilus as per their say "The rationale provided for deleting this article is quite frankly ridiculous." Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can one determine if the event has lasting notability less than a week after it took place? Garuda3 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of the keep votes claim that notability is (probably) in the offing. That's not a valid reason, just speculation. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appeals to WP:EVENTCRIT#2 are perfectly valid... what are you talking about? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at this time. There is WP:INDEPTH coverage from a diverse set of independent, reliable sources. The scope of the event is of (at minimum) national importance. For those reasons, this satisfies WP:EVENTCRIT#2, meaning that the event is very likely to be notable. The coverage in the next few months will determine how WP:LASTING the coverage is, and I think it's more than reasonable to not delete the article so soon; I see ample reasons to presume notability, but rationales that this is affirmatively not notable are extremely weak. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the comments that this is asingle event that has no established enduring notability is interesting, in view of the ramifications for transport safety, helicopter operations and air safety in Australia. I would think that a clear knowledge of the operations of the ATSB and its findings as to air safety/safety issues, and how they resolve events such as this one, will affect the operation of tourist oriented helicopter travel by this event for years to come, if not decades.JarrahTree 03:27, 12 January 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 Deaths during the Mahsa Amini protests. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mohammad Reza Sarvari

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

Tragic, but Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize. Over 400 Iranian demonstrators have been killed during the Mahsa Amina protests. Only a handful received coverage more substantial than the initial burst of coverage, passing mentions in articles reporting on the overall protests, and local news articles. Only a handful had significant, tangible impacts. Sarvari's death, however unwarranted and tragic it may be, is not one of them. Should be redirected to Deaths during the Mahsa Amini protests. Mooonswimmer 04:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 7 January 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 Deaths during the Mahsa Amini protests. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Erfan Zamani

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

Tragic, but Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize. Over 400 Iranian demonstrators have been killed during the Mahsa Amina protests. Only a handful received coverage more substantial than the initial burst of coverage, passing mentions in articles reporting on the overall protests, and local news articles. Only a handful had significant, tangible impacts. Zamani's death, however unwarranted and tragic it may be, is not one of them. Could be redirected to Deaths during the Mahsa Amini protests. Mooonswimmer 04:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 7 January 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. Keeping this article for future work on separating this one list into more specific lists as suggested by the nominator. Or maybe a simple rename to a less general name would fix any perceived problem. I'm also conscious of potential disruption the deletion of this article could cause for other articles that are connected to this list and template. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of poems in Chinese or by Chinese poets

