Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 23	October 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mashahida

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

The article consists of broad claims supported by dubious sourcing. I can see only weak tie-up between the sources claimed and the narrative produced. Smacks of WP:OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a sweetener, this article was originally created by a (since) banned sock excluded for pushing nationalistic POV material. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

support speedy deletion per CSD G5 Shadow4dark (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Rekab

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

The article consists of broad claims supported by dubious sourcing. I can see little tie-up between the sources claimed and the narrative produced, i.e. WP:OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a sweetener, this article was originally created by a (since) banned sock excluded for pushing nationalistic POV material. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:11, 24 October 2021 (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. Clear consensus that the technical NFOOTY pass is less relevant than the fundamental lack of existence of significant coverage in sources which is required by gng. Fenix down (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luís Oliveira (footballer, born 1994)

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of 2 minutes. That is two 1-minute appearances. He plays on an amateur tier now. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: longstanding consensus that a few appearances that satisfy WP:NFOOTY do not confer notability if WP:GNG is comprehensively failed, as is the case here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and has long and active semi-pro career.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching his name in conjunction with clubs that he played for (as this seems to be the only sensible way of assessing notability for someone with such a common name) yields nothing of note Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 31 October 2021 (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. JBW deleted page on 28 October as part of mass deletion of pages added by Orbit Wharf. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RnaR

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

Non notable YouTuber. Having 1 million subscriber doesn’t mean you are automatically notable and will get an wikipedia article. There are some refs in the article but they are all primary source (they are interviews with the article's subject making them not independent from the subject). I didn’t find any significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Subject didn’t won any major award or anything. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a guy who reviews movies on YouTube and no remarkable claim of notability. Fails GNG. Neo-corelight (Talk) 23:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TOOSOON —MdsShakil (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per the above, and created by a now blocked sock account. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Metaphysics

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

Non-notable institution. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this organization. Google search results in 55 unique results for "University of Metaphysics", and fewer than 100 for "Metaphysics University". ... discospinster _talk 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom, seems to be a degree mill. No coverage, does not meet GNG. MB 22:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (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. Looks like there is a degree of coverage for this player, but consensus is to delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Lamardo

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 16 minutes on the Portuguese second tier as well as 7 minutes on the Portuguese first tier. Soccerway shows no cup matches. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and had long semi-pro career on top of his pro appearances.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I've done a bit of homework and, while certainly not exhaustive, there may be fire where there's smoke. There's a few articles on him here and here. I'm not a great searcher in 1. other languages and 2. other countries, but I feel like there's more to this story if people dug a bit? GauchoDude (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, not to mention WP:NFOOTBALL.---Darius (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the guidelines for football players. And this player doesn't pass. Mtpos (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palasia Hotel

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

It's a hotel. There is nothing unique, remarkable or even interesting to say about it. Should we have an article on every hotel merely because it exists? Vexations (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced, and the hotel is significant for being the tallest in the country. NemesisAT (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is "it has sources" a valid reason to keep? Even is one is a database [1], another doesn't mention the subject [2] and another is the hotel's own website? Vexations (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you search "Palasia" in the book "China in Oceania: Reshaping the Pacific?", it comes up with "Two of Palau's major hotels—the Palasia Hotel and Palau Royal Resort—were developed by Taiwanese. Taiwanese companies also own two middle-range hotels, the Papago Hotel and Airai View Hotel, both in Airai." Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant (in coverage, timescale, and scope) coverage of the topic exists especially as it relates to politics and international relations. See [3][4]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better, thanks, Vexations (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence (UPNP)

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

My search for sources mostly found code-hosting sites and self-published information. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources that discuss this in any level of detail. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Dunne

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes NFOOTY and can be assumed to have pre-internet offline coverage. You cannot treat a player from the 1950s like one from the 21st century in coverage terms. As GS rightly says, articles like this need improvement, not deletion. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any online coverage that is significant or in-depth, and while I don't have access to the offline sources mentioned in the article, they appear to be trivial in nature. Even if the single Football League appearance is enough to create a presumption of notability, such a presumption is invalid when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any offline sources in this article. There are two online sources only. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I thought I noticed some book references but obviously I was mistaken. Jogurney (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded it a bit. There's rather more to his career than one game for Colchester, and there's some coverage that I can access, but without an infinitely expandable budget of time and money to use on newspaper archives in the next few days, that's as far as I'm taking it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gotts

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Played in FA cup games a couple of league games, a few sources online, probably more offline sources out there. I feel this isn't a delete. Govvy (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Austin Dunne above. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded it a bit. There's enough coverage of his early career, before it was wrecked by injury and the war, to suggest a GNG pass. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and the article is well-written for the most part. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Jervis

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that was a funny little read, I am on the fence here, the article certainly has weaknesses. However, Football's Strangest Matches 1-86105-292-8 does actually provides a credible bit towards GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly, this is a ridiculous nomination that hasn't had any thought put into it. The man played for Gillingham and the article is a good start-class with four strong offline citations. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Maudsley

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. No Football League appearances so unsure why nominator using it as measure of notability; shows lack of care with their nominations. Giant Snowman 16:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently no appearances in the FL so fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Consensus is certainly not to keep, closing as redirect seems to me to be the best outcome which ultimately removes the standalone article but recognises the player's name as a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Baird

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Austin Dunne above. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if he really only played 1 game it is not enough to meet WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, per countless other AFDs. This is regardless of the year he played in. However, the incoming link which is a list is also a possible redirect target. Geschichte (talk)
Delete of he only played one game.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) as that seems to be the only claim to notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the outcome is not a keep, then redirect to 1929–30 Gillingham F.C. season, the season when he played -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Ollerenshaw

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On my initial search ... He made his league debut against for Gills against Brentford, [5] and also played 17 times for Stockport County in War League, Lancashire Section. [6], [7]. Govvy (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTY and GS above. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Birchall

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is anyone able to find out if he ever played a game for Carlisle? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spiderone: Can't find any info on that (Carlisle weren't in the Football League at the time) but he did play 7 FL games for Lincoln City -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. @Bring back Daz Sampson: please can you explain what cut off point you are using for fully professional for the FL? No mention of anything on WP:FPL to support such a thing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nowhere near until the reorganisation in 1958 and/or the abolition of the max wage in 1961. Arguably much later. In this guy's case Lincoln City were still completely part-time until (at least) the late 40s. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point me in the direction of any WP:SIGCOV I'll get right to work.... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I am usually a deletionist, but here WP:NFOOTY is passed per Football League apps. I'm not too sure about WP:GNG but there seem to be sources backing up the material and they seem to be independent as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:SNG, meeting the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL is sufficient. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We must interpret this differently. SNG states "...articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted ... especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found." I read this to mean unless significant coverage can be found, passing WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am kind of in agreement with the keep votes, there are a number of games which count backed up by soft citations. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all but one of the above cases and I really am glad this is the last one. What a waste of time. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, unless someone can find significant coverage then the subject is unable to have a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Mills

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

Promotional BLP. Subjects projects are potentially notable, but barely any sources are about the subject himself. Does not seem to pass GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly notable that a kid started a web site with his brother during the bubble. His company Hitcents already has an article, and at best one of the two should survive. We might be able to save the company one (at least the company survived), although do not see any SEC documents for it either. W Nowicki (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citations are mostly not about him and have just mentions. Peter303x (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaëlle Maugeais

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and completely fails WP:GNG. Scoring an important goal against Femina Budapest in the UEFA Women's Cup group stage doesn't confer notability. She never played for France at senior level, either. She's not even notable enough to have an article in French. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am struggling to find online French-language sources (other than football database entries and match reports - e.g. from the UEFA Cup match against Budapest) that cover her career in any depth. That said, La Dépêche du Midi claims that she represented France at international level (along with the 51-times capped Angelique Roujas). If true, I would change to keep, but there is no mention of Maugeais at fff.fr. Jogurney (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also cannot find much French coverage, and thus should fail WP:GNG. Per @Jogurney:'s note above, it appears as though she's played on French youth teams, which could be what the article is referring to (as seen here and here), but I cannot find anything to indicate a full international. GauchoDude (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage found in a French source search nor Google News nor Google Images nor Google Books Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 26 October 2021 (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. There is no consensus to delete, so if merge is preferable, I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy

