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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esat Ayyıldız[edit]

Esat Ayyıldız (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This individual does not seem to meet WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or the GNG. Although he's published a few scholarly articles, they haven't received nearly enough citations to meet NPROF crit. 1; associate professors don't meet NPROF crit. 5; his book (a published version of his doctoral thesis) does not seem to have garnered the reviews needed for a pass of NAUTHOR; a WP:BEFORE search found no GNG-qualifying coverage. Since he only received his Ph.D. in 2019, it is likely too soon for notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With 21 cites on GS you must be joking: eons WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. No disagreement with nom here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Full agreement with the nom. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitestone Academy[edit]

Whitestone Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated for PROD but was ineligible because it was previously deleted and recreated. Still no independent sources cited and I couldn't find any from a web search either, e.g. no significant mentions from the New York Times. Ruбlov (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ruбlov (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Salvidrim!: courtesy ping since you removed the PROD notice. Ruбlov (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find jack about this, just a couple of brief mentions in articles about other things that don't work for notability. So there's zero reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Adamant1 that the only sources are not in-depth, with the exception of some reporting on a sad slashing incident involving an Asian student on her way to school in 2015, but the school had only a passing mention even there. I updated the article with 2019-2020 enrollment data, and it appears they lost about half their students that year, but the number of faculty remains the same, not a good prognosis for solvency. The Queens education section has only a sentence referring to most private schools as religious, so one possibility might be to list the existing private schools there, but at this point there doesn't even seem to be an appropriate place for a redirect. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's briefly mentioned in the Whitestone, Queens article. So maybe that would work for a redirect. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Adamant1 — however, the unreferenced and opaque sentence, "Whitestone Academy is Whitestone's only high school successor in interests to the former St Andrew Academy on the Sound, founded in 1954 by Hellen Koula Tassop" will need to be de-mystified and appropriately cited. Whitestone Academy's literature refers to its founding in 1981, and this clipping refers to "Helen Ottaviano the school's director and founder", but what is the connection to "St Andrew Academy on the Sound"? Maybe the school buildings? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I revised the Whitstone, Queens education section and added souring to the entire section. I don't think a redirect is necessary or even helpful, since the WP search engine finds it easily. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revising the other article. Your probably right about a redirect not being necessary in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no way this article can be saved. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Did a lot of digging, and while I can find statistics about the school, you can't even find a single review or comment. The average public high school gets more press than this. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deletion !votes are policy based, prior consensus is not binding, plus BLP with poor quality sourcing. Star Mississippi 01:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Darkholme[edit]

Van Darkholme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To summarise the sources: half of them are blatant promotion (links to his Twitch, blog, IMDB, etc.), and there are a couple of interviews hosted by dodgy-looking websites. How is that SigCov? Ficaia (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Television, Fashion, Photography, Entertainment, Internet,California, Sexuality and gender and Vietnam. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete: I've removed the IMDB, Twitter, YouTube, and Know Your Meme sources on the article, as they all are not appropriate for a BLP (see WP:IMDB, WP:RSPTWITTER, WP:RSPYT, and WP:KNOWYOURMEME respectively). The Kotaku source falls under the Gawker umbrella, which, again, is not a RS per WP:RSP. That leaves the Destructoid source, which is actually a blog with no byline; the TDN source, which looks like an offbrand Wiki; his own blog (multiple iterations); IAFD, which is an adult-version IMDB; and porn videos. The only source that's left and that I can see comes close to meeting any sort of sourcing criteria is the Sidetrack piece, which isn't really in-depth coverage - it only mentions the subject in three paragraphs along with another director. And yes, I did a BEFORE on this before !voting. In fact, I went about trying to rescue this article and wanted to initially !vote keep thinking there was stuff out there. Turns out, there isn't. --Kbabej (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It was agreed to be kept in the previous discussion. The sources indicated there are reliable. That said, it's still good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are these sources? Apart from the adult industry publicity pieces and personal blog (which aren't reliable sources), all I can see is the Kotaku article. Ficaia (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: notable dungeon master, a man who fears no cock 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.155.150.70 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: clearly does not meet the standards of WP:NBASIC. ––FormalDude talk 15:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The problem is the lack of coverage by independent sources, let alone reliable sources. They just don't exist. Fails WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Otter[edit]

Dan Otter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of reliable, independent and significant sources, thus no GNG pass. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOX either. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Turns out that this has been deleted before with two AfD's: September 2020, February 2021. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the 2017 piece in the Hamilton Spectator that is already referenced in the article is significant. And here's another from 2020. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The coverage in The Spec is significant, but WP:GNG states Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. We would need two more examples of significant coverage from different organizations to meet the requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing to show he is unusually notable for a boxing promoter. Of course he's mentioned in articles on events he's promoting, but that's not significant independent coverage. As BilledMammal mentions, multiple mentions in the Hamilton Spectator, even if you believe they're significant coverage, only count as one source. Two previous deletions do not strengthen the case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the indepedent sources from each other point in the GNG formula is not met enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing the sources. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sigcov in multiple RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westsplaining[edit]

Westsplaining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While this is a term that is in-use, there isn't sufficient coverage to justify an article separate from the overlapping concept of Orientalism (or alternatively, Eurocentrism). Unlike Mansplaining, a subject for which there is abundant and deep peer-reviewed coverage such as [1], [2], for Westsplaining all we have is mere mentions, trivial treatment in opinion pieces [3], more significant treatment, but still just an opinion piece, and an editorial published by a think tank. Looking at Google scholar, while there's a handful of hits for articles that use the term, ([4]), I don't see any that analyze and discuss it in depth. Until we have in-depth coverage in peer-reviewed or equally high quality sources, I think that creating an article is premature and that readers are better served by restoring the redirect to Orientalism#Critical_studies or another article that more thoroughly covers the topic of West-centric analytical lenses. Based on the current sources, we fall short of WP:GNG and the existing article runs afoul of WP:DICDEF. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see also "Westplaining", an alternative spelling without "s" after "west": (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) SMiki55 (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove I agree that this term and the content of the article don't seem to meet notability criteria. Kuralesache (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ukraine is cancelled now after 30 years of the Westplaining. Tell me that the idea is not notable. https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You linked a piece I had already assessed above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You redefine the idea of this Wikipedia: 'in-depth coverage in peer-reviewed or equally high quality sources'. I bet that 80% of the pages are unsourced or quote unverified media news or outdated sources. The basis of this Wikipedia is Westplaining, which makes understanding the problem so difficult. This Wikipedia need EELM, Eastern European Lives Matter. Now they matter less. You understand many languages but only the Russian and German from the region, the languages of the slavemasters. Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a real irony that you accuse me of westsplaining for wanting to send readers to a section that is mostly about the academic work of Edward Said while the source you've championed is an op-ed in an American newspaper. Aren't you the one who's privileging the west here? Find some coverage on this topic in Polish, Ukrainian, Arabic, etc. then we'll be talking. As for demanding high quality sources, I'm following the lead of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): high quality source are extremely important for nebulous topics like this one, because otherwise we'd end up with a WP:DICDEF for every buzzword and that is not going to help our readers. The standards I have applied here are no higher than the ones I deploy for any other social science topic when doing WP:NPP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and can I ask you to clarify Xx236, you seem to have ignored that I speak Yiddish just as well as German and better than Russian. Do you consider that to be a language of the slavemasters? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Victor Grigas (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON. Reading through the articles found by NOM, what particularly strikes me is that of the ones that give a definition, their definitions differ considerably. The BI article says: "Balkanism gives birth to the worst type of tourist – the kind who after reading one book and spending a few days in the region “westsplains” history and politics to the locals." This is analogous to "mansplaining" - someone who knows little about a topic explaining it to someone who knows much more. The Manila Standard article isn't about "'splaining" but about "jacking" and it uses the term "Westjacking": “Westjacking,” he says, “is to take Western cultural norms, lenses, and other points of view and fit in the nuances in that [Western] frame of mind." That isn't what the 'splaining meme is about. The New Republic article is about imposing your historical and political analysis using on other countries: "Eastern European online circles have started using a new term to describe this phenomenon of people from the Anglosphere loudly foisting their analytical schema and political prescriptions onto the region: westsplaining." Each of these is significantly different in meaning. Perhaps if the meaning settles down and is used in a somewhat consistent way it will be time for an article. I should also note that although I'm so-so on having an article about Mansplaining, it had a specific origin in an article written by Solnit (although the term wasn't coined there) and therefore there is an "origin" that can be used to define the term consistently. Lamona (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is such a new term people are not even sure what it actually means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not entirely sure it passes WP:GNG and agree with others above that it's WP:TOOSOON. — Czello 22:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture[edit]

Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article title does not match its content, being entirely about symbols of the Vinča culture. It is largely unreferenced, completely unstructured, and appears to be mostly created by copy-pasting pieces from articles relating to the Vinča symbols so there's not much, if anything, worth merging. Redirecting the page to Vinča symbols wouldn't be appropriate because the Vinča culture and Cucuteni–Trypillia culture are not synonymous. The article appears to have been created out of confusion in conflating the topics, and it's been neglected since then; it's best to simply delete it. Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The original version is more structured and sheds some light on why it was created. But it was then (rightly) gutted of original research which led to this state. Currently the only think linking the content to the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture is one sentence near the end of the article: Thus it appears that the Vinča or Vinča-Tordos symbols are not restricted to just the region around Belgrade, which is where the Vinča culture existed, but that they spread across most of southeastern Europe, and was used throughout the geographical region of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture. But this is unreferenced and, as far as I know, not true. In a paper from this year Johannes Müller says as much explicitly:

Here, so-called sign systems—composed of signs in areas free of ceramic decoration—play a role. Calculations of the relative proportion of signs in such decorative open spaces initially showed an increase, but then a decrease again in the last settlement phase. A similar tendency towards an increase in the number of “signs” in the overall region [of the Trypillia group] was also noted by Taras Tkachuk. Such special signs have sometimes been used as an argument for script development in Tripolye. But unlike, e.g., potter marks or rows of recurring signs in Vinca contexts of Southeastern Europe, they are simply secondary decorative elements and have nothing to do with “writing” or “pre-writing”.

So yes, delete. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sadler[edit]

Kelly Sadler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. While there are 23 sources, none cover the subject in depth. Most offer only a brief mention of Sadler in relation to broader Trump administration controversies. Blurbs about her comments regarding John McCain do not contribute to GNG per WP:BLP1E. KidAd • SPEAK 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Conservatism, and Politics. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, including due to a lack of WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage, and per WP:BLP1E: 1. reliable sources only seem to cover Sadler in the context of the single event of her losing her job, e.g. CNN, June 6, 2018, NYT June 5, 2018, NBC News, June 6, 2018, CBS News, June 5, 2018, USAToday, June 6, 2018; 2. She appears to otherwise remain and likely to remain a low-profile individual, based on attempts to find sources about her since this event; and 3. the event does not appear to have been significant due to the limited burst of coverage about it, and Sadler's role does not appear to be substantial or well-documented, based on the limited and repetitive reporting on the event. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC) There also appears to be insufficient support for WP:JOURNALIST notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination and the policy based logic given above. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after looking at the article and the sources and reading the Beccaynr talk, I agree to delete it. Amir cheraghian (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah Adventure Race[edit]

Sabah Adventure Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable event PepperBeast (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, found while trawling the oldest orphan category and I also can't find any indication of notability. No significant independent coverage located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not meeting WP:EVENT. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and comment from Laptopinmyhands and Premeditated Chaos. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin's Landing, California[edit]

Larkin's Landing, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another one of those Durham-only California geostubs apparently missed during the 2020/2021 cleanup. I suspect the coordinates in the article may be wrong - they're sending me to a place that is marked on a swamp in 1890s maps and is now a salt evaporation pond. Searching on newspapers.com brings up a few references to Mr. Larkin (whose wife was allegedly trying to kill him) living at Larkin's Landing, but nothing significant. This I can only get the snippet view of, but it likewise does not appear to be significant coverage. Searching is difficult because Larkinsville, Alabama was formerly known as Larkin's Landing and was quite significant in the 1800s, and Larkin, California, is also a place, but this one I can find really nothing about - it existed, but doesn't seem to have been overly significant and has become mostly lost to history. Hog Farm _Talk 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirm the coordinates are off. By a couple of thousand feet. Currently, the slough ends where it reaches Mowry Avenue at 37.5096, -122.0149. This more likely location for the landing is 1800' to the NE of Larkin's Landing's coordinates.Paleorthid (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: My salt-pond destination (37.506111, -122.018889) was a one-off error, I could not reproduce. 37.496653, -122.005833 is east shore of Mowry Slough. Makes sense for Larkin's Landing. Paleorthid (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no telling where it was exactly" Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I couldn't get scope for expansion either.
  • Mosier's 1986 Alameida County Place Names is a paraphrase of the article at hand, and says nothing more.
  • Merritt's 1928 History of Alameda County, California gives this a 1 sentence mention. ("Boats docked at Mayhew Landing and later Jarvis Landing and then Larkin's Landing were established.")
  • The relevant Arcadia Publishing book appears to be ISBN 9780738530055 about Irvington, which has nothing. Checking the Arcadia book about Centreville, ISBN 9780738581774, just in case turns up nothing there either. The same for the Arcadia book about Newark, ISBN 9781467133364.
  • The Arcadia book about Warm Springs, ISBN 9780738596631 has Dixon Landing, California and of course Warm Springs Landing but not this one. The Arcadia book about Milpitas, ISBN 9780738529103 is too far away to be relevant to this article, but indicates that Dixon Landing, California is in the history books.
  • Sandoval's 1985 The History of Washington Township merely lists this in a laundry list of landings ("In addition, there were at one time or another, Horner's Landing, Beard's Landing, Peacock's Landing, Dixon Landing, Larkin's Landing and Barron's Landing.")
• Even less turned up about Stephen Larkin, which could have been a potential refactoring target.

  Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any more information to expand the article. Not a notable subject. The system of landings along the Alameda County bay coast, as a subject, probably could support an article, their history is interesting. There are articles on Alameda County bay coast landings (Eden Landing, Jarvis Landing (formerly Mayhew Landing), Roberts Landing), including the adjacent Mowry Landing location. Pretty good coverage. Baker, J. E., 1914, Past and Present of Alameda County, California. Volume 1. Excerpt (page 459): "There are numerous landings along the bay coast of Alameda County" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleorthid (talk • contribs) 2022-03-07T21:35:23 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert, California. We know. ☺ But we're still cleaning up the Durham-dump that gave us Mulford Landing, San Leandro, California and Mulford Gardens, San Leandro, California and Mulford, San Leandro, California as if they were separate things. Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Zakaria Ahmad[edit]

Mohd Zakaria Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deprodded without rationale or substantial improvement. Does not meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While there are quite a few media articles mentioning the subject of the article, it's invariably in his role as a press spokesman for the police, rather that actually being about him. Otherwise, the director of a regional CID unit doesn't seem to have inherent notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep — strong consensus out of the gate that this is not a dictionary definition. Nominator has added a "keep" !vote that effectively withdraws the nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mansplaining[edit]

Mansplaining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

it doesn't seem to me there is any substantial information that would exclude this article from being deleted under WP:WINAD Kuralesache (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I disagree with the deletion rationale. Readers of the article will find abundant non-dictionary content. I do think the article would benefit from a less WP:ISATERMFOR opening sentence, but that's a fixable problem and not a reason to delete. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide an example of this content? I really don't see anything on this page that you couldn't replace with information about an arbitrary English word, especially if it's a neologism. Kuralesache (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is beyond a dictionary definition.--Mvqr (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seem to me to be considerable substantive differences between mansplaining and wiktionary:mansplaining. The entire "Criticism" section of the article is appropriate to the article but would be entirely out of place in a definition. The article is well referenced. Thincat (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I've read Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit which explores the term in detail, and when I see this article, she's written a follow up book on the phenomenon. So that alone is two books where mainsplaining is the key topic. Not to mention all the other links. This clearly is a notable phenomenon and the article goes way beyond a dictionary definition.