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

The scope of the list is way too broad for a Wikipedia list. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, Lists, and China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as how this mostly dates from 2014 but the primary author appears to be still reasonably active and has been notified, I'm curious to see what is said. While I agree in principle that the scope is poorly defined and clearly too huge, the number of entries currently in the list appears relatively moderate. I'm not convinced that deletion is necessary, as scope redefinition or turning this into a list-of-lists are both reasonable potential fixes. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is restricted to poems about which we have an article and, as such, is not excessively broad. The limitation of scope is not made sufficiently clear but it is referred to in the section heading List of Chinese poems (in Wikipedia). These types of navigational lists are explicitly catered for in WP:CSC and the overall topic is clearly notable. The list has accompanying information that cannot be handled in Category:Chinese poems and the relevant navbox Template:Chinese poetry is kept from being monstrous by linking to this list rather than to the individual poems. All this seems to have been carefully developed and is entirely appropriate. Thincat (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • About: I always thought that an article "List of poems in Chinese or by Chinese poets" would be too unwieldy and difficult to maintain as an encyclopedic article as anything reasonably complete. Maybe an AI could do it. Just as we don't see article such as "List of poems in French or by French poets" or "List of poems in English or by English poets" a list of poems in Chinese or by Chinese poets would be difficult for similar reasons, on top of going back even further in time (to many centuries BCE). Anyway, the immediate origin of the article is that I was doing a lot of work on Chinese poetry in 2014, and, in the process ended up starting this list article. Looking at the 14 categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, it is hard to see that any of these 14 reasons for deletion apply. So, I see no reason whatsoever to delete the article based upon Wikipedia deletion policy. As a practical matter, this list could be useful to someone unfamiliar with Chinese poetry who wishes to find a few examples, so I lean towards keep. Dcattell (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, I remember my primary reason for creating this list article back in 2014 was to clean up the Chinese poetry template, which was getting overburdened. I thought it useful to have some helpful examples of poetry in the navigation template at first, but this was becoming unwieldy over time. Dcattell (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: Sorry about the rambling above. It's just that it's been about a half dozen years since I have thought about this much, either the template or the article. However, the "List of poems in Chinese or by Chinese poets" is written into Template:Chinese poetry. Deleting the article without re-writing the template will damage dozens of articles on Chinese poetry across en:Wikipedia article space, including some articles which are classified as being of high importance. "List of poems in Chinese or by Chinese poets" could use some improvement, however I am not going to do so in the face of impending deletion. Really, "List of poems in Chinese or by Chinese poets" should be improved to better represent examples of Chinese poetry. Simply using the article deletion process in this case would create a quite a mess! Deleting the article, and editing the template, and creating some other support for navigating to Chinese poems would be an option, and take a fair amount of work to do it right. So, no, it's not a good idea to just do an article deletion on "List of poems in Chinese or by Chinese poets". Not that it's a great example of an article as it stands! Cheers, Dcattell (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem-the template can be edited to remove the link. Blythwood (talk) 09:02, 8 January 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 Olav Zipser. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The First School of Modern SkyFlying

[edit]
The First School of Modern SkyFlying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". User:Jc37 suggested a merge to Olav Zipser , but IMHO the article is purely promotional, and the notability of Zipser is dubious (it just survived an AfD as no consensus). Can we at least prune this entry from the series of SPA-written articles promoting Zipser and his businesses/ideas (other articles include Space Games and the most salvagable, freeflying, which just needs to be de-Zipserized per WP:UNDUE)). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olav Zipser. It can be AfD'd later and if found to be not notable, then they can both go. But, redirect appears to be the reasonable as we're apparently supposed to approach alternative to deletion. I'm hesistant to suggest redirect to a target when the relevance is questionable such as in the case of re-directing some small time personnel/company to an indisputably notable target whose connection with the article company/person in question is very tangential. In this case, the two are closely inter-related so I vote re-direct. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep

Zipser is known and respected around the world by pretty much every freeflying skydiver alive, as the ‘Father of FreeFly’.

It would not be possible to talk about the history of freeflying without mentioning Zipser, and not possible to completely 'de-Zipserize' the freeflying article (as suggested above) as Zipser is undisputedly recognised in skydiving circles around the world, as the founder of freeflying.

The First School of Modern SkyFlying is exactly that, it was 'the first' - since it existed there are now hundreds of freefly instructors and schools around the world, as well as wind tunnels and wind tunnel coaches teaching freeflying.

The First School of Modern SkyFlying does not exist as a business to be promoted, so the article is historical so cannot be promotional, other than to the sport of skydiving and freeflying itself as an activity.

The same is true of the Space Games, it is part of the history of the development of freeflying. The last Space Games was held in 2006. So again, this article cannot be considered promotional, other than to the sport of skydiving and freeflying itself as an activity.

With all due respect, I feel that these articles would be best edited (or decided on) by Wikipedians with skydiving knowledge and experience, as this is a non-mainstream activity, with Zipser being very much a significant part of freefly history and development.

As per Wikipedias notability guidelines… Zipser, certainly in skydiving history and circles, is "worthy of notice", “remarkable", "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”

The equivalent of a PhD in sporting terms would be the Sports Emmy Award, which he received.

There is a solid reference on the official Fédération aéronautique internationale website - the world governing body for air sports

https://www.fai.org/page/isc-artistic-events

As mentioned before in a previous [discussion] for the Olav Zipser article. Skydiving and freeflying are fringe sports / not main stream activities. Whilst the sports themselves are often mentioned in mainstream media (normally only when there is an accident or death though), the pioneers and champions famous within the sports are generally only featured in skydiving and parachuting specific publications and websites. Rarely is main stream media interested in the individuals behind the sport that are 'famous' within the sport like with main stream spectator sports like football.