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

Seems a case of WP:NOTNEWS, doesn't seem to have had lasting effects or gotten continued coverage beyond a couple weeks in January 2013 and a 2021 paragraph mention in a broader article about Wikipedia edit wars. As far as WP:EVENTCRIT goes, it does not have enduring historical significance, and doesn't seem to even have attracted a lot of coverage at the time. My Before search found little more, the Signpost notes one more contemporary news article (in in the media that is no longer live) and gizmodo gives it a few sentences in 2019, and slate in Feb 2013 gives it a sentence or two. Not enough, IMO to establish notability when considering the above policies. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. Nothing at that list about this subject. While I agree this page doesn't seem to meet criteria for standalone article, there's more than adequate sourcing for a merge to the list. BusterD (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be fine with a merge. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work

Keep—although I'm the author of the article. I think that this slate article from a month afterward showed that it was at least drawn out, and multiple articles long after the controversy give it mentions whenever they talk about wikipedia edit wars. However, I'm fine if this is merged too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, WP:PERSISTENCE states that If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance. Indeed, when Wikipedia edit wars are covered now, you'll often find a mention of this incident. And i'm not sure what "relatively short" means in Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. from WP:PERSISTENCE, but coverage of the controversy lasted for over a month. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is proper to defend one's own work; the wikipedian wouldn't have built such work without good intentions. The work is well cited, to the extent it could be. This issue to me is WP:NEVENT, where this subject fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. If merge is the concluded outcome, I suggest User:Theleekycauldron perform the merge themselves to preserve the best material. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: I'd be happy to perform the merge if that is the consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lol Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not understanding? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm likewise intrigued. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) Notable and telling to show the kind of pedantic arguments which happen in the backrooms of the project. The comic strip is a nice measure of notability. Also I like it because it made me spit my coffee out. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on me. I failed to say what User:Lightburst has kindly pointed out. The page is a clever piece of writing and the cartoon does matter. I'm amenable to changing my !vote if argument goes towards keep. Sure could use an article rescue squadron here. User:Dream Focus is fully capable of correctly sourcing a random lamppost (for which I'd be forced to assert keep). Kudos to User:Theleekycauldron for making me laugh today too. No unworthy thing. I hope Lightburst's keyboard is ok. BusterD (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/wikipedia-conflict-map-flame-wars/ mentions it as one of the Wikipedia flame wars, and links to a long detailed article about just it at Wikipedians wage war over a capital “I” in a “Star Trek” film that was Published Jan 30, 2013. They also link to another article Published Feb 21, 2013 about how it messed up Google search results: That epic Wikipedia “Star Trek” edit is still screwing up Google. Slate mentions it [8] in a 2019 article, linking to their detail article about it back in 2013. [9] So even after it happened, people still mention it at times, it considered a notable event. Dream Focus 19:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the 2019 slate mention you link is a 40,000-word debate on the Star Trek Into Darkness talk page about whether the word into should be capitalized. and it's misrepresentation to describe their 2013 article as a "detail[sic] article" when the entirety of coverage there is the Wikipedia page for the film has become a battle ground for grammatical debate. Certain Wikipedia users maintain that the into in the title should be capitalized; others are certain that it should be lowercase. Their fervor is misplaced. To date, the summation of substantive coverage includes two published on January 30, and one published three weeks later. That's hardly even a significant burst of coverage at the time, but there has not been sustained substantive coverage. The fact that people still mention it at times does not support your later claim that it is a notable event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. That article was about the issue of the title, with only part of it mentioning the Wikipedia argument about it, I didn't read it through as I should have. The DailyDot articles were however significant coverage about this, and published 22 days apart. And I do believe it is notable if its mentioned years later, even if briefly. Dream Focus 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tor.com is a reliable source. I found significant coverage there. Grammar Fight! Star Trek Into Darkness Title Sparks Tussle on Wikipedia Dream Focus 20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good find, but it still faces the issue that it dates to January 31, 2013, still not demonstrating persistence of coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On advice of counsel, I've added content about the controversy to the List of Wikipedia controversies—merged or not, it should probably be mentioned there anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness Controversy" Elemimele (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oh god, not again... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If one is making joke suggestions to move this, Randall's solution ([10]) seems the obvious solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was intended lightheartedly. My serious opinion is keep as per User:Randy Kryn below; becoming the subject of an xkcd cartoon is a very unusual event, indicating unusual notability. The current article shows how Wikipedia disputes can influence the world in a way that has never before happened with an encyclopaedia. In some ways, this was a world first. Elemimele (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. I marked this article as reviewed because I found it notable enough with significant coverage, but on second thought, it's just one of many Wikipedia controversies that could easily be part of the list. I would say keep it as an independent article if the article was longer and the topic was more significant, but this is just a larger than usual internal conflict on Wikipedia that got the media's attention. While I'm not fully opposed to keeping, I find merging a better choice. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this really a controversy per se? It's always mentioned in RSes in the context of other edit wars, so perhaps a new article List of Wikipedia edit wars should be created with this and other such events. I would not be opposed to a keep or a merge to List of Wikipedia controversies but it just seems a bit off to me. eviolite (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new summary at List of Wikipedia controversies#2013 which Theleekycauldron just added, so the merge is already effectively done. (Nice work.) That's all the attention this dispute deserves. --Lockley (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an encyclopedic and very well sourced example of how the world's best, largest, and arguably strangest encyclopedia - when questioning how it grew and succeeded despite a framework which, as someone famously said, cannot work in theory but only in practice - runs behind the scenery, where the wild things roam. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just not the quality or quantity of sources neded for a standalone article.There's very little to say about the dispute itself. That said, it does clearly qualify for an entry on the List of Wikipedia controversies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning above. The article is linked to at List of Wikipedia controversies now, I don't think a merge would be beneficial due to the length of that article. It is beneficial to our readers to keep this so the list article doesn't become too convoluted, but people can click through to find more information on this article if they wish. NemesisAT (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Are we looking at the same sources here? Setting aside the one ABOUTSELF source and the xkcd reference, we have two from right when it happened, one of them rather short; one from a month later, a follow-up to the longer of those two; and then two paragraphs in a listicle published this year. I don't see how any of that qualifies as persistent coverage. Think for a moment about if this weren't a Wikipedia-related topic. We routinely delete articles on non-notable hashtags and memes that have received far more coverage than is demonstrated here. Usually every time a new big hashtag emerges, every publication looking for some clicks will write an article about that hashtag, and then may call back to it later on. We could also make the case for articles on a lot of r/AskReddit threads, a lot of AMAs on r/IAmA, and a lot of viral Tumblr posts. But none of these things enjoy in-depth coverage in the moment, nor enduring coverage afterward. The first Daily Dot article, which seems to have given the longest coverage, does summarize the perspectives here, but not much more than in your standard "See what people are tweeting!" article. It doesn't have much depth to it beyond that. If this is to be kept, and we aren't granting special status to Wikipedia-related content, then we're opening the door to articles on every Twitter, Reddit, or Tumblr thread with a comparable level of coverage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this controversy, and don't think the article should be deleted. killer bee  03:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a notable controversy. The article is too long to be discussed for merger on a AfD. desmay (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per the law of holes, "when you're in a hole, stop digging!". What Wikipedians like to do is fill the hole in and then dig it again. Repeatedly. It boosts everyone's edit count but it's not very productive is it? As people already have come up with some sensible ideas above and none of them require deletion, we seem to be done here. See also WP:INTODARKNESS. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson, would you clarify which speedy keep criterion this meets? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant strong keep, but I'm not sure. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies#2013, where it is adequately covered. Despite that many links above, there are a total of three sources here. [11] [12] [13]. Two are published by the Daily Dot, one by Slate, and all published in a span of a couple weeks. All of the other sources linked (I just opened them all) are single sentence mentions and don't help notability. [Internal Wikipedia stuff] + [something fun/quirky] = Almost impossible to delete at AfD, I'm finding, regardless of sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2013 covers it perfectly well, and a few more sentences there would be fine too if someone wants to merge a bit more, but the main article is somewhat wordy itself and doesn't need to be standalone per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 22:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said, this is definitely notable enough to be a Wikipedia article, with sources covering the argument. If keep fails then I'd suggest to make a redirect. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Re-direct to list of lamest edit wars - Wikipedia has had many disputes over article titles. PS: I hope an article isn't created about this AfD. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have two enduring sources 2016 and 2021 (the 2016 source was just added by me). There may be more missed, and more in the future, 8 years is too soon to declare it a dead item when some sources continue to reference it over time. -- GreenC 05:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the 2016 source in question brings up the controversy as a single-sentence example brought up in a larger point about Wikipedia's style of discussion and consensus—but I think it's time for this discussion to come to a close, however that comes down. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but the entire article is about Wikipedia, the author chose a select few case examples to illustrate in the opening paragraphs for the points he would make further into the article. -- GreenC 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge and redirect. Borderline notability and I think it fails on the non-notable side; I think the coverage at List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2013 is sufficient - it can be expanded with what we have here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sourcing, but a merge is not a terrible outcome and should be handled as a talk page discussion if desired. Barely anyone here is arguing for outright deletion, which is good, because if we did that, I suspect Randall Munroe might pen another XKCD about how Wikipedia deletes things that end up making his older cartoons less funny, only it would be far wittier than the potential summary I've done. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into List of Wikipedia controversies. Good read, but lasting coverage seems to be all in passing. On a related note I actually think there's enough coverage of edit wars in the news and in books to support the creation of an article about edit warring itself (see Gizmodo, Vox, BBC, The Economist, Stack Overflow, Springer, Cambridge). DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may go there next! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is has been up for eight days now; isn't it time for a close? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It will be closed when it's closed. Please allow the process to work itself out. BusterD (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I wasn't sure if AfDs can run over until I checked the old page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:05, 2 November 2021 (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. Additional sources found indicate GNG. No realistic chance of any other outcome in this discussion. Fenix down (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Février

