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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TTA UAV[edit]

TTA UAV (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)

Insignificant coverage. Lacks secondary sources (manufacturer pages.) Promotional (manufacturer and retail pages.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Aviation, and China. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per 4meter4; cited only to product specification pages. BD2412 T 03:28, 9 October 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 List of craters on the Moon: G–K#H. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegard (crater)[edit]

Hildegard (crater) (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)

Lunar crater that does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO, a search of Google Scholar brought up nothing of interest, and a general search brought up database listings and Wikipedia mirrors. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Geography. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Meh, this seems to be a substanital impact feature at 122 km in diameter Robbins, 2018 says that there are only 6,972 craters on the moon greater than 20 kilometers in diameter, which implies given the power law ratio between crater size and abundance that there may only be a few hundred craters on the moon the size of Hildegard or larger. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This leads to the question, is there a diameter of crater (that is not arbitrary) that confers this concept of notability? Not that smaller craters could not be notable (see North Ray (crater)). It may be a deep rabbit hole that leads nowhere, but I thought I would ask. A non-arbitrary division would be simple craters versus complex craters (with a central peak or peak ring), but I think that would lead to a senseless deletion of a lot of crater articles. Jstuby (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the several largest craters on major astronomical bodies (i.e. planets, moons and dwarf planets, but not small asteroids and the like) are probably notable even if nothing much has been written about them. However, I probably wouldn't be upset if people mass nominated many of the craters on List of geological features on Ceres for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, and I'm not interested in debating notability of features on anything other than the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and the moon. The articles on craters and other features on these bodies form a kind of system that confers geological knowledge of the entire planet, in my opinion, and I've been working to enhance that system for years by creating articles, uploading images to them, and adding comments about nearby features. I've done the most work on the moon but have done a huge amount of work on Mercury lately, with some on Mars every now and then. The articles on Venus will blossom when the new spacecraft arrive there in a few years. Jstuby (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I was trying to find sources for the pages within the lunar crater stubs category, I found that size is not something that relates strongly to coverage, except that craters under 10km rarely have sources about them. The main thing I found was that any crater near the Lunar north pole was likely to have plenty of sources about it, even if they were only about 10km in diameter, whereas far larger craters located elsewhere had very little or nothing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes some sense - the reason is probably because craters near both poles on the moon (and also Mercury) have regions of permanent shadow where ice has accumulated according to remote sensing data such as radar and from neutron spectrometers. There is probably at least some discussion of or reference to most large lunar craters in the 1987 USGS publication The Geologic History of the Moon by Don Wilhelms, which is based on Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, Surveyor, and Apollo information from the 60s and 70s. Jstuby (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I searched through the source provided by User:Jstuby, as Hildegard wasn't named until 2016 it obviously doesn't mention the crater directly, so I searched for the neighbouring Planck instead, but even that larger and more prominent crater is not given significant coverage in the source, with only one passing mention outside of image captions. I am not sure what name Hildegard was referred to as in 1987, but I do not believe it is discussed or even mentioned. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone decide figures and captions don't count? Jstuby (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the captions would meet the criteria for significant coverage, since they are at most one sentence long and don't mention Hildegard anyway? Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, an interesting discussion about what would make a crater notable but we need to see more direct opinions on what to do with this specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At present, most far side craters are not going to have much coverage. My suggestion is to redirect to List of craters on the Moon: G–K, which already covers most of the pertinent information. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is it is not easy to include photos of the crater in a list article. Most of the information about a crater is a picture of it, which shows its morphology that can be contrasted with other craters. Jstuby (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A picture of the crater doesn't make it notable. The entire surface of the Moon has been extensively imaged. Praemonitus (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found a reference that mentions Hildegard by name in the text and added it to the article. Jstuby (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of craters on the Moon: G–K per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I suggest creating a gallery of images on that list page to house photos of this crater and other craters on that list. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial #Galleries. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for this discussion. I found a scientific article that mentions Hildegard by name in the article, not in a figure caption or table, possibly meeting the requirement noted by Devonian Wombat above. Apparently that is stil not good enough to 4meter4. In my opinion, Hildegard is a perfect example of a boring crater, and I can see why self-described deletionists would target this article. Ultimately I don't have a problem if this article is redirected to a list article. My objection lies in the slippery slope of deleting or redirecting this article. You will find hundreds of other articles on craters or other landforms on planetary bodies that do not (yet) meet notability guidelines (rules?) like this one. I am not interested in having this debate about every one of them, as this debate has taken up far too much of my time and detracted from my enjoyment of wikipedia. What is to be gained by deleting such articles when they are factually accurate? Just leave them all as stubs, so that constructive work can continue (WNP). I have worked on almost every article on lunar craters in one way or another, and although most of them are still stubs, they would not be in as good of shape as they are without someone else (notably retired editor RJHall) creating stub articles on them over 10 years ago. Note that I am aware that this inclusionist perspective I advocate can be used the other way, to justify creation of articles of minor features on any planetary surface. I don't think it is arbitrary to state that the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and the moon are more important than the moons of Saturn, for example. When those bodies are better explored (like Europa will be) then of course they will become more notable.Jstuby (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Jstuby We have notability requirements for astronomical objects specified at WP:NASTCRIT. But for your benefit, I will copy them here:

1. The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. This includes any star in the HR catalogue.
2. The object is listed in a catalogue of high historical importance (e.g. Messier catalogue), or a catalogue of high interest to amateur astronomers (e.g. Caldwell catalogue).
   • Being listed in comprehensive databases (e.g. SIMBAD or NED) or surveys (e.g. 2MASS or 2dFGRS) isn't enough for notability.
3. The object has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
   • A single paper is not enough to establish notability. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage.
4. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.

So far no evidence has been put forward that the Hildegard (crater) meets any one of these four notability criteria in our policy language. We have only one piece of evidence mentioning the crater by name, but even that source does not rise to the level of "significant commentary" as required by our policy at NASTCRIT. We would require a minimum of three in depth sources, none of which has been produced, that demonstrate "significant commentary" to pass the "multiple non-trivial published works" portion of policy language to establish notability. That simply has not been done. If you don't like the policy, then I suggest trying to build some consensus to change it. In the mean time, at AFD we have to follow notability policies as written not as we wish they would be. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the entirety of the scientific paper's coverage of Hildegard cited above is "Key events during the Nectarian include formation of the Ingenii (~3.91 Ga) and Leibnitz (~3.88 Ga) basins, and the emplacement of mare within the crater Hildegard." As in, less than one sentence of coverage, which clearly does not constitute significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of craters on the Moon: G–K to avoid deletion. I'm going to avoid thresholding, and just speak to sources: sufficient to verify, insufficient to pass NOTE. Redirects are cheap and this one will preserve everything in page history until Lunar Enquirer presents their inevitable exposé on this potentially scandalous lunar feature. BusterD (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alimuddin Ahmad[edit]

Alimuddin 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)

Bio of subject with uncertain notability. All language wikis rely on the same two sources, one of which describes the subject as “forgotten”. Sources may exist in other languages but notability is not clear based in what I can find. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and West Bengal. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I originally created the article by translating the one in Bengali. I have now done some of my own research and have added more sources to show how notable Ahmad was. --SalamAlayka (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The person has an entry in an indian standard biographical dictionary. The source "সংসদ বাঙালি চরিতাভিধান" is a biographical dictionary. So he is notable enough. Mehedi Abedin 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review new additions to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG, SIGCOV. Well known in both India and Bangladesh. Haueirlan (talk) 19:23, 7 October 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 Jungfrau Railway. History is under the redirect if there's anything worth merging. Star Mississippi 17:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jungfraubahn Holding AG[edit]

Jungfraubahn Holding AG (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:NCORP. Lots of press releases in the news, but very little non-routine coverage. I suggest a redirect to Jungfrau Railway. Pinging User:Onel5969, who previously redirected the article. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a dominating tourism and transportation company in that region. A redirect to Jungfrau Railway is not acceptable, as the Jungfraubahn Holding is not the same as the railway.--Keimzelle (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify so creator can work on it after no longer blocked. Maybe they can find that which is needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jungfrau Railway. Surprisingly, not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jungfrau Railway.4meter4 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge to Jungfrau Railway; it can't hurt to note in that article that the holding company for which the railway is the primary asset also owns other transportation interests. BD2412 T 03:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanushree Chatterjee[edit]