Quadtripplea (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Famous doesn't mean notable. I don't find any sources for this school or sports "thing". I'm not sure even the Olav fellow would be notable, but we can discuss if/when that gets tot AfD. The references mentioned above are about the sport, not this entity. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Just a note that Olav had his AfDs, two, recent one was no consensus and you commented there briefly :) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olav Zipser (2nd nomination) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge with Olav Zipser Quadtripplea (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted above, please note it's one vote per person. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - it's a "thing" all right [27], but this book is only a passing mention and in relation to Zipser. Also found four mentions on Newspapers.com, but all four are briefest of passing mentions with no notability apart from Zipser, i.e. "Zipser has opened The First School of Modern SkyFlying". The independent, verifiable information I can find on this topic is already contained in the Zipser article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:44, 11 January 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 per WP:CSD#G5 as the creator is a sock of User:CalebHughes. Favonian (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florida–South Florida football rivalry

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

This is clearly not an actual rivalry. Zeng8r (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not a real, notable rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo jr

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

WP:INHERIT. Just because father is famous, doesn't mean the son merits an article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:45, 7 January 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! 03:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Spaulding (American executive)

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

WP:NOTINHERIT WP:PROMO and no WP:SIGCOV. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I drafted this article, I think she is a notable CEO and there are many more rs avaible ot link, but I have no attachment to it really. It can be deleted. I kept it short just in case AfD so I do not spend too much time on it. Thanks for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularitywiki (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is someone who was CEO for about 18 months during which time the company did well for a short time then tanked. I don't find any in depth articles, just short business announcements. Lamona (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it remained then every CEO in the world could have their own Wikipedia page based on some online write-ups without a lot of substance combined with a notable event during their tenure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRed176 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 January 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! 02:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeet Singh Yadav (politician)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no WP:SIGCOV. I performed a WP:BEFORE search and didn't find anything. Could be transliterated name ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people who do or don't reside in the constituency or ward that a politician represents is irrelevant. What makes state legislators notable enough for Wikipedia is not the population of their district, but the fact that they all have an equal voice in passing statewide laws regardless of the population of each individual district — so the fact that a city councillor may happen to represent a comparable or greater number of voters than a state legislator does has nothing to do with anything, because the population of a state legislator's constituency has nothing to do with the state legislator's notability either. The notability of a city councillor hinges on writing a substantive article about his political significance that's supported by GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, not on how many people do or don't live in his ward. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no possibility to satisfy WP:NPOL. While I think there's reasonable grounds to include New Delhi within the elements outlined in WP:POLOUTCOMES ("precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas"), it's important to emphasise the "tended" part and certainly not in the complete absence of even a single SIGCOV RS. Searching in English and Hindi (अजीत यादव आम आदमी पार्टी) I find no sourcing beyond passing mentions amongst a plethora of candidates or announcements of the result. There's nothing from reliable sources to write that's not already included in 2022 Delhi Municipal Corporation election#Result_by_ward. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as municipal officials don't meet guidelines unless they have significant coveage. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:36, 14 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Griffpatch

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

For a user on a website that's not really that popular, I don't think Griffpatch fits the topic for a Wikipedia article. Even though he's the most followed user on Scratch, he doesn't seem to be notable enough. I searched for him and he only appears on 1 news website which is in French and the news article only talks about how to play Paper Minecraft. https://astucejeuxps4.com/quest-ce-que-paper-minecraft-guides-de-jeu-professionnels/ However, Griffpatch is mentioned in a few books: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Griffpatch%22+-wikipedia