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. There are some sources here and there but they aren't enough to suggest WP:INDEPTH is passed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article appears to satisfy WP:GNG based on a quick search of online French-language sources (I added articles from Ouest-France and Le Télégramme to the biography). Jogurney (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG through coverage found and added by Jogurney. Giant Snowman 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources added following nomination demonstrate WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Jogurney. GauchoDude (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as nominator. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone please close the AfD. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2021 (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. Users felt that the article did retain notability in both letter and spirit, after the scope of the nomination was clarified. Lights and freedom, if you have the ability to expand the article fivefold, you could nominate it at WP:DYK if you wish. It'd make a good hook (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty's

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

I am nominating my own article for deletion. A user added a comment that this San Francisco store for left-handed people may not be notable enough for an article, because it "meets the letter but not the spirit" of WP:GNG. I would like you to come to a decision. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.per nom.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 12:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G7, given that nominator is the only substantial contributor to page (other edits are reverted vandalism, AFC creation, and categorizing/tagging). I am placing a tag on the article. eviolite (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed that tag -- it's not clear the author is requesting deletion ("I would like you to come to a decision"). If the author either amends the AfD to make it clear or blanks the article, feel free to reapply the request.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fabrictramp: Thank you. Eviolite, I don't want it deleted just because I nominated it; I only want it deleted if consensus is that is not notable. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see now, thanks for the clarification Fabrictramp and Lights and freedom. In that case I would vote keep as 1843 (award-winning, not a blog, published by The Economist) and CNN Business clearly provide much for GNG, and there are also articles in CityNews Vancouver^[1] and SF Weekly (pretty small though)^[2]. This USA TODAY article^[3] references a bunch of products from the store but seems to be almost interview-style and doesn't say much about the store itself, but it may be useful. There are several smaller mentions (and a lot of press releases) as well but here I've just presented the sources that seem useful. eviolite (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment - I'm pretty confused by what's going on here. User:Lights and freedom, do you want this article deleted, or did you just want additional opinions on whether the article meets notability standards? If you do, as the sole substantive contributor to the article, it is eligible for speedy deletion. Otherwise, nominating the article is probably not what you want, since the nominator is assumed to be voting in favor of deletion. That said, the subject looks notable to me: the Economist and CNN coverage meet WP:GNG and are probably sufficient to meet WP:NCORP as well. (Both seem to offer significant coverage: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.") That said, there seem to be a few plausible alternatives to deletion: a merge to Pier 39 seems most plausible to me, but adding to the Culture section of Handedness would be reasonable as well. Suriname0 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0: I should not be counted by the closing administrator. I'm not trying to vote one way or the other, just trying to reach a clear decision. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only four sources were cited, but two of them are articles entirely about the shop in respected national publications - 1843 (magazine) (a subsidiary of The Economist,) and CNN Money. IMO that pretty much makes them notable right there. And I just added a source, so it's no longer a single-author article and it's not eligible for G7 speedy deletion. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the cited sources are in depth and reputableJackattack1597 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears the nominator does not want this article deleted, and there are two good articles focusing on the subject from CNN and The Economist. Combined with the other sources I feel WP:GNG has been met. Also, despite being about a single shop, the subject is quirky and of interest - how many left-handed shops are out there? NemesisAT (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be roughly equal policy-based support for the cases for merging, proposed by the nom, and keeping, laid out by Haleth and Lightburst. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilandra Neramani