Also please be aware that we're discussion deleting a B class article that is considered to be of mid importance to two WikiProjects! CT55555 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure where best to add a general response (I opened this), but I didn't realize when I opened this how many articles there are for words like shit/asshole where the word is I guess controversial and used widely enough to get an article. I'm not sure I agree with the existence of those articles, but I concede that Wikipedia generally has these kinds of articles. Kuralesache (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources such as the article in The Atlantic, The Cultural History of Mansplaining: The word is relatively new, but the idea has been around for decades[5]; Inside Higher Ed, Calling Out Academic Mansplaining [6]; the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Sidney Morning Herald, BBC News, and Rebecca Solnit's books and essays among many others. Snowballs anyone? Netherzone (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galina Misiuriova[edit]

Galina Misiuriova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Stats page masquerading as a biography on a tennis player that does not seem to pass WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG - similar case to Evangelina Olivarez. For the former, Fed Cup is no longer a valid claim to automatic notability and so GNG needs to be met. The article cites this CV but it is unacceptable as a source as it is not independent from Misiurova. The other sources are all stats pages so don't confer notability. No hits in Google News, only stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors in a Lithuanian source search and ProQuest only has passing mentions in results summaries, no actual detailed coverage of Misiurova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NTENNIS. Bonoahx (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes Wikiproject Tennis Guideline. Has participated in a major international tournament for her nation in Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, the essay at Wikiproject Tennis cannot be used to support keeping an article that fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Notability is clearly superseded by NTENNIS as the former even says This section contains an essay on notability, consisting of the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. NTENNIS and GNG should be where we look to first before a WikiProject essay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And NSPORTS has been challenge and reverted back, so this was a little hasty. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails to pass GNG. Essays that have not been made into Subject Notability Guidelines cannot be used as arguments to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Krutko[edit]

Elena Krutko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar case to Evangelina Olivarez. Does not meet WP:NTENNIS as has never played in or won a tournament that would grant automatic notability (please note that Fed Cup no longer counts). WP:GNG does not appear to be met since only stats coverage seems to be available. Nothing in Google News or ProQuest or a Latvian source search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Latvia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NTENNIS Bonoahx (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes Wikiproject Tennis Guideline. Has participated in a major international tournament for her nation in Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, the essay at Wikiproject Tennis cannot be used to support keeping an article that fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Notability is clearly superseded by NTENNIS as the former even says This section contains an essay on notability, consisting of the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Fails the Sports SNG. No reason to keep based on an essay that does not have consensus to make it binding guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel de Kerviler[edit]

Marcel de Kerviler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no substnatial sources connected to this article. It also fails our notability guidelines for Olympians. I searched for sources. All I came up with was a name drop in the report of the Olympics he was in, and another name drop. Not a single substantial source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage here indicating he became an admiral, and this shows he authored several books about navigation too. Will ask French speakers for more help on this guy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sources says that person was born in 1907. Are we even sure they are the same person? If they are we have to significantly reviese this article because it has his birth year off by 3 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fairly sure it's the same person, as it clearly mentions the 1952 Olympic participation in Helsinki at the end of paragraph 1. With that said, I have struggled similarly to find anything significant here. I don't think the participation in the Olympics is going to be notable in itself so keeping the article rests on uncovering sufficient historic material, perhaps. I am leaning delete myself, but prepared to see if Lugnuts can conjure up anything from native french speakers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, def. the same person, as I'd spotted the Olympics mention in that too. Just that his DOB is 11th July 1910 here and 11th July 1907 there. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mention in a family genealogy or a bibliography do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). HopsonRoad (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note that a search of French Wikipedia says, "L'article « Marcel de Kerviler » n'existe pas sur ce wiki !", indicating that he has not yet been determined to be notable there. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC) HopsonRoad (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • HopsonRoad, Whether another Wikipedia has an article or not doesn't matter. Curbon7 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that HopsonRoad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Ingratis (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to note—The communication referred to here occurred after I registered my opinion here. Its purpose was to ask whether "admiral" had the same connotation in French as in English, to which I replied that it did. HopsonRoad (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did indeed - apologies to you and to John Pack Lambert. Ingratis (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, regretfully, as I have been unable to find sufficient material that I think would satisfy basic notability and I cannot see any notability of him as an author (by way of being discussed or noted in secondary sources). The Olympics involvement in itself seems negligible. @Lugnuts: If you are able to present something more substantial please do so, as I have not been fruitful in my searches. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rats! No worries, thanks for taking time to have a look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Redirect to List of sailors at the Summer Olympics, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that redirecting to a list article which itself would not offer anything meaningful to the individual would be helpful. Open to useful ATDs suggestions though, as i'd sooner look down that route than outright delete. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Finding a fair few mentions via Gallica (which does not have the most helpful search facility), mostly in passing, but struggling to find any significant independent coverage. Anyway, I've expanded the article a little. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The Legion of Honour (and other honours) should pass WP:ANYBIO. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very unconvinced by the first of the additional sources, which is merely a list of *many* individuals, not particularly standout? The second of the additional sources definitely on the surface seems good though. Unsure if it's sufficient in itself, but as is often the case with foreign individuals, the sourcing is not in English. It's helpful for sure, but is it significant enough? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Marine is a magazine by and for the Association of Reserve Officers of the French Navy. Is that actually independent coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, hence my original comment. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The anybio criterion noted states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", but are we suggesting that the Croix de Guerre 1939–1945, as noted in the article, is well known or significant? The article for this suggests that it was "to honour people who fought with the Allies against the Axis forces at any time during World War II", which could be fairly run-of-the-mill and not significant as such? I may be wrong, and it would help if someone who knows more about it to clarify if that is a significant honour which is enough to retain. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The orders of merit (e.g. Legion d'honneur) probably meet the criteria but even so, we still require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to write an article that complies with policy (WHYN). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow discussion on the source quality to continue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The expansion by Wjemather tips the article into WP:ANYBIO. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Work done on the article demonstrates encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. The sources added to the article are either not SIGCOV or not independent, so GNG has not been demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It passes the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. Atchom (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even two weeks after the article was improved, we still have only one person advocating for keeping it. Sandstein 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kirkland[edit]

Rob Kirkland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As I noted in my decline and draftification, none of these sources are legitimate - they're interviews or unreliable and his supposed "breakout roles" are 1-2 episode arcs or unnamed characters. He simply doesn't meet NACTOR at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 01:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote to keep per HEY GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while there is a potential claim of notability, there's nothing here to support the claim and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I previously marked it as PROD. Fails WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:HEY and after analysing the article and its references closely, i changed my vote to Keep. I found the best four 1, 2, 3 and 4. DMySon (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to call either of his characters in TV shows "significant" would seem to require a very broad use of the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This debate was originally close as "delete", but I noted on the closing admin's talk page that the page was significantly expanded since the last comment. @Praxidicae, Vaco98, GoldMiner24, Alansohn, DMySon, and Johnpacklambert: Can you please revisit the article and reaffirm or modify your !vote accordingly? Thank you. ✗plicit 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain my nomination. [7] isn't even remotely about him. It's a single sentence mention for a character he played that isn't even a main character. this is basically a rehashed press release from the productions PR team. The outsider piece, I have doubts about it's integrity and reliability. CUPIDICAE💕 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We still lack adequate sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Keffler[edit]

Maria Keffler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet NBASIC. Majority of the sources are not significant or reliable. ––FormalDude talk 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There is a very little notability here but I do feel that the bar has to be set fairly high before we have a BLP article that can reasonably be interpreted as saying "This is a completely awful person", even if that was not the author's intent and if it is couched in sympathetic euphemistic language. I am wondering whether one or more her organisations might be more genuinely notable than she is as an individual. (I regret to have to say that I have at least heard of "Partners for Ethical Care".) If so, having an article about that/those would avoid the problem with having a negative BLP. If the article is kept then the weasel words have to go. We can't have the euphemistic language of "concerns" and "rights" where very conspicuously nobody says what those "concerns" and "rights" actually are. Either we talk about her plainly or we don't talk about her at all. If she is notable then it will be easy enough to turn up RS coverage and criticism of her. Oddly enough, there is little to none in the article, which also speaks against notability. Also against her notability is the fact that the article is very close to being an orphan. So what do the Google links say? It's hard to tell whether there is additional notability here as the initial hits are mostly just hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. Is there more actual notability for her as an author under all that? I didn't see any but I also didn't feel inclined dig deep enough to say "no" for sure, hence the "weak delete". --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apt analysis. My search turned up the same thing. ––FormalDude talk 00:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: co-signing the above. She's appearing in the articles that aren't about her recent book because she's the spokesperson for an org, not because she herself is notable. In order to have a BLP on someone who is notable for opposing "the gender cult", we'd need sources that talk about her in that role, but that aren't interviews (right? someone correct me if not), and it doesn't look like we have that in a manner other than the aforementioned hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. -- asilvering (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're correct–interviews are primary sources and therefore do not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 06:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and I don't see one forthcoming with opinions so different on the merits of the sources Star Mississippi 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Albert "Tripp" Smith[edit]

J. Albert "Tripp" Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack the level of significant coverage needed to justify a biography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom, fails WP:BIO. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldMiner24: since your vote additional sourcing has been presented. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to vote because I have a family member with a connection to Smith. But I was able to find articles from Bloomberg (1 & 2) and the Wall Street Journal, as well as coverage from the South Bend Tribune, Sky Sports, and the Daily Star (UK). Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at them in turn.