The refs in the article aren't reliable as well, as most of them are taken from Google search, Twitter, Fandom.com, and ScratchStats. Searching up "Griffpatch" using search only shows his Scratch account and Youtube account. Searching down more just seemed to show more user-generated stuff. I'll admit that Griffpatch is a really epic Scratcher, but he doesn't really seem notable enough to be a Wikipedia article. But what do you guys think? 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw someone else called this "user-generated stuff", I'm not entirely sure what they mean by that but isn't most content in the internet generated by users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs)

It looks like you've posted examples of user-generated content (UGC). This kind of content is anything that is created by users of a website. Examples include social media posts, free blogs, and forum threads. Wikipedia considers this kind of content unreliable, and therefore should not be used as a source. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that link. Would Twitter still be a reliable source though since the information being referenced was provided to Twitter by the subject of the article? Just to clarify, the links I posted above were just trying to show that griffpatch is significant. JennilyW, you said "for a use on a site that's not very popular". I'm not quite sure how it's not popular since it has its own Wikipedia page and has over 90 million users according to its Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scratch has over 90 million users, but it's not popular enough for any of its users to gain notability outside of Scratch. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it surely must be since he is mentioned in the articles I have linked previously. (I know because they are user-generated, they cannot be used as references or sources, but I'm simply using them to help my argument.) Also, doesn't the fact that people have already tried to create Wikipedia articles about him also show he has some notability? I'm sure many people have tried to find him on Wikipedia and a small amount of those people, maybe even only 1 or 2, have tried to make a Wikipedia page about him. If a decent amount of people are trying to find a Wikipedia article, does that not make them notable enough to have one? (this is purley speculation, please correct me if I'm wrong). Personally, I think a platform with 90 million users is popular enough but my opinion is not the only one that matters. He is also known outside of scratch though, for example his games have been shared outside of scratch to many external websites and he's gained a decent amount of subscribers on YouTube and members of his discord server.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he had a page on Wikipeida before, they were still deleted. If those old articles were deleted, then that means that he doesn't have enough notability. Wikipedia articles have guidelines in order for them to actually be a article and not to get deleted. If Griffpatch is notable, but doesn't meet the guidelines for a Wikipeida article, then he shouldn't be a such topic for an article. And even if he is known outside Scratch, Griffpatch still needs to follow the notability guideline. For more info check Wikipedia:Notability. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from news sites, what sources are not user-generated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utter Donkey (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Utter Donkey You can see a list of reliable and non-user-generated sources at WP:GREL, but I doubt they have anything related to Griffpatch there. Remember to read the Legend first. 🦁⋆JennilyW♡🦌 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let Her Burn