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

Article that fails WP:NPLOT and WP:IN-U, of a comic book character that fails WP:GNG. Google scholar search reveals only this (character's name on a list), and a Google proper search returns only fansites, fandom wikis or listicles. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find many sources - not in google scholar. WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being willfully ignorant? It's explicitly said that my search was not limited to google scholar Avilich (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L sourced almost entirely from Marvel's own comic books and there is no evidence of any significant coverage beyond the comics. The only two non-Marvel sources are to questionable source Newsarama that fail WP:V. @Lightburst:, claims that other sources exist but I find exclusively non-RS, such as Fandom, the Marvel Database, Reddit, Facebook, Pintrest, eBay, ArchiveOfOurOwn, etc. An allusion to WP:NEXIST without identifying any of the supposedly existing sources is not persuasive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC) updated !vote per WP:ATD Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:EggishornI was pinged here but I do not feel like working on the article. We do not determine deletion based on what is in the article: if sources exist we keep. CBR, Screen Rant, Villain Lilandra Explained, Cinema Blend, Starjammers, Naming Your Little Geek: The Complete List of Comic, Game, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Back Issue #123, Star-Lord and the Guardians of the Galaxy: An Unofficial Comic Book History. I am sure I could find more - but that is just a few minutes. Subjects like this are not generally found in the New York Times. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not generally, but it happens.[14] It's a mixed bag, one book is Marvel and one selfpub. I don't know what "we" generally say about SR and CBR for notability, but they are not passing mentions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what "we" have to say about Screenrant. "It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons". Consensus from a recent RfC which concluded months ago determined that caution should be exercised for BLP articles, but is otherwise reliable enough. You may want to refer to the archived discussion for Screenrant here for more context. Haleth (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all just fanfluff, listicles ("10 Marvel Cosmic Characters") and usual in-universe trivia, very little in the way of commentary and reception. Avilich (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haleth below, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L per nom argument. No MCU no glory. I remember her from John Byrne X-men though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator's argument is for the article to be deleted as opposed to a merge-and-redirect because in their view, the topic is non-notable when assessed against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. MCU or not, it is rather telling that multiple media outlets that cover entertainment topics were already going into much detail in published articles about Lilandra and Jessica Chastain's potential casting before the character was even confirmed to appear in the Dark Phoenix film. That tells me notability was never an issue with this character. Haleth (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. IGN, a source thoroughly vetted to be reliable and certainly not a fansite or fandom wiki, published two non-listicle articles which specifically discussed Lilandra here, and here. Google Scholar turned out a search result for an article by a Ramzi Fawaz titled “Where No X-Man Has Gone Before!” Mutant Superheroes and the Cultural Politics of Popular Fantasy in Postwar America which appears to discuss Lilandra in non-trivial detail, and so does Marvel's Mutants: The X-Men Comics of Chris Claremont where a search result for Lilandra turned up at least 7 pages. Marvel Comics In The 1980s: An Issue-By-Issue Field Guide To A Pop Culture Phenomenon also contains some commentary about Lilandra, which turned up 3 pages worth with a search, and so does an essay published in Comics - Bilder, Stories und Sequenzen in religiösen Deutungskulturen with 2 pages that talk about the theme of spirituality represented by the character. All of that is from a one minute perusal of search results from Google News/Books/Scholar. These sources in aggregate appear to meet the threshold set by WP:GNG, and this is before I counted the sources brought up by Lightburst. Is there an issue with the article's content that runs afoul of the WP:NPLOT and WP:IN-U guidelines? So fix it; the identified issues are editorial by nature, not a question of whether the topic itself is notable or not by Wikipedia's definition, and therefore not an appropriate deletion under the encyclopedia's deletion policy. Haleth (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree with you more. WhatGuy (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The American Literature gscholar article, which you don't seem to have actually read, mentions the subject only very briefly, in a very specific context and almost in passing, and only for conveying plot information. The 'pages worth' of content in your Google Books links are likewise passing mentions and/or in-universe factoids; you say the content 'appears' to be 'non-trivial' but that seems to be false, and I doubt you went any further than simply confirming that the character's name is mentioned in your sources. The first IGN article is not about the character, the second is pure plot information--presumably an IGN article can be found for every single character out there, doesn't mean they're all encyclopedic. There's nothing indicating that this character is notable outside its own universe, no evidence that its a popular cultural icon, no evidence that it was widely commented on. Avilich (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, provide a screenshot or link in this discussion which shows us the American Literature gscholar article only regurgitates plot info from the X-Men comics. Your dismissal of my contribution to this discussion based on what you believe to be "likely" or "presumably" (PS: no, IGN does not normally devote "an article for every single character out there" as you have suggested) is noted but not accepted. As I have demonstrated, you have not made a convincing case that you have done a proper WP:BEFORE and yet you are trying to tell the rest of us to take your word for it. Your insistence that the character is not notable outside its own universe is unpersuasive when several media sources indicate a clear interest in a potential appearance by the character in an adaptation of said universe, there is no requirement under any guideline or policy that a fictional character must be a "popular cultural icon" to warrant a standalone article other then the fact that there should be significant coverage of any nature from independent and reliable sources, and the numerous sources brought up by myself and Lightburst contradict your vaguewaving that the topic isn't widely commented on. Haleth (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Several media sources" which, again, either provide exclusively plot information, are Marvel-related, or just mention the character in passing when the character is not even the main subject of the analysis. A 'popular cultural icon' will most likely have non-trivial, significant coverage, especially regarding analysis, commentary and reception of the character from a real-world perspective. None of your or Lightburt's sources seem to have any of that: the best you can come up with is "interest in a potential appearance by the character in an adaptation" (not even an actual appearance) from a short, low-effort IGN article of 4 years ago. You don't get to reject the status of 'popular cultural icon' as a useful (if informal) measure of notability while your own sources don't demonstrate that.

Since you asked, here's the extent of the coverage of the American Literature article. “The Phoenix Saga” tells the story of the alien princess Lilandra Nermani’s desperate effort...; ...empire is torn apart by civil war when Lilandra turns against her kin...; ...Lilandra and her supporters fight valiantly...; ...discovers a psychic rapport across the galaxies that leads her to Earth.... That is all. It only mentions the character as part of the overall plot setting, it doesn't actually have any analysis of the character itself. And that's your best source. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I've provided are affiliated with Marvel; IGN, Collider and Valnet-owned properties like Screenrant and CBR certainly aren't primary sources. All the book sources (all of which you have ignored in your most recent response except for the American Literature one, which is merely an example to contrast the correctly identified trivial mention on a list in an academic publication you brought up, and hardly what I call "the best source") appears to discuss the topic from a real world perspective, none are self-published or Marvel-affiliated. The prose you've pointed at as purportedly the full extent of the coverage of the American Literature article also turned up in my google search result. This means you don't have full access to read the article either. This is no different the fact that your AfD nomination is essentially speculating that all instances or mentions of that character in google searches must be pure plot summary or fancruft with nothing further of substance. WP:N specifically defines the scope of "significant coverage" as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I posted two IGN articles, you ignored the lengthier one which discuss the character in detail while focusing on the "short, low effort" about speculative casting. "Popular cultural icon" is one approach or method to measure notability, but WP:FAME makes a compelling argument that it certainly is not the only metric. Yes, the character did not end up appearing in the movie after all...that is not the point I was trying to make though. The volume of media coverage, with at least a dozen or more media outlets having picked up on the casting rumor bit, led to the point that Chastain had to publicly address the rumors instead of ignoring them, is a measure of out-of-universe impact: why would all these outlets care about a potential appearance and who plays the character, if said character is insignificant or not notable in the first place as you are asserting?

In any event, I invite you to read the WP:WHYN section, specifically, the whole point of significant coverage: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Analysis, commentary and reception you say? At least two of the book sources and the lengthier IGN article I have linked appear to have that covered. Is it very deep coverage? Probably not enough to write a GA or FA class article, but from what I can tell, there is indeed enough to write a short article. I repeat again that an MOS-related issue is not a valid rationale for deletion as it is an editorial concern. And so what if it was 4 years ago, 10 years ago, or even half a century ago? WP:NTEMP makes it clear that once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The character first appeared in a 1976 comic, and by the late 2010s popular media talk about a potential movie appearance as if she matters. At the end of the day, the onus is still on you as the AfD nominator to demonstrate that you have done a proper WP:BEFORE, and make a compelling argument that the policies of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE could not be satisfied because the issues surrounding the article is so insurmountable with the only reasonable outcome being deletion. Haleth (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A proper Before does not entail scouring every corner of the planet, just doing a reasonable internet search and assessing the quality of the sources found, which is what I did. Yes, I did check the journal article and it doesn't say anything more than what I quoted, and neither do the books. Secondary sources (especially low-quality ones like CBR, which often put out listicles too) have no more bearing than primary sources on notability if they convey only in-u factoids, which is what the books/links above do, and no, they don't seem to have anything outside of it (the spirituality one certainly doesn't, neither apparently the other ones, nor the larger IGN piece). The demonstrations of article improvement amount to a notice about an abortive movie adaptation, and a mention in a baby name book (put forward above as a source with full seriousness and no sarcasm), which is no basis for an encyclopedia article. I have nothing more to say. Avilich (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but WP:ONUS is on you. If this or any other source contains non-trivial in-depth discussion, quote or summarize it here for us and best, expand the article. What I saw in snippets and such did not suggest any coverage that goes beyond plot summary. If you saw better coverage - please say so directly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The onus, for the purpose of an AfD, is on editors who see merit in the subject topic's notability and inclusion for coverage on Wikipedia to demonstrate the existence of suitable sources. As I have explained throughout this discussion, there are book/scholarly-type sources I brought up which discuss the character, the snippets I could see from Google Book previews confirm that they go beyond plot summary. I have no special access to these sources, no more then anyone else with a Google search, but I've pointed where to look for everyone involved, and it's really up to you on how you form your opinion and arrive to a conclusion. I am not obliged to quote a whole block of text and spoonfeed information when I have already highlighted the nature of the information covered by these sources, or rewrite an article to convince for the purpose of this discussion because article content does not determine notability. Haleth (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm pretty sure those sources that were presented above are enough to meet notability WP:GNG, or just barely. AfD is also not used for WP:cleanup. 115.162.255.227 (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC) — 115.162.255.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