• 1 This is about fund which is named after him.

  2 That is a routine annoucement of the man leaving his job. How is that notable and it is a press-release.

  the Wall Street Journal

When you search for General Atlantic, Tripp Smith to Launch Roughly $5 Billion Distressed-Investing Fund about two dozen entries come indicating its comes from a press-release with the same wording in each one. It is all affiliate links.

• South Bend Tribune

PR.

• Sky Sports That is a press-release.

  Daily Star (UK) The daily star is non-RS. Why would you even mention it?

scope_creep^Talk 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that a newspaper, tabloid or not, with 200k circulation may be worth mentioning. In relation to specifically the West Ham stuff there is also this from the Evening Standard as well. Also, the WSJ is not a press release with the exact same wording some of these stories specifically say "the Wall Street Journal reported (ex)" and it was written by one of their journalists (profile here). Also how do you know if Sky Sports is a press release? It looks like a standard wire service writeup to me and I don't see any disclosure. As for Bloomberg, the fund was named "Atlantic Park", so I don't think that the article just says that there is a fund named after him and the article about him leaving was written by a senior reporter at that outlet and in what way does it being about the subject leaving his position make any less notability-lending? GPL93 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. After making full use of the cited sources and unraveling the article into a coherent account of his career, then searching for additional sources to fill out the biography and finding only a page at his school (the major part of which is audio, so I cannot hear it) and no extended articles about him in the financial press, I came here to say that in my estimation he just clears the notability threshhold (there is coverage of multiple points in his career: co-founding and continuing as a top-level executive at GSO as it grew; second of the 3 founders to leave; foundation of Iron Park and its participating in a major joint venture; buying into West Ham and rumors about take-over plans, and I was able to pick and choose among sources to cite at many points, but one of his co-founders has more press) but that there is almost no biographical information available: I had a rough date of birth and a high school, that was it. But then I saw the South Bend Tribune reference listed above. With that, I believe the article meets the bare minimum requirements: multiple reliable sources reporting on his career over several years, and just enough info about the person to make a useful biography. (It would be lovely if some subscription holder would check places like Fortune and the WSJ for a full profile that Google doesn't show to hoi polloi.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The South Bend Tribune reference is PR. A man who give huge gift then reports it using PR agency is not a valid source. It fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a PR agency-written piece, it's a staff writeup by the newspaper. If you'd like to what the actual press release regarding Smith's donation, you can find it here on Notre Dame's website. Note the differences in wording. You have continually misrepresented the referencing both in this AfD and in the article. GPL93 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The page does not seem to meet notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think User:Yngvadottir's edits have improved the page enough that it's apparent (to me) the subject meets WP:NB. I will also note that the South Bend Tribune ref is far from PR; that's a respected newspaper. If this were a sponsored content puff piece, it would be labeled as such; per the paper's branded content terms, "Media Company's legally approved label for custom content work is "Story From" which will be included in articles listicles, video, infographics, promotional units, and social media." This is not a sponcon piece. The paper's source for this story also seems to be the University itself, not a PR agency. It's quite common for college town papers to report on big donations like this (Notre Dame is right next to South Bend). Lkb335 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the SBT article heavily based on a press release by the University? Yes, it is, it's not a very good article. Does that disqualify it as a source? I would say no. Lkb335 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is amazing how many people are willing to rationalise something in order to achieve an objective. Lets examine the new references, the loosest definition I've seen in a long while.

• Leaving the firm. Independent:Yes Reliable:Yes Significant coverage:No It is routine coverage of him leaving his business. That is routine coverage.
• West Ham bought Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No A search of the term finds that many newspapers use the same exact report indicating it is sourced to a press-release.
• Portrait on his site Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No Puff page.
• Notre Dame 15 million gift Independent:Yes Reliable:No Significant coverage:No This is routine coverage. The statement has been made above that because it is independent even though it has been taken a press-release that it is reliable is absurd. The true aspect to prove it is routine, is that if the gift wasn't made the report wouldn't have been made. Any gift of that size in any country would have been reported on. It is not reliable coverage.
• Merrill Lynch Takes Hedge Fund Stake Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No It states its from a press-release.
• Founder of Blackstone credit unit to stand down Independent:Yes Reliable:No Significant coverage:No Another press-release and not about Smith. Passing mention
• General Atlantic, Tripp Smith to Launch Roughly $5 Billion Distressed-Investing Fund Independent:Yes Reliable:Yes Significant coverage:No Passing mention

The whole consists of routine coverage, press-releases and passing mention. None of it is significant meaning WP:SECONDARY. There isn't single profile on the person. It all incidental news. scope_creep^Talk 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a wild misrepresentation of referencing. Writing off references about him leaving his firm as if that is something that happens for everyone and calling an article where his name is literally in the title with multiple mentions as "passing mention" is absurd. Also, the same wording rationale is not even close. I guess staff write-ups and legitimate news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters (which are very commonly used in sports coverage) simply do not exist. His buying a stake in the club was clearly a newsworthy event. Call it all incidental news not leading to notability when he is the reason for multiple incidents across multiple years that are covered by reliable sources. Also, what is my or Yngvadottir's, Lkb335's "objective" here? What nefarious reasons are there for keeping an objective article where reliable sourcing has been presented? GPL93 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here have access to the full Wall Street Journal article? Even in the blurb available without signing in, it mentions Smith in the headline and twice in the article body and so "Passing mention" isn't an accurate summary of the source. NemesisAT (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access through PROQUEST. I agree that it's significant coverage and is non-trivial. Additionally, there are other WSJ articles in which he is in the headline and with nontrivial coverage. See Miriam Gottfried (April 15, 2020). "Fund to Help Companies Facing Distress From the Pandemic; General Atlantic is forming a joint venture with Tripp Smith". The Wall Street Journal. p. B11.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Source analysis by Scope Creep is not convincing and is a misrepresentation of the significance and quality of the sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The reference above about General Atlantic is forming a joint venture with Tripp Smith comes from a press-release. The whole thing is all driven from press-release and PR. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bylined authored article in a major newspaper. Articles with named bylined journalists (in this case journalist Miriam Gottfried) are not "press releases" no matter how much you want to misconstrue them as such. This was not a pre-packaged story but one written by a WSJ staff journalist. 4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 4meter4 the press release argument has now been debunked by multiple editors at this point. It would appear that the nominator also believes that this article was created by a UPE, which I'm not seeing at all given they edit mostly on football-related topics and has given the incredibly plausible explanation that they created the article because Smith became an owner of West Ham United and likely reverted the redirect later on after Smith's alleged attempt to take the club over. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Referencing has been improved and article expanded, notability now established. NemesisAT (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I spoke to Miriam directly. It doesn't come from a press-release apparently. So that confirms it. But that is only one secondary reference. Where is the rest of them, that satisfies WP:THREE. The rest of the coverage is routine and PR. scope_creep^Talk 13:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing routine about someone becoming an owner of an EPL club (The Sky Sports staff report & the Financial Times report by journalists with bylines), attempting to take control of said club, or making a $15 million donation (SBT), that's just not stuff "local man" does. Generally speaking when people, even high-ranking executives, leave their position a news outlet like Bloomberg does not have senior reporters write about it or the Financial News have an editor (which was the title the FN article author, Fareed Sahloul, had at the time according to LinkedIn) report on it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most spurious argument and a complete lie. All billionares are followed by newspapers and any billionaire who runs a hedge fund are followed religiously particularly by the financial newspapers, as in this case. Most of the stuff that is reported is routine coverage that every billionare gets. So far on this there is.

1. Secondary source written by Miriam on a partner deal.
2. A source that is the $15million contribution. That is routine coverage.
3. Routine coverage about leaving the job.

That is your argument. None of that constitutes the WP:THREE requirement for three secondary sources which is the usual standard at Afd, except the first one. Secondly don't speak about UPE. You have no experience of it and it makes like a fool when you say things like that. Lastly if it is the case of No Consensus then in 6 months time I will be nominating it again, until I see at least three secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have experience dealing with UPEs and there are editors/admins that can attest to that. I am an editor with several years of history and in good standing so why would you make a personal attack like that? Your general lack of civility and assumption of good faith towards other editors has been unacceptable when it comes to this subject and you've now essentially admitted that you cannot remain impartial. GPL93 (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's calm things down a bit. Multiple editors are using language that is not necessarily appropriate for what should be a fairly routine discussion on an article--impugning someone's motive or character for suggesting deletion or keep is not acceptable in this context. Maybe it would be best if everyone just stepped away from the discussion for a day or two.