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

Although Black is widely known for her song Friday (released in 2011) this album has received pre-release coverage but it seems to me it's insufficient to prove lasting notability. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This clearly meets the WP:GNG, with the amount of coverage that it has already received, including being placed on multiple "most anticipated album" lists. In any case, there are also already singles released from the album, which have themselves received coverage as existing releases. BD2412 T 01:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Talk page, not the list itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most sources are from Queerly and the Brooklyn Vegan, unsure if they're RS. I don't see any sort of critical discussion in RS that I recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show me where in the WP:GNG there is a requirement to use "RS that I recognize"? I see no credible argument that Queerty (not "Queerly") and BrooklynVegan are not reliable sources for this purpose, and even if they were not, the PopSugar listing here is clearly reliable and sufficiently in-depth, and the DIY source fairly strongly supports that as well. BD2412 T 02:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No requirement, but I spend my time here get to know certain sources well-enough. Including various overseas media outlets that I didn't recognize before and can safely say without further analysis that they're ok. That's why it's not a vote but a discussion. We learn as we go along. Oaktree b (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please note that more sources have since developed and/or been added. Some of these have been commented on by participants below as sources recognized by the relevant Wikiproject as acceptable for articles in this area. BD2412 T 05:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Uproxx literally just published a piece on the album, which I have now added to the article. BD2412 T 02:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still unconvinced about the lasting notability of this album. Bedivere (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then let me quote what Clash has to say about this: "Debut album ‘Let Her Burn’ is out next year, and it builds on a foundation of singles that have lit up the internet. Amassing an incredible selection of bops, Rebecca Black blends superb lyricism that display in full 360 with impeccable songwriting. It’s something to behold". In short, Black has what the source describes as "a colossal online audience" of which you were unaware. BD2412 T 03:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not unaware of Black's "colossal online audience" as I suggested in the nomination itself, she was the singer of an internet phenomenon back in 2011 and has consistently released self published singles. Black's notability and her "colossal online audience", however, do not necessarily inherit their notability. The album is yet to be considered notable. It may be or it may not be. The currently available sources can't tell, as I have said before, it will have lasting notability. Bedivere (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to add that both singles "Crumbs" and "Look at you" have failed to appear in Billboard charts. Her last appearance was ten years ago with the "Friday" follow-up "Saturday". [28] Her "colossal online audience" has not made her "Let Her Burn" singles popular. Bedivere (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NALBUM lists several different routes by which an album can be deemed notable. Having songs chart is one of them, but not the only one. If you are concerned that Clash magazine is mistaken in evaluating the likely popularity of this album based on the performer's fanbase, please feel free to call them up and tell them they have gotten it wrong and should retract the story. If you are able to get them to do so, I will withdraw my !vote in this discussion. BD2412 T 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not my duty nor is in my interests to mail a magazine and try to convince them to overturn their own, legitimate story. BD2412, we do not have to agree on this one and while it is pretty obvious this is going to be kept, I do not think it is notable enough to merit its own article. But whatever, I may be wrong as well. Bedivere (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I have just added another source to the article (bringing the total up to 21), and note that this album is now on four different "most anticipated" lists (Queerty, Them, PopSugar, and DIY). To add another quote from one of these, the Them article says: "Nobody is as surprised as me that the singer of 2011's viral hit "Friday" is not only releasing her debut album in 2023, but that it's fucking good". Of course, tastes may vary, but the proposition that there is any chance that this album will be non-notable has, at this point, been washed away by WP:HEY. Given the buildup provided by these sources tapping the album as an anticipated hit, if it fails to register as such at this point it will be notable as a failure. The critical reception of the two songs already released does, however, tend to indicate that the album will be a notable success rather than a notable failure. BD2412 T 05:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep: as BD2412 said above, the prerelease coverage in this article is plenty enough already. As for Oaktree claiming that "most" of the sources are from Queerty and BrooklynVegan, there are currently 13 references on page and only one each of those are from those sites, and those sites are both reliable anyway. And the rest of the sites are all independent coverage, with at least four being listed at WP:RSMUSIC so that's already enough for an easy pass. QuietHere (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources talking about the album, and it'll probably only increase. Ss112 12:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article's creators may have jumped the gun, but the album is now about a month away and easily has enough reliable coverage as an upcoming release by a known musician. The nominator's use (several times) of the term of "lasting notability" is curious; depending on the intention that term either contradicts WP:NTEMP or reflects a personal opinion about the musician's history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rebecca Black per WP:TOOSOON. I am looking through the sources and most seem to parrot each other almost word for word. While Rebecca is talked about in depth (she is notable hence her article), little is mentioned about this album other than its upcoming release date. This can easily be summarized under Rebecca Black#Career. We should wait until more information comes out about the album itself in the form of reviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Knowledgekid87: Can you provide some examples of sources that "parrot each other almost word for word"? I have read them all, and there are several quite distinct sources, even though they generally express a positive reception for the singles released thus far. BD2412 T 18:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will go through the sources...
        • 1st - Mentions Rebecca's background, mentions the album's upcoming release, and then mentions a quote by Black.
        • 2nd - Mentions the album's upcoming release and a quote by Black.
        • 3rd - mentions Rebecca's background, mentions the album's upcoming release, mentions and focuses on her new single "Crumbs" (not the album itself), and a quote by Black.
        • 4th - - mentions Rebecca's background, mentions the album's upcoming release, mentions and focuses on her new single "Crumbs" (not the album itself), and a quote by Black.
        • 5th - Mentions the album's upcoming release.
        • 6th - Mentions "Five of the most anticipated queer albums" by Charlie Grey. [29] (No information given there about the author).
  • Keep. The album has received coverage in a large number of news sources, including many known to WikiProject Albums to be reliable. Those news sources are providing significant coverage, covering the album beyond parroting a press release, especially the Paper and Uproxx articles. The article clearly establishes its subject's notability without needing to speculate unverifiaby. I don't think we would gain anything by moving its contents into Rebecca Black, and the article is very likely to have potential for expansion soon.
Project Termina (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete just because she sang Friday and that it would be "embarrassing" to Wikipedia i'm pretty disappointed. Dinah5667 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinah5667 Personal attacks are not allowed and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bedivere (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dinah's comment was about the deficient reasoning in your nomination and was not a personal attack. Also, WP:NOTAFORUM very clearly says to keep discussions out of the main articles and do them on talk pages instead. This and all other AfD's are discussions in which the community builds consensus, so this IS a forum. You will have to accept the fact that people disagree with you. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. Dinah's comment falsely assumes me and the other delete voter are leading Wikipedia to an embarrassment because we supposedly want deletion "just because she sang Friday". While I do mention Friday in my nomination, it is only as context, and does not imply that is the reason for deletion. NOTAFORUM also means discussion should remain on topic. Making such comments (which they reiterated more personally on the article talk page, if you didn't see it) do not help at all. Regarding your last comment, it is unnecessary and out of place. Had you read my reply above to BD, you would not have said such a thing in the first place. Bedivere (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue about whether I'm "incorrect", but this discussion should be about an album that is clearly notable, and your reactions to criticism aren't making your nomination any more logical. I'll sign off with a friendly recommendation to expand your perception of what a "forum" is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just looking at the sources currently used, like Paper (magazine), DIY (magazine), Billboard (magazine), Rolling Stone (magazine), Entertainment Weekly, The Sydney Morning Herald, NME, and others, I'd say this is definitely notable enough to keep. I have to thoroughly disagree with the OP and Oaktree b who strangely dismissed Queerly and the Brooklyn Vegan, because they were "unsure" if they were unreliable sources, and dismissed the article entirely because there wasn't "any sort of critical discussion in RS that I recognize." Such a view is relatively limiting. I also have to disagree with the argument by Knowledgekid87 that this should be a redirect. I would say there is enough there for this to be a page at the present time. Otherwise, I have to agree with the other arguments in this discussion to keep this page.Historyday01 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 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! 22:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common Tasks for Assessment