They do not, and you haven't looked at them. Sources containing only in-universe factoids (and only in passing at that) are useless for determining notability, they add nothing that primary sources do not and are not significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must keep: This is a real character. Yuotort (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought she was completely made up ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are enough to pass the minimum standard for GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. She is a recurring character in the X-Men comics. Plus, I agree with the other keeps on this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above four !votes appear to consist of arguments: that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. per WP:NHC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the editors you singled out gave their subjective opinion as to whether the sources brought up in this discussion indicate that the topic meets the standards mandated by WP:GNG, not unlike how you or TrangaBellam gave your own opinions of whether the sources cited in the article or in this discussion are suitable. By the way, Newsrama is deemed reliable by the comics Wikiproject, and the url's being dead do not mean they fail WP:V when it is nothing that an archived url retrieved from Wayback Machine can't fix. Haleth (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source suitability usually isn't open to much opinion, except for a few borderline cases (like when there is only one or two short paragraphs). Either A) it meets WP:GNG (by discussing the topic to sufficient depth, and being otherwise reliable and independent); or B) it doesn't. As for source reliability, the proper venue is WP:RSN. Plus, Wikiproject local consensuses are regularly disregarded if the are not in line with broader community guidelines; and this wouldn't be the first time a Wikiproject was wrong... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any concerns about the suitability and reliability of Newsarama in any past discussions? Haleth (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by what I said. The article would still be just one huge plot summary if all the notebombs above (including that journal article) were added. For this reason the case for GNG is also weak, since secondary sources are no better than primary sources for establishing notability if they contain only in-universe details. The only evidence of notability provided thus far is an abortive movie appearance and a baby name book. WP:NPLOT is still relevant here, as is WP:NOR for the time being, so this article shouldn't exist in the namespace. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Abortive" is a misnomer when the character was never planned for an appearance by the moviemakers. This is something generally reliable sources which are independent from Fox or the X-Men franchise have come up with, which alludes to a certain level of cultural impact and wider recognition behind the character outside of the fictional universe. Your assertion that the secondary sources only contain plot summary info is incorrect. From what I can glean from snippets and book previews, some of the authors have given their opinions of the character (she's a boring/self-righteous character etc), or discussed the character within the context of another topic (spirituality in comics). What this discussion should be about is whether the topic has been subject to significant coverage by independent and reliable sources per WP:GNG, and the guideline does not specify the exact nature of said coverage. The manual of style, which is a separate concern from that of notability, asks editors to write article content from a real world perspective, as opposed to a demand that in-universe info be omitted entirely. Your claim that you already said what you wanted to say in your last post is also noted. No one expects you to change your mind and you have every right to stick to your position, but be mindful of not bludgeoning the process. Everyone else also has the right to decide whether to accept or reject your arguments. Haleth (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've contributed over 51% of this discussion and you're warning another editor about bludgeoning? Well, points for irony, I guess. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved at all with the discussion during its acrimonious beginnings, which had been trimmed back by the admin, so it can't be over "51%" as you are claiming. Haleth (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page statistics don't lie. You've contributed nearly 50% of the actual discussion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Over 50%" and "under 50%" is splitting hairs. And you have not answered my question about Newsarama, so I suppose it will go over 50% by now with my response to you. Since you were the one who suggested that the comic wikiproject may have erred in its judgment of the source, I am genuinely interested to know if you are aware of any local consensus which shares the same opinion about Newsrama as one of the participants of this discussion. Haleth (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - Based on arguments by nom; sources presented for a keep are not satisfactory. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: L. The article still does not contain a section on reception or significance, and the sources linked above that I reviewed seem to be limited to plot summaries. I wasn't able to access all the sources, and perhaps I missed some, but I didn't see anything better. If there are sources that go beyond plot summary and listing of appearances in various media, please ping me, link them (or provide quotations) and I'll be happy to reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Orthodox Catholic Church – Western Rite Mission, Diocese of New York

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. SL93 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no coverage at all, and article consists of original research. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This claims to be a denomination, and claims episcopal succession since a regular consecration in 1892. However, it appears to be a splinter of a small denomination, possibly just a handful of local churches. I see nothing independent on American Orthodox Catholic Church, even without the addition descriptors. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2021 (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 - WP:CSD#G12. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ռենդերինգ

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

This non-English essay appears to be commercial advice for 3d artists. Even if this article were in the correct language it would have no hope of existing for long in English Wikipedia as it reads like editorial. Salimfadhley (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW - sorry all, I noticed too late that it is a copyright infringement. Salimfadhley (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12. This is the English Wikipedia as well. I won't take the time to translate so it may be G1 or G3. Anyway... G12 works and if the article starter wants a draft? Perhaps a non CCI draft should be recreated in English. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2021 (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. Sandstein 21:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hna Pin Lain Tae Yee Sarr Sar

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

This film article does not meet en-Wikipedia criteria to notable; any administrator can verify this once; creator of this film, SoeThiha5 has creating so many this type of articles. Limited Idea4me (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Limited Idea4me (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the creator has sent the article to draft, despite there not being any consensus for this. It should be moved back to article space and the AfD should resume. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Hello and if you don't mind, could you please move Draft:Hna Pin Lain Tae Yee Sarr Sar to the main space? There will be many redirects overlapped if I do. TIA. Htanaungg (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: please could you move it back to main space again as the author has again sent it to draft for no good reason Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gave SoeThiha5 a final warning. And move protected just to remove all temptation. El_C 18:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyedeh Tina Sadri

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

Appears to be a non-notable social media influencer Salimfadhley (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Almost certainly WP:UPE. See Special:PermaLink/1048582482 - user page of creator advertises their "digital marketing" and "social media management" credentials. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Image is tagged for possible copyright violation as well. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mardetanha (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree this is paid-for spam, and I have blocked the author for it. MER-C 15:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She is writer and she wrote a book with Randall Frakes please reconsider.Ehsangh70 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art game (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation violates WP:PTM by not disambiguating between articles sharing the exact title. "Art game" is not the same as "game art" and should not share a disambiguation page. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have to give it more thought. Deciding if it is an aide in navigation in spite of ambiguous article titles. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Zxcvbnm: Why can't "game art" and "art game" share a DAB page? "Things that are not the same" are all what disambiguation is about. If we didn't have different things on the same DAB page there would be no need for disambiguation pages. Question: Could a reader unfamiliar with art concepts with video games be in doubt about which term ("game art" or "art game") to use? Also, this is not strictly a question of a partial title match, as each term fully uses up the characters. The key to PTM is "significant risk of confusion between them". --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that anyone with typical knowledge of grammar would use "art game" to describe art in a video game. It clearly describes the game itself as the art. This doesn't seem to be a case of extreme ambiguity between the two terms. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some editors apparently have no clue what disambiguation pages are there for. It is NOT for anything that has some remote connection to the title. Egregious example #1: Roman Empire (disambiguation) had the Ottoman Empire as an entry for some bizarre reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"What disambiguation pages are there for" should be simply as an aid to navigation for readers who are not sure what article they want, not for editors who want to show off how clever they are by saying that it's anything else. And let's remember that an encyclopedia exists for readers who want to find something out that they don't already know, rather than for people who already know everything. In this case I would have thought that it's unlikely, but possible, that anyone would confuse "art game" and "game art". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there are three related topics, which are already interconnected by a hatnote in each article: Art game, Video games as an art form and Video game art. So navigation is already handled. Video game graphics and Video game music say nothing about art, only nuts-and-bolts technology. Video game design#Narrative ~~doesn't even exist, though if it did, narrative~~ doesn't equate to art. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, if say there were things like Art Game (novel) and Art Game (painting), Video games as an art form and Video game art would still only qualify for the See also section. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can get behind the idea that "Video games as an art form" and "Art game" could be confused, but this is a WP:TWODABS situation and needs nothing but a hatnote. "Video game art" really is not ambiguous here (IMO), and even that could be in a hatnote rather than a separate dab page. IceWelder [✉] 19:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the most reasonable terms that could be search results of "art game" can be handled through hatnotes at the current art game. Merging "game art" on this page doesn't make sense, there's just no English way to mix those terms up (Though art game should mention aspects of game art as part of why they are art games. --Masem (t) 21:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't understand the rules for Disambig pages well enough to !vote here, but I'll agree that I don't think a native speaker would confuse "game art" and "art game" even if they were unfamiliar with the topics. A non-native speaker might. English word-order rules can be tricky to learn. ApLundell (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STEFDIES