Best, Lkb335 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkb335 I agree. At this point, I think it's best to just drop things for now as nothing new is being added to this AfD by either of us and neither of us are going to change our interpretations of the referencing. Thank you for stepping in to diffuse things and thank you everyone for participating in this AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: Sorry GPL93. I shouldn't have said that. scope_creep^Talk 17:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep It's okay, we've all been there in an AfD or two. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just wanted to clarify that there are two secondary sources written by Miriam Gottfried in the WSJ, not one. One is from February 24, 2022 (cited in the article) and the other is the April 15, 2020 article given above. Both of these are independent significant secondary sources, and demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Kadiri[edit]

Gideon Kadiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Other than the Prva Liga profile that I added, I could only find a passing mention in a blog. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Football, Nigeria, and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not notable. GiantSnowman 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. DMySon (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no Gideon Kadiri (or Kadiri Gideon Abudulai) listed as having played for the Manchester Giants but there is a David Kadiri whos basketball career matches with the one listed in the article[8] and has a few sources about him.[9][10] However, I'm not convinced they are the same person as they look nothing alike and there is no indication that David played any football.[11][12]. Alvaldi (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Alvaldi - possible hoax and certainly not notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they are the same people, you couldn't compare them based on Kadiri's picture, which can't be seen very well, and David and Gideon were born in the same year of the same Nigerian nationality and played for the same club Sloboda Uzice 2018-2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.57.5 (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a reliable source for any of this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't see how they pass GNG, NBASKET or NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chromagraphy[edit]

Chromagraphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable, indeed, extremely obscure subject. PepperBeast (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might be obscure but it is interesting. --Bduke (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article appears to be a translation of a deleted article from French wikipedia: See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Chromagraphie/Admissibilit%C3%A9

Vexations (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INTERESTING is not a sufficient reason to argue keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only source cited is an 1839 book and that's not enough to sustain an article. Otherwise it only seems to exist as a typo for Chromatography. Hut 8.5 18:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could perhaps be merged into a subsection in an arts or handicrafts article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple reasons:
  1. The article has no secondary sources to establish notability.
  2. The 1 primary source was apparently self-published. (Over a century ago.)
  3. The text is largely incomprehensible nonsense; if it was translated, it was translated badly. (eg. "The general principle is to simplify the complete chain leading from work to its reproduction on another support, as the carpet or the tissue." - ???) Meaningless gibberish isn't interesting to anyone.
  4. The article wasn't finished by its author who left it as a work-in-progress. (Note the "to be done" remarks left in the article.) The article has been neglected for years and the author doesn't appear to be active; it's unlikely to ever be completed.
  5. The article seems to be an orphan, suggesting the topic isn't relevant to any other article.

There's no good reason to keep it. -- Scyrme (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: even if this topic were notable, and there is no indication that it is, this would be a WP:TNT case. There are WP:OR issues in it, to add to the list given above by Scyrme. -- asilvering (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AndLinux[edit]

AndLinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bafflingly contested prod. Rationale is exactly the same as when this was deleted in its original AfD (trivial offshoot of coLinux with no independent notabilitu), except that the project has now been dead for over a decade, and thus even the potential for future notability is gone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Thumperward as per WP:PROD PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. Even if I didn't contest the PROD, the deletion would still be denied at the end of the 7 day period as an admin is not allowed to delete an article via PROD that has already been deleted via PROD or AfD before - it has in fact had a full AfD discussion before so is ineligible. This is procedure. I don't actually have an opinion on the notability of this subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have created the article. I don't know what is the practice in these cases, but in my view it could become a section of CoLinux. --CristianCantoro (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge might be appropriate if there were anything here notable enough to consider including in the target, but in the ~15 years that this article has existed in some form it's never had so much as a single reliable secondary source. Not every project registered on SourceForge warrants includion here, even in passing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't seem to look notable enough to have its own article. The project also seems virtually dead/abandoned. {WikiLinuz} :: {talk} 🍁 03:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Would not be opposed to a merge into coLinux, but hard to find anything that really should be merged. Lkb335 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mensural notation. ✗plicit 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silbenstrich[edit]

Silbenstrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Basically just a dictionary definition PepperBeast (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At WP:NOTDICT it explains that Wikipedia is not a dictionary but rather an online encyclopedia to provide information on different topics. We should not create articles that just give definitions of any word. --Vaco98 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You should both read Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary properly. This is not a dictionary article about a word. It has zero etymology, pronunciation, and other dictionary stuff. It's a stub encyclopaedia article about an element of mediaeval musical notation, also called the "divisio syllabarum" (per Edwin Frederick Flindell, at any rate). The question is whether it is capable of expansion. A quick look around indicates that it is, either standalone or refactored into an article with larger scope to include the divisio syllabarum, the divisio modi, and the suspiratio, perhaps as a sub-topic of mensural notation (which mentions none of these) or even straightforwardly in that article.

  All of this is achievable with non-administrator tools.

  It's worth noting, by the way, that not everyone accepts Friedrich Ludwig's nomenclature. Stephen Parkinson considered it "cumbersome" and suggested "lineola".

  Uncle G (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I notice that a) the article is an orphan; b) there's an entry wikt:Silbenstrich; c) Grove Music Online 2001 has a 1-line entry; d) there are no entries or even mentions at the German Wikipedia or Wiktionary. I can't help but adding that removing this entry will not improve the English Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Researching this, and the others aforementioned, involves mainly books, written in German, French, and Italian. Parkinson's article on the Cantigas, where xe remarks on the Silbenstrich, is in English, as is Flindell's cited-by-others thesis (OCLC 38652486). Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See for examples Jacobsthal 1871, p. 58 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJacobsthal1871 (help) and de Coussemaker 1852, p. 202 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFde_Coussemaker1852 (help). Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jacobsthal, Gustav (1871). Die mensuralnotenschrift des zwœlften und dreizehnten jahrhunderts (in German). Berlin: Julius Springer. (Die mensuralnotenschrift des zwœlften und dreizehnten jahrhunderts at the Internet Archive)
    • de Coussemaker, Edmond (1852). Histoire de l'harmonie au Moyen Age (in French). Paris: Victor Didron. (Histoire de l'harmonie au Moyen Age at the Internet Archive)
• Comment: I agree with Michael Bednarek's findings. Can we merge this very specific little thing into mensural notation, making Silbenstrich (music) a redirect? Because it's only a secondary meaning of the normal German Silbenstrich, users may link here meaning something else. - Uncle G, please close paragraphs that you open, or the editor colours are confused. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This article is not significant enough to have it's own article. It should be merged into mensural notation. GoldMiner24 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to mensural notation per GoldMiner24 as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation[edit]

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A search for reliable sources gives enough proof that the organisation exists, but no significant coverage. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navneet Sehgal[edit]

Navneet Sehgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An accomplished Indian civil servant, however he meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Civil servants routinely get passing mentions in news due to posting, transfers and other official actions. Such coverage does not establish notability per GNG. Does not meet NPOL either. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not meeting WP:GNG. Being DM of a district is a significant position but it is not part of Wikipedia policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of werewolves. And/or to Werewolf fiction. Consensus is that three articles about more or less the same topic is at least one too many (WP:CFORK). What content to merge (if any), and where to is up to interested editors. Sandstein 16:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolves in popular culture[edit]

Werewolves in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Almost entirely unsourced and rampant listcruft that fails WP:LISTN. The page werewolf fiction has the prose aspects of werewolves in popular culture, so this page is entirely unnecessary and was merely a misguided attempt to split off the crufty aspects of said page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Video games, Comics and animation, and Games. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have a list of werewolves however it doesn't include all famous/notable works that had werewolves in them. Just prune this list of any entry without a link to its own article providing that either the werewolf or the work it was mentioned in was notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 09:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it was exactly the usual article formation process, per Special:Diff/586038821 and Special:Diff/586038864, and there's very little in 9 years that wasn't in the original article per Special:Diff/586049643/1074082386, and no analysis being added to the pile of raw mentions. However, when my first thought was "Where on Earth were the werewolves in Prince Caspian?" and I went to find out, I found this:
  • McMahon-Coleman, Kimberley; Weaver, Roslyn (2014). Werewolves and Other Shapeshifters in Popular Culture: A Thematic Analysis of Recent Depictions. McFarland. ISBN 9780786492503.
• And then this:
  • Mann, Craig Ian (2020). Phases of the Moon: A Cultural History of the Werewolf Film. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9781474441148.
• So on the one hand, this is another pile-on grab-bag of mentions with zero analysis or knowledge to impart, we wouldn't lose anything worthwhile by deleting it because it was mostly in the edit history of the original article, and what little has been added since isn't properly sourced; and on the other hand clearly the werewolf fiction article without at least some of what can be found in the good quality literature on this subject, which it currently lacks comparing the article to the books (contrast what the books say about Prince Caspian just for starters) is fairly bad too.

  Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is a WP:FORK of Werewolf fiction. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the sources Uncle G found, and cleanup through normal editorial processes per WP:DINC. A merge to werewolf fiction is not appropriate, because while they may overlap to a great extent, there's more to popular culture than fiction, and that's all I'm going to say on that. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally everything in the article, besides the most absolutely ancient works, pertains to fiction. This hypothetical article does not exist, but any information could simply be added to werewolf#Modern reception instead of requiring a totally separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any sources that could be added to make this articles less indiscriminate would be better placed in Werewolf fiction. Everything else doesn't seem worth saving. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of werewolves and trim of unreferenced, non-notable entries in the process. The sources found above as well as the the article Werewolf fiction show that this topic does not fail WP:LISTN. I do agree, however, on the point that "everything in the article, besides the most absolutely ancient works, pertains to fiction", so I don't see a reason to have two separate lists for werewolves outside of and within popular culture. I think those should be combined. Such a list does have a function, as it can list notable or referenced werewolf characters or works about such characters beyond what's in Werewolf fiction. Daranios (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune. Remove all entries without a bluelink. Eventually, remove all entries without a secondary reference that shows the inclusion of a depiction of werewolves was notable, and not the subplot to chapter 5 of a forgotten hack-and-slash fantasy novel from 1983. That said, the idea is valid enough, although ideally there would be a brief summary of what was "interesting" about the depiction of werewolves. SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello SnowFire, I am struggling to see how this is separate to Werewolf fiction. Which of the entries are not in fictional works? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune. This is a list that would need its own article separate from the main werewolf fiction article, even if we were to limit this to just the works where there is substantial coverage and a blue link. That said, this list does need to be pruned down. I'd say to limit any mentions to those where there's coverage of some sort. I do think it'd be worthwhile to add entries where the work is notable enough for its own article but the werewolves may not be mentioned in secondary coverage, as long as the work explicitly identifies them as werewolves. This would still limit the amount of entries that can be added, as there are a lot of works where the creator never actually identifies werewolf-esque creatures as werewolves - sometimes as a very deliberate act. I'm fine with limiting them to secondary sources, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One small note: I'm going through and trying to help prune. I'm adding sourcing for those entries which don't have an article but seem like they should be notable. I'd say leave the entries that have enough sourcing to establish notability per NBOOK or the other respective guideline. That's the only exception I'd say for that rule, although offhand I'd say that the ones that do have enough notability would probably be fairly slim. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to merge or delete as long as it's OK to recreate this in a more reasonable format than what we currently have. I didn't fully appreciate the comments about how indiscriminate this list truly is until I started performing cleanup. This list is including anything that even whispers the name werewolf and as such, is pretty unwieldy. There's no context here either, so it's not much better than a defacto category page. This should definitely be merged with the article on werewolves in fiction and turned into a general page. I'd prefer the general title of pop culture, but fiction might still be doable since it would certainly limit the amount of content that could be added. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you are going to attempt this task, bearing in mind the comments about the length and uselessness of the lists, note that the thematic breakdown in McMahon-Coleman & Weaver 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcMahon-ColemanWeaver2014 (help) is not category of fiction but:
    • adolescence and lycanthropy as puberty
    • subversion of gender stereotypes
    • sexual attraction
    • lycanthropy as race
    • disability and difference
    • addictive behaviour
    • spirituality
  • Mann 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMann2020 (help) actually has a breakdown that is similar in parts, although Mann is addressing this as folkloric cycles. Mann's chapter 4, "Hounds of Love", deals with sexual attraction, for example. Uncle G (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll keep that in mind, but right now I'm just removing the ones that are non-notable. Cleanup will have to be in stages, honestly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Something else to keep in mind is that Uncle G is definitely right in that there are a lot of different ways to address this topic. It's also good to keep in mind that this also isn't limited to fiction as a rule. Werewolves are kind of pervasive in pop culture and do show up in ways outside of fiction - both real and not real. For example, medical conditions and commercials. There's cultural perspectives to consider - not mythology but like werewolves in modern culture. I can't remember the exact song, but an example would be this Japanese song that warned women that "men are wolves". That doesn't really fit into the realm of fiction. I do think that the page needs a big overhaul, but at some point there will be a list that would likely need to be somewhere. The ideal would be for it to turn into a page similar to Titanic in popular culture. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:TNT. It shouldn't be in list form. The current form is way too long and uninteresting to the point readers will leave after a few scrolls. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Werewolf fiction and this article should be combined with some better article title. Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a blue linked list that aids navigation, no valid reason for deletion in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice to this being recreated in the proper prose format. In the past year+, me and User:TompaDompa have rewritten a number of articles, previously in the list format, into prose, but dozens remain in this sorry, WP:OR, list state, which sadly has next to zero redeeming quality. Most of the entries there are arbitrary and unreferenced, and let's face it, this is a list that likely fails WP:NLIST (list of works about werewolves). I refer to cases of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, which were "kept" after a complete rewrite, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (2nd nomination) which was deleted as it was not rewritten from the tv-tropish collection of trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as this closes with the consensus that it can come back once it's in proper format, I'm good with that. The more I clean, the more frustrated I'm getting with how this article is laid out and the inclusion threshold. It's honestly not that far off from that XKCD joke about wood in popular culture. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol. I'll have to remember that joke... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm totally in the merge camp for this with werewolf fiction. This needs to be judiciously pruned down and I'd also recommend that we limit list inclusion to only those works that fit the following guidelines:

1. The work is notable enough to merit an article. If no article exists then there should be copious amounts of coverage to establish that the work would warrant its own article. An author or creator having an article wouldn't be enough. That would cut the list down to a third of what it is now.
2. The werewolf is a prominent character of aspect in the work.
3. There must be sourcing that identifies the character/aspect as a werewolf or lycanthropy. Shape-shifting should not be included as this is far too nebulous. This means that even if the shapeshifter can transform into a werewolf, it wouldn't fit under this list unless there's a lot of coverage discussing this in werewolf territory.