Tanushree Chatterjee (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 film actress, fails WP:NACTOR. Was nominated for deletion previously and the decision was to delete. Sources are trivial and passing mentions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Actress is Non - Notable and her films also Non - Notable. She hasn't done any significant role in any Notable Film. Contributor008 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP and WP:TOOSOON. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iimani David[edit]

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

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

No WP:RS via Google. The two books are self-published (The New York Literary Society, nylscares.org). ForeWord Magazine is pay for review. Created by JodiRhodes at 2010-12-12T20:57:32, the accounts only work. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Harvard Architecture[edit]

The Myth of the Harvard Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an article about a recently published paper on the Harvard architecture. I see two main problems: the first is that the author of the article is in fact the author of the paper so we have a conflict of interest issue and the second is that this paper isn't currently notable (which is not a surprise since it was published only weeks if not days ago). Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I accept the criticism and agree that the paper is not notable. However, I would like to point out that in posting The Myth of the Harvard architecture, my motivation was not to promote my paper. In the long run, I would have no problem in seeing the Myth of the Harvard Architecture deleted as an article. My motivation is to try to draw attention to the nonsense that is in the existing Wikipedia articles entitled 'Harvard architecture' and 'modified Harvard architecture'. I have been concerned about this for some years. Both of those articles are currently flagged (not by me) as having multiple problems including, but not limited to, a complete lack of solid references. My initial thought, having succeeded in getting my paper through peer review and into the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, was simply to start substantially re-writing those two articles (actually I believe there should only be one - 'Harvard architecture' covering 'modified Harvard architecture' also and with the latter redirecting to the former). But I was worried that I would be accused of vandalism. My paper is the first rigorous analysis of this subject. If I were permitted to make substantial changes to those articles, including making them more rigorous and with proper referencing, but removing the many false (and unsupported) statements within them, I reiterate that I would be more than happy that there should be no separate article on 'The Myth...'. My motivation in creating the article was just to raise awareness of how many false statements there are in those two articles.

  I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in my edits, I stated explicitly that I would prefer it if someone else would make these edits - because I did not, and do not, wish it to come across as seeking to promote my paper. My interest is in setting the record straight on the Harvard architecture, not in having the credit for it. That said, given that my paper is the only peer-reviewed paper on this whole subject, it would be very strange if there was no reference to it. Rpawson Rpawson (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, in fact what you have written (at Harvard architecture and at The Myth of the Harvard Architecture) is entirely promotional of your paper: rather than using your paper as a reference for factual statements about other things, what you did was write about your paper itself. You are not forbidden from editing the article Harvard architecture, removing unsourced or incorrect material, adding appropriate footnotes, etc. -- but you should do so in a way that is not self-promotional. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an attempt to get original research into Wikipedia. There is no evidence that the paper published last month has become well-known or influenced the field of computer history. While we do have articles about significant papers, such as the B2FH paper, those articles don't just repeat the content of the paper. Instead they discuss the history and significance of the paper. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is possible for a journal paper to be notable, independent of the research it reports, but only in very rare cases of papers that have become well established as landmarks. A newly published paper cannot meet that standard and to the extent that its findings are novel they cannot be notable yet either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" this ain't. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to userspace. Given this a lot of thought. Can’t have a page on this article, but article itself is perfectly usable as a source, properly published and all. How to be used for just that purpose? Could even merge into Harvard architecture. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would oppose a move to userspace. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even in userspace. Pichpich (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pure WP:OR. PianoDan (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies[edit]

Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I see this organization briefly mentioned as a funder of research in various news or scholarly articles but cannot locate in-depth sources that would satisfy WP:NORG. The only independent source cited that might have significant coverage is GuideStar Pro which I cannot access. [Edit: it doesn't, see below]. This source looks independent but actually, its author is listed as a contact person for FAMSI. In any event, multiple independent sources with in-depth coverage are required to meet WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Latin America, Mexico, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- The alternative might be to merge to Los Angeles County Museum of Art into which it merged, but such an article merger would upset the balance of the target. The fact that the foundation no longer exists is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What coverage is compliant with NORG? Without the coverage it cannot be kept according to English Wikipedia rules. Most of the article is self sourced anyway so should be just deleted. (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- or include as a section under the Los Angeles County Museum of Art article? GuideStar and APA have profiles on it, and there exist scholarly articles on the organisation or its activity (I don't think the article linked by buidhe (talk · contribs) is not independent as, though the author is FAMSI-affiliated, the journal itself is not, such that this still looks like an independent source to me). So unless author-affiliations make academic articles non-independent, it seems like this org meets either NORG or general notability guidelines (as a non-profit educational org, I think it's allowed to meet either). [Though I'm the original author so someone else weigh in :)] Asdfjrjjj (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wp:Independent makes it clear that any source whose author has a conflict of interest in the organization or is closely affiliated, is not an independent source. Would you mind emailing me the GuideStar and APA sources so that I can verify if they provide independent coverage? Asdfjrjjj (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahh sorry, in that case ignore the part re the quoted / linked article, though there might be others from non-affiliates! Will email in a few (APA source is linked on article and free to access :) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no content on the APA link unless it is not loading properly for me. Thanks for sending the email but all I see are some data fields and two paragraphs of text supplied by FAMSI itself, thus no significant, independent coverage. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep--with the potential option to merge to Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Petra0922 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Los Angeles County Museum of Art. I think it's inaccurate to describe the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies as simply a non-profit that dissolved, because it is still a very much in existence as web resource for research. While now administrated by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, it still operates under the name of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. http://www.famsi.org is a major resource for Academics researching in pre-Columbian studies. There is some coverage on the website and its use in research in Suzanne Muchnic (4 March 2012). "The Latin perspective: LACMA, other museums offer fresh, nuanced looks at the art of the Americas". The Los Angeles Times. p. E18.. The present article should really be updated to a present tense format describing the current website and its use in research; while acknowledging its past origins as a non-profit; or it should be merged in the LACMA with content on the existing research website. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if this source has significant coverage of FAMSI (I cannot verify that it even exists), multiple independent sources with significant coverage are required to meet WP:NORG and therefore keep the article. (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe As it's no longer an organization. WP:NORG is not the right policy. WP:WEB would be the correct notability policy for the website.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEBCRIT has the same requirement: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Mountain Regional High School[edit]

Fall Mountain Regional High School (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)

High schools don't get an automatic pass anymore. There doesn't seem to be anything that distinguishes this particular one. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm on the fence about this one because I did find some stuff but it's mostly local pieces, so I'm leaning towards delete, but only slightly. I did want to share what I found just in case someone else can build upon these sources and make an argument for keeping the article, but at present I don't feel it's quite enough. [2][3][4][5]. This book is a non-local source that uses the school throughout the book as an example, going into some level of detail in the way the school has done things. This book discusses the school and its students making efforts to help and document after a flood, but it's a book written by the local historical society with a small local publisher. If someone can find something a little more substantial (or ideally even national in coverage would be great) then I'd be more than open to changing my delete comment, but as it stands with what I was able to find, it's not quite there in terms of meeting WP:GNG for me; the sources I was able to find are for the most part local interest pieces rather than truly independent sources, and these I've shared are the best I was able to find, there's a lot of sports/theatre/band announcements and other noise that I wouldn't consider contributing to notability in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added two sources quickly. An American high school of any size is very rarely if ever going to fail AFD unless there's been some recent radical change in AFD outcomes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some radical change, such as a February 2017 RFC (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), which came to the conclusion "that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations."? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Those two sources are local interest and not high on independence of the subject. For the 1966 one it could not be more trivial of a mention, and for the 1967 one, a local high school has a graduation? That is as WP:ROUTINE as possible. Neither of those show notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The 2017 RFC, oh, ok, I'm aware of that. I never understood to rule to be automatic notability. I don't know what y'all want, i could find more sources but based on Aoidh's most recent reaction, you're gonna need to spend the rest of your time on Earth at AFD trying to delete high school articles which will keep returning no matter what we do.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject fails WP:GNG and the sources provided don't show otherwise, it's as simple as that. I really don't know what you mean about spending the rest of our time on Earth at AfD; this is a single AfD discussion about a single article which must stand on its own merits in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those surrounding notability. If an article is constantly re-created after deletion when notability has not changed, the article title can be salted, so that's not a concern, nor is the threat of constant article re-creation a reason to keep this or any other article. - Aoidh (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• From my 15 years of editing on this website, I know articles get recreated all the time no matter what. but that's a feature of wikipedia, not a bug! I could add 100 more references to this article from regional newspapers, but I guess you'd say they aren't meaningful enough. Its ok for us to disagree, indeed its a tradition! The debate about high school articles on wikipedia is just shy of 20 years old, with the first known deletion discussion in March 2003, I actually dug through the history a few years ago out of personal interest, User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that local sources can't show notability, it's that for this school the local sources that do exist are mostly routine things like graduation announcements and theatre productions in the local paper. I went into this AfD expecting to say "keep" because I do agree that prima facie, American high schools are generally notable. It's just that this particular one doesn't have any demonstrated notability. Believe me, I looked. I spent somewhere over half an hour looking for sources for this because I was in denial that I couldn't justify my keep argument. The above sources I shared are quite literally the best-of-the-best in terms of what I could find, and in my viewpoint that's not enough. I'm not being facetious when I say that I would be more than happy to have sources be shown that make me change my rationale to a "keep", but if those sources exist, I wasn't able to find them. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a bit more, and I do appreciate that your !vote is only based on leaning slightly in favor of deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I guess per WP:IAR (how does deleting this article improve the encyclopedia?)—I prefer erring on the side of preservation for public secondary schools if notability is borderline. There are enough sources to write an informative start-class article, with nontrivial information about history in particular, not just trivial stuff about academics, and that's enough for me. Ovinus (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I missed Milowent's reply to my last comment above initially, and only just noticed when Ovinus commented above which showed up in my watchlist. I'm striking and amending my rationale from above. The JROTC/Washington Post stuff that was added since my last comment doesn't by itself make a super strong case for notability, but I think that when added with the third-party book it does create a weak argument for notability via WP:GNG in that it shows multiple different non-local sources discussing various different aspects of the school, so it's a broad enough scope of coverage that it does create an argument for notability. - Aoidh (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting also that the nomination has been withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Tal[edit]