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

Artist who made 123 instagram posts and "went viral" for posting "hilarious" "anti-selfies". The article has a lot of citations, but when you read them, you'll see they all say essentially the same thing. Coverage in clickbait posts is in significant indepth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need consistent sustained coverage, rather than flash-in-the-pan viral phenomena. --- Possibly ☎ 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial coverage that is not enough to pass WP:NARTIST. I think the nom meant to write "insignificant", not "in significant". Netherzone (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Per above.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 12:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Vivek ji123. ✗plicit 13:49, 31 October 2021 (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 is that WP:GNG trumps WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond and Ray

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

per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF, no evidence has been provided that filming has begun (all sources predate scheduled filming dates), there is already a draft at Draft:Raymond and Ray BOVINEBOY2008 18:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is filming, it began on October 4. And again it does not matter if the sources predate the filming start. Rusted AutoParts 18:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- RAP, it literally says in WP:NFF: "Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Beyond this, two articles about this film is not enough info to indicate that it is notable for a stand-alone article yet. BOVINEBOY2008 18:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Theres three sources now, and a production listing that supports the recent source placing McGregor in the area to film. And as long as we can prove filming is commenced whether it’s a regular reported on project isn’t necessary. Rusted AutoParts 18:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The third article merely has a passing mention of the film giving context to the gossip-style article about the actors. Does not contribute to the film's notability. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it’s about McGregor and his wife dining out is irrelevant it’s there to bolster the October filming start the existing sources claimed. I’d use the production listing tweet but I figured it would be ruled out as being social media. The film is notable due to the reports about it, if there was zero reporting about it that’s a different story. Hell it’s a film that the governor of the state specifically talked about, so it’s a project of prominence. Rusted AutoParts 19:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can wait until the film comes out and there's substantial source material. I see no reason to rush an article into place when it has only started filming. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s not the standard we employ for the vast majority of film articles. The primary thing we need to confirm is it’s filming start in order for it to begin existing. Rusted AutoParts 19:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the standard we employ is WP:GNG. There aren't enough sources for GNG, at present. You can wait until there are more sources to make a claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or move to draft space until such times as (a) the film is released, or (b) the production phase (filming) becomes notable. There is no indication in this article that the film is generally notable, and none to indicate the production has any notability. Fails WP:NFF spectacularly. Platonk (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deadline has reported confirmation that the film is currently in production in Virginia, as well as additional cast. Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly frustrating as more information on the film, such as filming dates, locations and casting, have been released since this deletion discussion started. This article matches similar quality as other movie articles Bovine has assessed and yet this one stands to be deleted when it no longer fails GNG. Rusted AutoParts 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this deletion discussion was created, we have gained additional sources stating that principal photography has began. Therefore, I do believe that the article passes both NFF and GNG, and should remain. JustaFilmFan (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearing WP:NFF is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion; evidence of WP:GNG has been claimed to exist, but has yet to be demonstrated here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll make one final iteration that, since this page was nominated, more reporting about it was made and updates about the production have been added. It more than suffices both NFF and GNG at this point. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:NFF because the production itself isn't notable. Quoting from NFF: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Platonk (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That caveat is rarely ever employed though. There’s a plethora of stub film articles that exist solely by succeeding the more important filming start necessity. Even then, virtually every upcoming film article that exists in mainspace would fail NFF if we enforced there needing to be a trailer or something. Rusted AutoParts 19:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not notable then they should be deleted. I don't understand the urgency to write upon NN subjects. Why not wait until the subject is notable? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable though. You might think differently but they don’t need a physical trailer to prove they exist and are notable. That caveat is pretty outdated at this point. Rusted AutoParts 20:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Please read Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. And finally, just because there are other instances of policy violations doesn't make the policy invalid in this, or any, case. If you don't like a policy or guideline, you can always seek to change it (through the proper channels). Platonk (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is my core argument, this is just discussion to drum up any last minute additions from people not yet chiming in if any. Two of those are essays, so they don't have much barring on much of anything really. Rusted AutoParts 21:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Principal filming has begin, the film has major stars, there is already sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and it is almost certain that the volume of coverage in reliable sources will be increasing significantly as time goes by. The trailer issue is irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 1 November 2021 (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 Alan Sugar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amsprop

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

This is just a holding company for the personal assets of a notable wealthy individual - the company itself is not notable, as evidenced by the fact that the only supporting sources are a press release and vanished pdf. If any of these details are indeed important, they can always be re-included on the article about Alan Sugar. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alan Sugar: No evidence that this particular corporate entity has attained notability. It is covered in sufficient depth under Alan_Sugar#Other_ventures so a redirect seems a reasonable outcome. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alan Sugar on the grounds that the company is basically a glorified bank-account, of no notability independent of Sugar himself. I've also removed the external link to Alpine Property Intelligence which appears to be a completely non-notable micro-company with no employees and no cash, and unrelated to the subject. Elemimele (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alan Sugar as suggested above, this topic company fails WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability but a redirect is a good WP:ATD option. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jiya K.C.

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

Fails to show WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. She is surely notable, but there isn't one decent source online, in the article or elsewhere, that we can use for a WP:BLP. We could redirect to Bhuwan KC if someone can find a source that actually confirms their relationship. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any credible contribution to Nepali film industry. Some gossip content exists in youtube which clearly does not meet WP:RS. nirmal (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Technology

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The references are about generically "trusting technology", not something called TrustTech. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the term Trust Technology might well exist as a descriptor used with things like blockchain, but this article fails to convince that it's also known as TrustTech or that it's sufficiently well-defined to be the subject of an article without the creator first having to resort to OR to define what they're writing about. The reference used to support the idea that the term TrustTech was coined by Javelyn/Javelin technologies doesn't even mention the term. This article has degenerated into a rather fuzzy essay on trust in the technology industry (and beyond) followed by a link-farm of random items that people would like us to believe are trustworthy. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess it's a sort of personal essay on the topic, coining (and heavily leaning on) the term TrustTech? A very odd page. I don't think there's anything salvageable for the encyclopedia here sadly. Ajpolino (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Crossroads, Delaware

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

Previous AFD closed under the mistaken belief that names in the GNIS are automatically notable, but the aerial and topo are clear this is just a crossroads. The few newspapers.com results refer to it in passing as a reference point, not a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 23:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND since the coverage consists of passing mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of a notable community here; coverage consists of passing mentions and entries in lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs)