This doesn't mean that the work can't be mentioned in the prose, but the general gist would be that they'd have to be notable enough for an article to justify inclusion in the list. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who rewrote an AfD'd list to prose (United Nations in popular culture), let me state for the record that prose is neither mandatory nor encouraged by any policy or guideline on this matter. It is simply your personal preference. With that being said, a companion prose article can be written in parallel to this list (which has mainly navigational purposes). Your WP:OR concerns (in reality WP:V concerns) are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, since WP:PRIMARY#3 allows the use of primary sources for straightforward assertions, such as if a werewolf are present in a given work. Piotrus, could you flag within the article which elements need citations with Template:Citation needed or Template:OR? Pilaz (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It doesn't matter that we can source some stuff to primary sources, if it is not notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain what exactly is indiscriminate? Because your OR concerns seems to notability concerns (WP:LISTN that you mentioned above). What this article needs is a "further reading" section that complies with LISTN's "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Let me see if I can WP:FIXIT today with academic sources and the ones proposed above. Pilaz (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is in fact encouraged. MOS:POPCULT, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears. Such prose might give a logically presented overview (chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences. PRIMARY doesn't allow articles consisting entirely of primary sources, which is what lists of this sort do. Avilich (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from this discussion (which is at WP:CR) that MOS:POPCULT only applies to trivia sections and not to articles such as this one, as every person who has written MOS:POPCULT has declared. Pilaz (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The only thing people agree is that a list, per definition and common sense, should be in bullet or table format. But unless you want to move this to a list and then have this discussed with WP:NLIST, what we have here is a prose topic of likely notability, but written in a WP:TNTable bullet point format. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand your last comment (or it's not about MOS:POPCULT). Maybe you meant to reply to my other nested comment above? Pilaz (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, "regardless of where the material appears". Avilich (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I believe "regardless of where" refers to the two cases mentioned in MOS:POPCULT, of either "in its own section" or "with other prose". (As MOS:POPCULT in general does not talk about stand-alone list for navigation purposes, as Pilaz has already stated.) Daranios (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's in another paragraph, from which the quoted excerpt doesn't pick up. Items can be listed either sections or separate articles, where you put them is a purely technical and irrelevant detail that has no bearing on their function and in the spirit of the guideline that covers them. Avilich (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I disagree with that reading. It's in the same section, preceding paragraph, so I still think that that refers to that. Your interpretation would mean that "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" should never be presented in list format, and I can hardly believe that's the intention. Also, the difference can be more than technical, if for a stand-alone list the function is navigation, and within an article it's elucidation of the topic's impact. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should never be presented in list format. Not something I ever said, I believe. You're of course right about functions, but this one in particular doesn't serve any function other than listing every single fictional topic in which werewolves are mentioned, which runs afoul of the spirit of POPCULT, regardless of what you think of its applicability. The deletion of "UN in popular culture" and its recreation as prose, along with the work of TompaDompa and Piotrus, are all results of POPCULT being applied broadly, and their successful nature imo confirm that the section vs. article distinction has no use or justification. Avilich (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: "doesn't serve any function other than listing every single fictional topic in which werewolves are mentioned": That there is a problem with the threshold of inclusion in the current form of the list has been variously acknowledged, including by me. However I do believe that that is a problem that can be solved by editing, maybe along the lines already outlined by ReaderofthePack. And then, in an improved form, I believe such a list can serve a navigation function of where the topic of werewolves notably appears to the interested reader, which goes beyond what's in Werewolf fiction. Daranios (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but make it a table and not "bulleted list" format. LockzZ (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of werewolves, and prune only disputed content, to avoid indiscriminate deletion of valuable information which can be easily verified upon request. Strong opposition to deletion. I have read all of the discussion above, the article, looked for additional academic references from established publishers, created a bibliography section, and I am aware of the existence of the articles werewolf fiction and List of werewolves. There are three major issues that need addressing (and that have been raised in this discussion): #1 whether Werewolves in popular culture is a WP:CFORK of werewolf fiction and/or list of werewolves; #2 whether this information should be presented in list form; #3 and whether the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, violates WP:NLIST, and/or WP:OR/WP:V.

1. Is Werewolves in popular culture a CFORK of...
   1. ... werewolf fiction? No. Werewolf fiction needs the list article to point to the exhaustive list of works about werewolves, since it cannot realistically discuss every work due to size constraints and the fact that many aren't covered in secondary sources. Similarly, the list article needs the prose article to discuss them (if it discussed them, it would no longer be a list). As long as the list article doesn't do the job of the prose article (doesn't engage in commentary, analysis, etc), then they are mutually beneficial to one other, to our readers, and to our editors. If you delete one, you should expect spillover from the deleted one to the kept one.
   2. ... list of werewolves? Yes. They are both lists that serve the same purpose. Fundamentally, both cover fictional representations of werewolves in popular media. A merge is required.
2. Should this information be presented in list form? Yes. A list serves useful navigational purposes, allows itself to be exhaustive if it complies with WP:LISTN and is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and it gives breathing space to werewolves in fiction to do a proper prose analysis without being overly inclusive. Delete one or the other, and expect the worst of both worlds into one place. We have ICBMs and list of ICBMs (even though some items don't have their own articles), but is it a sufficient reason to delete or prune the latter list?
3. Is this list compliant with...
   1. ...WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Yes. At the time of my writing, this argument has not been substantiated to merit a discussion. Will amend if it evolves.
   2. ...WP:NLIST? For the most part. Looking at the bibliography section I added, as well as the "further reading" section of werewolves in popular culture, we can satisfy its requirements (the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.) for literature^[1][2][3][4]; film^[5][6]; television^[6][7]; music^[8]; video games^[9]; anime and manga^[10]; as well as folktales (not in the list)^[11]. Categories that miss in-depth coverage: (non-manga) comics, (non-anime) cartoons. There are some excerpts here and there about comics (There was a long footnote about werewolves in Marvel comics, but I'm excluding it since it's only a footnote). I wouldn't oppose pruning the comics and cartoons list if they aren't covered by any work on werewolves.
   3. ...WP:OR/WP:V? Yes. OR concerns are unsubstiated, and WP:V concerns can be sourced to the secondary sources mentioned above, and failing that to their own primary sources in virtue of WP:PRIMARY#3, which expressly allows to use primary sources to make non-controversial, factual and verifiable assertions regarding the presence of werewolves in a particular work.

Verdict: the undisputed content of the article should be kept and merged into list of werewolves to address the WP:CFORK concerns. A merge discussion should be in-depth regarding what should be moved. Special thanks to Uncle G for linking some of the literature above. Pilaz (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively into List of werewolves (or just delete). There is surely no need for Werewolf fiction, List of werewolves, and Werewolves in popular culture. Pilaz makes a compelling case that List of werewolves could be improved with a selective merge of some of this material, which would therefore be worthwhile. If no one is interested in carrying out that work, I don't think much would be lost in a straight delete. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above user. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above users. PerryPerryD 15:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to werewolf fiction as a WP:CONTENTFORK that fails WP:LISTN, per nom. There are three spinouts from only one notable topic, and deletion would be valid. But a fair compromise is to cover it in prose at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Articles like these almost invariably fail WP:IINFO and MOS:TRIVIA. The topic of "fictional works that mention werewolves" also probably doesn't qualify as a notable grouping under NLIST, though "werewolves in fiction", which is a different thing, probably meets GNG from the sources presented above. It's hard to see the purpose of a merge or even a redirect here, since the article has basically no prose content that can be recycled, and the sources above imply that someone can remove the redirect and start over again. The best course of action here is probably to delete and rewrite as prose, as was done with "Far future in fiction" and "UN in popular culture" recently. Avilich (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. Important to have a list. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Worth noting, as an elected national politician. presumed notability applies via WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Černohorský[edit]

Lukáš Černohorský (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN- he has not achieved the position of an elected member of parliament. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Czech Republic. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: [13] he won a seat in the Czech Chamber of Deputies, having held it from 2017 to 2021. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion is based on a false premise, because there was sourced content in the article when it was nominated that he has achieved the position of an elected member of parliament. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peepal Baba[edit]

Peepal Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The topic does not meet Wikipedia's General notability criteria that fails WP:GNG. Need more significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Peepal Baba as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give Me Trees Trust[edit]

Give Me Trees Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability of the Organization is in question. References are not enough to passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, far from meeting WP:NORG, most coverage is in the form of passing mentions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peepal Baba as an alternative to deletion. This organization doesn't seem to pass WP:NORG on its own: there is minimal coverage, and most of it consists of passing mentions in articles about Baba or something else. I think a redirect would be a reasonable solution, particularly since Baba's article already mentions the organization and since redirects are cheap. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kolovrat (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triedinstvo[edit]

Triedinstvo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, no evidence notability. Searched, didn't find anything. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kolovrat (band), the only band in the album with an article. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If there is concern about alternatives to deletion, then we can Redirect as suggested by the previous voter. But I recommend deleting altogether because it is not technically a product by that band and they seem to have a very thin discography anyway. The album itself is only visible at a few minor streaming and retail sites and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I voted to delete, but if that causes this to get stuck in "no consensus" purgatory with weeks and weeks of relistings, just redirect as suggested by the other voter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus as to the reliability and relevance of the sources at issue. Sandstein 09:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oli London[edit]