Erez Tal (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)

References are a mixture of trivial mentions and primary interview material - no indication of significant coverage on reliable, secondary sources suitable or sufficient for supporting a standalone biography. Searching for fresh sourcing doesn't turn over anything much better. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator: Upon close inspection, a handful of the sources on he.wiki do appear to present a critical mass of non-trivial coverage on the particularly boring topic of the subject moving from one channel to another. Parochial stuff, but it's there. Adding Template:Expand language is the best course. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not own your mistakes? You nominated a central media figure in Israel while sources were out there, did not bother to check sources that were just one click away, argued with literally everyone here who disagreed, and still belittle the WP:BLP you nominated at withdrawal? Why do I not see any self-reflection? gidonb (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Super major TV host. Has been anchoring shows on prime time Israeli TV for other thirty years. Abundant sources are available online. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If sources are abundant, perhaps you could provide an example of non-trivial coverage from a reliable, secondary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A cursory glance at the corresponding article on the Hebrew Wikipedia seems to provide ample coverage of suitable sources, albeit in Hebrew, which is not inconceivable given the subject's primary role within Israeli television. In the short term I would suggest adding Template:Expand language to the article and tagging it with the parallel Hebrew article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw a handful of sources that barely qualify as non-trivial coverage, and largely from a single outlet - "The Marker": [6][7][8] - these include just about the bare minimum of three paragraphs of non-primary material. There is a similar piece from "Walla!" [9] - again marginal more than compelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A major media figure with articles in 20 languages and a disruptive nomination. Speedy and snow also apply. gidonb (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a celebrity blog. There are currently no non-trivial mentions present on en.wiki and only a handful of marginal sources on he.wiki - I can't speak to the sourcing standards on other language wikis. Not a single keep vote here seems to be interested in actually sourcing any of their statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying articles for notable professionals is not what makes us into a blog. It's what differentiates us from a blog! I see absolutely no traction for this nomination that is definitely out there between the more problematic nominations. I do see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONING from the nominator! gidonb (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the sources currently attached to this article are non-trivial, and I am the only one in this discussion who has even provided suggestions for what other (foreign language) sources might qualify as non-trivial. Discussing sourcing is not bludgeoning; it is fair enquiry. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hewiki article has 39 sources and that is little compared to what is possible to assemble. It has more articles under external links. I do see you argue under every single opinion here. This causes even more disruption than just the nomination. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming in the American Civil War[edit]

Wyoming in the American Civil War (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)