I'm not convinced by Eddy's sources. GNG requires that the sources cover the source directly and in detail; these only seem to be passing mentions. What would we actually be able to say about this place if we were to expand the article? –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sources, such as [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], including at least three people who lived there, indicate that this is a community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as settlement per Delaware Place Names, and cites which mention its residents.Djflem (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it seems to have existed as a location where few people had lived, that does not guarantee notability (aerials and such still suggest it's primarily a crossroads that happens to have about 5 houses). The location fails GNG and GEOLAND as there's no significant coverage or legal recognition - as Reywas92 pointed out, GNIS does not count. eviolite (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do aerials or topos cited in the nomination count? They would not be used for notability, but are being cited for not-notability and thus, should be equally ignored. Djflem (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: I just used the maps to verify that there was no actual human community there. Even if you disregard it, just because a community may exist does not mean that it is notable; especially as the only mentions people have found are simple mentions of people living near the crossroads or large databases using flawed GNIS data (it mentions the "US Board of Geographic Names"), I am inclined to say that this specific one is not. No WP:SIGCOV anywhere. eviolite (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking at the newspaper sources given by Eddy above, three of them look fine, although one is questionable (it's just mentioning that Adams Crossroads exists in a gazetteer), and one doesn't mention it as a populated place (unless I'm missing something). My own search turns up the clippings mentioned above, plus these two: "Mrs. Walter M. Adams". The Morning News. Wilmington, Delaware. 1966-10-20. p. 10. "Mrs. Jason H. Reed". The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware. 1973-08-01. p. 6.. This does seem to establish that a number of people lived there at some point, and it was enough of a community to refer to it as such (note that they all say "lived in Adams Crossroads", not "lived at Adams Crossroads" or "lived by Adams Crossroads"). jp×g 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: According to WP:GEOLAND Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. [...] [They] could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. 5 people who had lived there at some point dying over the last century is not non-trivial coverage and would not be enough to pass GNG.

Even with that, I don't believe any of the sources besides [1] and [5] indicate a community (which both only say "[person] of Adams Crossroads"). Your own note at the end disqualifies "Mrs. Jason H. Reed", which does say "at Adams Crossroads", while [4] and "Mrs. Walter M. Adams" specifically refer to the "Adams Crossroads section", which is just any square mile of land and not necessarily a community. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think Eddy makes a good case here. His collection of sources surely gives us a justification to invoke WP:GEOFEAT. Patiodweller (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcionite Christian Church

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

I don't think that this passes WP:ORGCRIT. All sources currently in the article are non-independent (or fail to address the modern Marcionite Christian Church in-depth). A search for sources fails to find significant coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a chance I could improve my article in any way? - MCMax05 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MCMax05, you are welcome to go ahead and improve the article while this AFD is running. Many articles up for AFD are improved convincingly resulting in their being kept. wp:HEY is about that. Focus on adding reliable sources with substantial coverage of the topic. And even if the article is not kept in mainspace you can obtain a copy for your own user space or draft space and continue developing it towards being obviously mainspace-ready. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The topic of this or any other "neo-Marcionite" church is not mentioned yet in the Marcionite/Marcionism article. One option would be to develop the topic in a new section there, and eventually split it out. But the topic of new churches claiming to proceed in the old Marcionite tradition doesn't naturally fit there, IMHO, and it would give perhaps wp:UNDUE coverage of this and any others. So offhand I would prefer to keep it out of the Marcionite article, and only have a "See also" type link from there. I would prefer for this to be developed with reliable sources establishing significance. The article is written well so far, though, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- We do normally keep articles on denominations. However, before reaching a final view, I would like to know how many congregations and/or members it has. I have a suspicion that this is a small number of cranks without premises, but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, the link to the number of congregations is unavailable because it is limited to Tor browser. -MCMax05 (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "Church" who's headquarters is supposed to be in Corinth, Greece but their website (which btw is the main source of the article) is only in English, no address in Corinth is listed (there is only a map that shows the place where the local Orthodox Cathederal is located), and no Greek tel. number to contact the "Church" (actually it's a US number). Strange, very strange. They name as their "bishop" a certain "Andrew Philologos" (in Greek this would be Ανδρέας Φιλόλογος), but nothing can be found on him. I have tried to find anything in Greek on this "Church" in Corinth, but it was a failure. There are no third-party, reliable sources dealing with the subject. A totally self-referenced case. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a self referenced advert for the fringe views of this organisation without enough support in independent reliable sources in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Too Soon. It's impossible to find anything out about this lot, so for all we know it's one crank and a website. Denominations deserve articles, but we need some independent source saying this is a genuine denomination with genuine adherents. Elemimele (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any sources that show notability, and I'm very suspicious of recently established denominations that describe themselves as "neo-" something ancient. That's usually a sign that it actually is one crank with a website. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing in-depth coverage in independent sources. Haukur (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrah Al-Silawi

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as he has no fights in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as her fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report. HeinzMaster (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under the top tier promotions and fails GNG for fight info is merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is all routine sports reporting and he has had no top tier MMA fights. His fight matrix ranking is #48 which is quite a way from being ranked in the top 10. I don't see that he meets any WP notability criteria at this time. Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. AriaTess (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service data adaptation protocol

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

De-PROD'd with a note that there are sources on Google Scholar. In fact, there are hits on Google Scholar, which is not the same thing at all. All of these hits are simply trivial mentions of the term in the context of larger technical concepts. They are not significant coverage of the concept of a "service data adaptation protocol". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources presented below I think this actually does have sufficient coverage and am striking my nomination. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To avoid WP:FORK issues, the topic would be best covered within the existing 3GPP article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle, I no longer feel the deletion rationale applies - are you willing to strike so it can be withdrawn? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'm in favor of merging to avoid deletion, but per that article, there's hundreds of these technical standards - it really wouldn't be workable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about mobile telephony to comment from a technical point of view. From an encyclopedic point of view, would a List of 3GPP standards be reasonable? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the significant coverage available in reliable, independent, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Stefan Rommer; Peter Hedman; Magnus Olsson; Lars Frid; Shabnam Sultana; Catherine Mulligan (2019). 5G Core Networks Powering Digitalization. Elsevier Science. pp. 205–207. ISBN 9780081030103.
^ Mikel Irazabal; Elena Lopez-Aguilera; Ilker Demirkol (June 2019). "Active Queue Management as Quality of Service Enabler for 5G Networks" (pdf). IEEE. doi:10.1109/EuCNC.2019.8802027. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ "NG Radio Access Network (NG-RAN)". Journal of ICT Standardization. 6 (1): 59–76. May 2018. doi:10.13052/jicts2245-800X.614.
^ Federica Rinaldi; Alessandro Raschellà; Sara Pizzi (October 2021). "5G NR system design: a concise survey of key features and capabilities". Wireless Networks. doi:10.1007/s11276-021-02811-y.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources appear to basically be single-sentence mentions; the other two sources are single paragraphs. I don't think it constitutes the kind of WP:SIGCOV necessary for a standalone article - although merging to a list as 力 suggests would be suitable IMO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference discusses the application of SDAP over three pages (205-207). The second source is a paper on an implementation of SDAP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, you are correct, and I've struck my comment. In particular I should have realized the second source would be using "SDAP" and not the full name of the protocol throughout. I've also struck my nom and asked the other delete commenter to strike to allow withdrawl, as I no longer feel that the deletion rationale applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2021 (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 deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway. El_C 06:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Stevenson (businessman)

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

It's unsurprising that the subject reacted strongly to an attack article, but when it comes down to it, the citations are almost all to local papers and he's not someone anyone would care about outside the region except for a relatively short marriage to the now first lady fifty years ago. And since he does not get notability from her, and given WP:BLP considerations, it doesn't seem to me that an article is warranted. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as it seems to meet the notability requirements. The commotion over it, merely increases its notability. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note this comment was added before the discussion was even started. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No matter. The commotion over his trying to get the bio deleted, has increased its notability. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G10 as the disgusting piece of political muck-raking it clearly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G10. Tempted to do it myself on the fence. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I cleaned up an attack article without even really recognising it as such. I must have AGFed the article creator too hard. Speedy delete as a kindness then, per above, and my apologies to the subject and his wounded grandchild. Folly Mox (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the statement re 'convicted fraudster' from the first sentence of the lede as grossly undue, per WP:BLP policy. Even with this rectification however it is self-evident that the bio is has no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete BLP with serious WP:G10 issues, even with the recent improvements. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Latremouille