Oli London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was never approved by anyone, and I don't think this article would meet any criteria. The focus of this article is heavily on the plastic surgery operations that they underwent to resemble Jimin of BTS. Though they released music they still do not meet WP:MUSIC. There's nothing significant about the subject. Their following count across social media accounts is huge but if that were to carry any weight then with that anyone with a decent following on social media could have their own article, but that is clearly not realistic. What really is notable about them other than the strange desire to look like another person? Though this has been discussed before it really needs to be reconsidered. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand your point "never approved by anyone" editors can create articles without anyone's approval. Anyway, there are reliable secondary sources about them and a quick google news search brought up loads of articles about (and I'm sorry to write this) their planned penis reduction surgery. They do meet the general notability criteria. It has taken a lot of effort to not add a joke here, I probably deserve a barnstar for that. CT55555 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like this has all been debated before >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oli_London CT55555 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Btspurplegalaxy You've edited the reason for AfD, so now I'll reply to the new parts: the strangeness of their actions don't detract from their notability. Your username being the same as the name of band that this person is trying to look like does suggest you might care about why they are notable, but I'd urge you to consider not a judgement about why they are notable, just if they are notable. Also, please note their preferred pronouns. It is "they" not "him" WP:GNLPOLICY CT55555 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've corrected them but I started this discussion again as it doesn't seem the last one resulted in just their notability being fully assessed. I do hope other editors look more at the notability of it rather than solely the subject having reliable sources. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was "approved" per se here after a discussion by the community. If it needs to be rehashed, then the subject has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ones that have happened since the most recent AfD in December include this and this. I hate Kardashian fame type Wikipedia pages, but it meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. You also may want to ping the editors involved in the discussion a few months ago. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those from discussion in December 2021 - @Quark1005:, @Bob drobbs:, @Mlb96:, @Topjur01:, @Maile66:, @FanDePopLatino:, @Toadboy123:, @DRYT.Motorsport:, @NemesisAT:, @Yitzilitt:, @JonnyDKeen: --CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All I can find are pages of unreliable sources, from Newsweek to TMZ, The Daily Mail, The Sun etc. If someone can find better sources, ok then, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to sort through all fan crap but you will find them. There is The New Straits Times which is reliable. Also a book from 2021 published by Bloomsbury Publishing, a notable publisher (not a self-publisher). Was the subject of and a guest on the Dr Phil Show. I also wouldn't throw out the Insider as it has been determined to be reliable for certain information such as culture reporting. CNN (in Indonesia so not sure if they have the same editorial standards as US but assuming so in good faith), Vice, The West Australian, The NZHerald (also considered generally reliable), and others. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: FYI, The New Straits Times is a reprint of a Daily Mail piece. No comments on the other sources. – robertsky (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Here we go again, but I was pinged above, and feel the same way I did when I went with "Delete" last time. Just because someone terms themself an "influencer", or some publication looks to hook a reader or two says "influencer" doesn't mean they have actually influenced anyone. There's an referenced Disography - did they chart at all? Big whoop here, somebody has plastic surgery, and announces they're transracial, doesn't mean they did anything notable. And these days, a lot of TV shows based their guest lists on whatever shocking thing will make an audience tune in - accomplishments not a requirement. At least Caitlyn Jenner had some sizeable accomplishments prior to their decision to change genders. And Chaz Bono was already famous decades prior to the change, and is using their experience to help others. What did this guy do? Nothing. Even piano playing cats can get on YouTube - no big deal. — Maile (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please keep in mind that notability isn't defined by how interesting you personally find a particular subject (though I do sympathize with your boredom—there's a long list of topics I could care less about, but which nonetheless meet notability guidelines). Notability in this context is primarily defined by how independent secondary sources treat the subject of the article, and it seems pretty clear that as boring as you personally find this, enough reliable sources cover this in enough detail that this should be an unambiguous Keep. Yitz (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not assume. Boredom is not the issue here. Early life and Career sections, with only one exception, are flagged for sourcing issues. Discography has no sourcing, no links, no information at all on the alleged singles. Aside from those, all you have is the section on their identity. And ... so what? My comments higher up on Jenner and Bono, were meant to convey that the reason their gender reassignments were known, is because they had been celebrities for decades before each had the process. Otherwise, they'd just be two trans people we would have never heard of. — Maile (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. They have sigcov in The Daily Dot, Business Insider, and Sky News. It does not matter what "accomplishments" they may or may not have, all that matters is that they satisfy WP:BASIC. Which this individual does, so that should be the end of the discussion. Mlb96 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I just googled them and there have been two articles in Newsweek where they are the focus. Has this person ever accomplished anything but drama? Maybe not. But have they got significant coverage because of causing drama? It seems so. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek's not a reliable source per WP:RSP. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think Wikipedia should deserve to have an article of someone who is only famous for changing their race by having multiple plastic surgeries and engaging in obsessive/toxic fan behaviour. No notable achievements and having music career which was literally unknown and later poorly received among general populace. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a celebrity gossip site. Toadboy123 (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like I said last time, this article is full of material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced. Last time I suggested that if anyone thought it should be kept they they could dratify if until it was ready for mainspace but since last time no one seems to make any good edits to the article and almost all the sources are tagged as unreliable. If we removed all of that content that isn't properly sourced, then the article would just be a stub. If editors feel that this is an article worth keeping then they should've worked on fixing it to make it a proper article with reliable sources but since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article and it should just get deleted. FanDePopLatino (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an article That is not how our notability policy works. Mlb96 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are okay as articles, but yes, I would like all the cruft to be shaken out and see if it can stand on what's left. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as CNMall41 points out above, there is ample reliable sourcing available. There is no need for the subject to meet WP:NMUSIC, they just need to meet WP:NBIO. Notability isn't about what the person did, it's about the coverage they receive. NemesisAT (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is classic WP:BLP1E and needs further analysis as to whether they have continuing impact and whether they will continue getting coverage.WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Although deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC, the preponderance of unreliable sources makes it difficult to assess this. Because the article is a BLP, all the unreliable sources and their related statements should be removed immediately:
  • Per WP:KO/RS, Kpopcalypse, Koreaboo, United K-pop
  • Per WP:RSP, Newsweek (unreliable), Business Insider (borderline unreliable), Insider Culture topic (OK to keep)

The person does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, so I would also get rid of or comment out the singles listed.

The appearance on Dr. Phil helps, but they are nowhere near Bhad Bhabie in notability for showing up on a talk show. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the result is to delete, I would merge to Jimin (singer, born 1995) under the Impact and influence section. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great analysis and spot on. I am with the WP:IDL crowd as I don't feel this person deserves to be in Wikipedia for blowing all their money for something like this. However, IDL is an argument to avoid and they have received continued significant coverage over the last three years so WP:LASTING should be met in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Plenty of sourcing to meet WP:SIGCOV; if the existing sources aren't enough for you, there's also this Newsweek article. Most of the !delete votes are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Invited by Btspurplegalaxy with a neutral post on my talk page. I am with AngusWOOF on this. As much as IDL on the subject, but I don't see the need to delete the article. If kept, the statements backed by unreliable sources should be removed for it is a BLP (WP:KO/RS should be applicable for this subject since the primary notability angle is a Korean one (K-pop)). However, if it is a decision to be deleted, I rather that the article be redirected and merged into Jimin (singer, born 1995), summarising only the statements that are backed by reliable sources. – robertsky (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage in sources to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions appear to be of the view that awards establish notability, which is not the case. Sources establish notability, because it is sources we need as a basis for writing a neutral, verifiable article. And the "keep" opinions don't tell us what if any sources are useful for this purpose in their view. Sandstein 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toondra[edit]

Toondra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to have any coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:N 162 etc. (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Notability is asserted by awards and awards are definitely independent refernces to corresponding festivals. There are even more independent "independent sources": p. 22 Loew Galitz (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Loew Galitz. --Vaco98 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.

• Winning notable awards counts towards notability but none of the awards won by the topic company can be considered as notable for the purposes of establishing notability. In addition, "independent sources" doesn't just mean that the publisher has no corporate links with the topic company - see below for details of the requirement also for "Independent Content".
• As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
• WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
• "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. The reference by Galitz above is a mere mention-in-passing which includes a quotation from a company executive - nothing that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bogdanov[edit]

Anton Bogdanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Poetry, Television, and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment would need a Russian speaker to confirm how useful the given sources are. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kheredine Idessane[edit]

Kheredine Idessane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Local reporter, not famous outside devolving Scotland. Echo2019a (talk)

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now -- I have no opinion of my own at this time. @Echo2019a: For future nominations, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, Radio, Television, Football, and Scotland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am surprised there is not more out there about him. He has been one of the main BBC sports reporters for Scottish news programmes for a long time and has covered various big events such as World Cups and Olympics. However there does not seem to be much online, so on that level there does seem to be a notability issue. Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Economy of Belfast. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linenopolis[edit]

Linenopolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not needed, probably can be a definition at Wiktionary KaptianKharisma (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and Northern Ireland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Both Belfast#Economy and Economy of Belfast already cover this, and it is an obvious redirect. Uncle G (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: User who started the AFD has been blocked as a sockpuppet of TzarN64. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rediect to Economy of Belfast as this is the place where we get the best relevant discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Economy of Belfast, obviously. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Economy of Belfast. The topic is the impact of linen on the Belfast economy. We don't need separate articles for every potential title of that topic. Guliolopez (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]