Rather contrived, as neither the state of Wyoming or the Wyoming Territory existed at this time. What little happened in the region militarily would be better classified as belonging to the American Indian Wars. I'm not convinced this should exist. Hog Farm _Talk 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and Wyoming. Hog Farm _Talk 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Page was originally created as a set of links to “(state/territory) in the American Civil War” for entities which actually existed during that time covering that area, and later converted to an article by Sam1370. Initial impression is that it should be reverted back to its earlier status. --Finngall ^talk 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Union troops were there to guard against Native Americans. There was no fighting against Confederates. So we have non-existent Confederate activity in an as-yet-uncreated territory or state. About as valid as The Beatles in the American Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and historical reality. There were no actions involving Confederate troops in this region, and if for some unknown reason there were they should be addressed in one of the relevant territorial articles (Nebraska or Colorado). No reason for this article to exist. Intothatdarkness 18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and discussion here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT to Dakota Territory#American Civil War. Where it would be, yes? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hyperbolick: - Part of what is now Wyoming was also in the Idaho Territory, so that would create a WP:XY issue with a redirect to one over the other. Hog Farm _Talk 13:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There was also a small corner that was part of Utah. The territorial history in this part of the country is a touch too convoluted to lend itself to easy linking... Intothatdarkness 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A sliver, yes. But the bulk was Dakota. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, a redirect is misleading. There was no "Wyoming" involvement in the Civil War. Even your own link indicates the majority of Civil War involvement in Dakota Territory (mostly east of what would become Wyoming) was concerned mainly with Indian conflicts. Intothatdarkness 22:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. [Was "Merge" to the appropriate three territory articles, if there is any content worth saving, and "Delete" (do not leave a redirect behind)], but I gather there's nothing worth saving. Inbound links to this article include Outline of the American Civil War, which needs cleaning up. Other questionable "STATE in the American Civil War"-type article names, where STATE did not then exist, still appear there. I recall objecting to these when they were being manufactured. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some have been merged/redirected to more appropriate "TERRITORY in the American Civil War" articles or just to a section in the TERRITORY article:

• New Mexico's one was merged into New Mexico Territory in the American Civil War in multiple edits by Cuchullain in May 2009 while a RM type discussion was going on at its Talk page.
• South Dakota's one is a redirect to Dakota Territory#American Civil War
• Oklahoma's one was moved/redirected to Indian Territory in the American Civil War as result of this 2008 RM discussion.

Not checking all, but Colorado, Nebraska, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Utah, others which were not yet states (see List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union) remain listed in Outline of the American Civil War as if they were states, too. Redirects of this type should be deleted IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is that Wyoming Territory didn't exist either and there is no clear redirect target. Keeping the title implies there was any sense of anything by the name of Wyoming involved in the Civil War, which there wasn't. And functionally all the article's content isn't about the Civil War, but about, basically, the American Indian Wars, so there's nothing worth merging. Not to mention that simply saying other stuff exists is not a convincing reason to keep (or in this case merge) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changing to "Delete" as i gather there's nothing to merge. I do not want for "X in the ACW" to appear anywhere in wikipedia, if X did not exist during ACW. Please do note by your reasoning that the other ones I mention are also problematic. --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up Talk:Nebraska in the American Civil War#Requested move 4 October 2022. Nebraska troops did fight Confederates; the others mentioned did have some involvement with stuff like the Sand Creek massacre that's really the Indian Wars but is occasionally referred to as being part of the Civil War for reasons I've never found satisfactory. Hog Farm _Talk 21:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally an aside, but I think it has something to do with the time frame and the stated reason for raising Colorado volunteers (Sibley and all that). As I've said elsewhere, the Indian Wars stuff on Wiki is a mess. Intothatdarkness 01:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christon Jones[edit]

Christon Jones (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)

Looks well sourced but not seeing any actual independent sourcing. Everything looks to be Interviews or otherwise PR related claims by subject. No independent verification of 'millionaire status'. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO due to lack of Independent sourcing Slywriter (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per the nomination. + The article's creator has a history of PR/ advertising article creations. (see Ryan Hamilton Zehl & The Global Architect Institute). - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 01:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are all press releases that lack independence, interviews which lack independence, or self-promotional material.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 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. This is one of those rare cases where WP:NOTAVOTE earns its keep. The arguments for deletion assert that the subject is not notable as an actor, per the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and also not notable as a criminal under the relatively stringent rules of WP:CRIME. The latter explicitly precludes "contemporaneous news coverage" being the sole source of a criminal perpetrator's notability, instead requiring "historic significance ... indicated by sustained coverage". Both of these guidelines reflect well-established consensus and have been invoked numerous times in deletion discussions.