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

Fails WP:BIO. Nikolaih^☎️📖 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nikolaih^☎️📖 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to what was already there, sources [20] [21] [22] [23] establish notability. I believe WP:GNG is easily met in this case. NemesisAT (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO. The sources in the article, including the ones mentioned by NemesisAT, are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by TeleRadyo as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S.R.O. (radio program)

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

Fails WP:GNG, besides it is a bit promotional in tone. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 03:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 03:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources have been provided, particularly for the claims that the show is "witty ... clever and intellectual" which violate WP:NPOV. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more Filipino broadcast cruft. It's a generic news talk show. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the verge of WP:PROMOTIONAL. Just a regular talk show on the radio and its television counterpart. No presented sources. Another addition to problematic Filipino television, radio, and movie articles that lean to fandom qualities. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TeleRadyo. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2021 (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. As a side note, there were no hits for any body of water in Italy with the name Abadia on Geonames either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abadia River

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

Unsourced. No evidence this exists. Searching only finds WP mirrors. The coordinates given are in Italy. Can't locate any river on a map by following the description in the article. Perhaps is it a very small creek or something. Fails WP:V MB 02:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. MB 02:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wondering if this is made up. My own before yields wiki quoted material. My ivote is WP:NOT and I think we should tell the article starter not to start any article with zero RS. edit: forget it article starter is currently blocked. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and unable to verify that it exists. NemesisAT (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lawn Cemetery (Gresham, Oregon)

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

I am unable to find evidence that this is a notable cemetery, and their own website doesn't even make a particular claim to notability. A BEFORE indicates only burials from local obituaries and one mention (p95} of its existence, nothing that would approach significant, independent coverage to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by stub creator: When I search "Forest Lawn"+"Gresham" at the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library, there are 8,443 returns just through 1987. Searching the same at the 1987 to present database yields 1,466 returns. I'm not going to comb through all those just to save this stub (shrug...), even if the site is indeed notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also didn't read one thousand in detail, but much of what I saw was burial notices. Thought books might have had something but the one about the county cemeteries focused on the historic ones while just name dropping this, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 17:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. This cemetery is not particularly old (1960) and has around 5k burials. Little but routine coverage here (notices of burials). MB 04:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in keeping with scope of GEO WP:GEOPURP - WP:GEOFEAT. Cemeteries do not have their own guideline but they should. WP:CEMETERY. Until they do I have to ivote keep. Cemeteries are permanent man made historic places. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication whatsoever this is "historic", and even so there are millions of "man made historic places" in the world. Closing admin should disregard the above call to ignore significant coverage, which is in fact required by GEOFEAT. This does not have heritage status. Reywas92^Talk 03:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability or evidence of significant coverage has been. Another Believer, please ensure that topics are well sourced at the time of article creation; Find a Grave is not an acceptable source. –dlthewave ☎ 02:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep vote is a blocked sock and doesn't present an actual policy-based argument for keeping. I'm not persuaded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Nath Yaddanapudi

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

The subject has directed only one notable film to date. Lacks significant coverage needed for notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but may be move to draftspace. Advait.kansal (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why the article should be kept without establishing notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207 I as per IMDB the subject has directed and written 5 films which establishes notability. I feel it could be moved to draft stage so that the author can update the article and seek feedback from experience editors or at teahouse. I do not endorse retaining articles that lack notability.

Lastly, I didn't get the alert for your query and hence I couldn't reply earlier. Advait (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not draftify. The subject of the article is not notable and there is no improvement in draft space that will make him so. He does not pass WP:CREATIVE. The subject is not regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; and has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. Writing and directing one film for Netflix does not establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no WP:SIGCOV. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 06:49, 24 October 2021 (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 per Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SL93 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Police and Justice Act 2006

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

I found no significant coverage. The article says "As at August 2007 many of the provisions are not yet in force." and I can't find any indication that the act has passed. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is in force (2d Google hit). Secondary sources include doi:10.1350/jcla.2008.72.1.477, [24]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw this. Though I'm not entirely sure if just being in force is enough for notability. I noticed that other similar articles are built the same as this one. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind on notability. The second reference finally fully loaded for me. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Pelletier-Pigot

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

The article was created by the artist's son, copied from the website the sons created. There are no reliable sources used and I can't find any to add. The existing links are dead or have a securuty risk. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list of exhibitions, I'm not even sure where most of them were. There is no Biennale in Bordeaux. The British International Print Biennale, Bradford ran between 1968 and 1990. The Madison-Wisconsin University Art Center is possibly the Chazen Museum of Art. There are two "Centre International d'Art Contemporain" that I'm aware of. One in Carros and one in Montreal, but not one in Paris. I'm afraid this article fails our policy on verifiability. Vexations (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article Vexations. Do you agree the article should be deleted? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking around. There is a very stub-like entry of 14 words in the Benezit for Pelletier, Claude, but that wouldn't be enough to sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find any significant coverage. Vexations (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a GScholar search in French, nothing, same in English. One of his prints is held by the Victoria and Albert Museum, https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O692593/the-people-who-i-find-print-pelletier-pigot-claude/, nothing in Europeana, https://www.europeana.eu/fr/collections/person/29680-claude-pelletier-pigot. He was featured in one exhibit in 1977 at the University of Wisconsin (source is unclear), https://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/Arts/Arts-idx?type=turn&entity=Arts.Atelier.p0009&id=Arts.Atelier&isize=text

that's about all I can find on the gentleman. Unsure if these make him notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon brings up that book if you search by title, it seems he was associated with Atelier 17, which has an article on Wikipedia. Not sure how affects notabililty, art isn't my forte here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oaktree b, Thanks for reviewing the article. My experience has been that any printmaker who set foot in Atelier 17 can claim association with the school. Additionally, if you follow the link referencing her association in the article, you won't find her name on the site "Artists Who Have Worked at Atelier 17 (Paris & New York, 1927-1955)". So, in my opinion, I wouldn't take that claim as a) ~~reliable~~ verifiable or b) a determinant of notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Officer James Fowler ticket incident

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

The article does not establish relevance or any reason why it should exist. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the news, and it happened--but existence alone is no justification for notability. Delete. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing significant in-depth coverage in RS. Neutrality^talk 01:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:BEFORE does not yield RS to prove this is anything more than news cycle curiosity. WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to see here. BD2412 T 03:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete per nom, or as a second choice merge to Baltimore Police Department which would be a better place for the minimal information here. (After all, Fowler himself could not have been at fault for the fact that other people were signing his name to traffic tickets after he was dead.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (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] ttps://vancouver.citynews.ca/2013/08/13/all-about-southpaws-on-international-left-handers-day/

[2] ttps://www.sfweekly.com/news/leftys-store-for-left-handers-says-all-is-right/

[3] ttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/13/happy-left-handers-day-what-buy-special-lefty-your-life/31623863/

[4] Stefan Rommer; Peter Hedman; Magnus Olsson; Lars Frid; Shabnam Sultana; Catherine Mulligan (2019). 5G Core Networks Powering Digitalization. Elsevier Science. pp. 205–207. ISBN 9780081030103.

[5] Mikel Irazabal; Elena Lopez-Aguilera; Ilker Demirkol (June 2019). "Active Queue Management as Quality of Service Enabler for 5G Networks" (pdf). IEEE. doi:10.1109/EuCNC.2019.8802027. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[6] "NG Radio Access Network (NG-RAN)". Journal of ICT Standardization. 6 (1): 59–76. May 2018. doi:10.13052/jicts2245-800X.614.

[7] Federica Rinaldi; Alessandro Raschellà; Sara Pizzi (October 2021). "5G NR system design: a concise survey of key features and capabilities". Wireless Networks. doi:10.1007/s11276-021-02811-y.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]