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

Only one source (no longer present). This article's topic doesn't seem notable to me. DarklitShadow (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless further sources can be found, I'd suggest deletion. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to have any other sources. Google search.
DarklitShadow (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important process in education in South Africa with a similar status to the British Eleven-plus exam (although it not actually an exam). Numerous books on South African education cover it,
  • Transforming Assessment [30]
  • Exploring Mathematics and Science Teachers' Knowledge [31]
  • Educator Workload in South Africa [32]
SpinningSpark 22:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... is it worthwhile to merge with Education in South Africa?
DarklitShadow (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This needs cleanup but I think there are enough sources to pass GNG. On top of those provided already, I have also found this article from Educational Studies in Mathematics and this (both by the same author and I think reporting the same/a similar study). Ideally I would like to find additional sources but this is, as Spinningspark notes, an important part of the South African education system, for which additional reliable sources likely exist; we shouldn't ignore that fact that due to systematic bias they may be more difficult to find. WJ94 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are many sources in Gscholar from South African peer-reviewed journals, I'd say it's at GNG. Not much from international sources, but it exists and has critical discussion around the tasks and outcomes it gives. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 7 January 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. ^ Denk, T.; Mottola, S.; Bottke, W. F.; Hamilton, D. P. (2018). "The Irregular Satellites of Saturn". Enceladus and the Icy Moons of Saturn (PDF). Vol. 322. University of Arizona Press. pp. 409–434. Bibcode:2018eims.book..409D. doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816537075-ch020. ISBN 9780816537488.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_7&oldid=1133663056"