There were a few different arguments for keeping the article:

• He was said to be notable as an actor because he has had many roles and some of them are in undoubtedly notable projects (Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Riverdale were typical mentions). It was also pointed out that he won a couple of awards and was nominated for others. These were the most effective arguments for Keep, but they were rebutted by responses that the subject had typically minor roles that many non-notable actors have, not the "significant roles" called for by WP:NACTOR, and the awards for which he was nominated are niche awards for local areas and/or child performers.
• He was said to be notable as a criminal based on news coverage of his arrest and conviction. These arguments uniformly ignored the "historic significance" criterion of WP:CRIME, which would be difficult to meet at this time given that he was just convicted last month.
• There were many comments that asserted the article was interesting or useful – arguments that have been soundly rejected as irrelevant for keeping Wikipedia articles. It appears that many of these were drawn into the discussion by the news coverage mentioned above. While I assume that all of these comments were well-intentioned, I give them zero weight for analyzing the consensus for or against deletion.

Given the imbalance in how these arguments relate to our notability guidelines, I am making the uncommon finding of a consensus for the "minority" position (in terms of who showed up to comment on this page), because the Delete arguments clearly represent the established consensus about how notability is understood for actors and (especially) criminal perpetrators. RL0919 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Grantham[edit]

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

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

Per WP:CRIME, convicted criminals should be the subject of a Wikipedia article if and only if (1) the victim is a renowned national or international figure, or (2) the crime is a well-documented and historic event, as evidenced by prominent and sustained coverage. Neither is true in this case, in which a former child actor who had played only the most minor of roles made unfulfilled and unsubstantiated threats against a public figure (not notable on its own) and murdered a non-notable person. Outside of these crimes, the subject is not notable, and this news story is unlikely to have any lasting significance or persist beyond the stories already out. — Goszei (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Crime. — Goszei (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm on the fence on this one. I would argue that the article passes GNG due to significant news coverage the subject received for the murder of his mother. That being said, it does seem that the article fails WP:CRIME as per the nom. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 06:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems like a standard case of WP:BLP1E, since he is only covered by reliable sources in the context of a single event (i.e. if not for the murder, Wikipedia would not have an article on him as he was not notable enough as an actor). — Goszei (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kid has nearly 40 acting credits and is clearly notable enough to have a page about him even if he hadn't killed his mom. Article should be improved and expanded, not deleted. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed.

  Fame is transitory. It can fade into obscurity, or it can transform into notoriety, or in this case infamy. What matters is Truth, and Truth should never be deleted. 76.139.137.182 (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah! WP:THETRUTH!!! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I hereby appoint you, 76.139.137.182 as DOT. You're welcome  Rejoy2003  15:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability as an actor is not an automatic "any actor who has had X number of roles" freebie, and requires reliable source coverage about his performances to independently establish the significance of said roles — but having had only supporting and bit parts, this kid doesn't have that, and thus doesn't pass WP:NACTOR at all. Rather, the only coverage he has at all is in the context of the murder, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E, and a WP:CRIME failure since the murder itself doesn't have any enduring significance as a crime either. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A quick search shows he's appeared on several talk shows, presented at the Leo Awards, been nominated for several acting awards (including at the Leos),... So no, he hasn't "had only supporting and bit parts". Happy Evil Dude (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on talk shows, presenting at the Leos, and being nominated for minor regional acting awards that don't get sufficient media coverage for us to even be able to write an adequate article about the awards themselves are not "parts" for the purposes of WP:NACTOR #1, and no other criterion in NACTOR covers any of those things off either. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that no-one ever thought to make an article about him prior to this incident indicates that he isn't notable. StAnselm (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Striking my !vote on further reflection. I'm still not sure if he passes WP:NACTOR, though. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why would you delete this page? Clearly newsworthy and of jntereat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.106.0.19 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to bottom and formatted Justiyaya 15:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS. "Currently in the news" isn't necessarily grounds for a Wikipedia article — "he's accomplished something significant enough that people will still be looking for information about him ten years from now" is the bar for a Wikipedia article, and that hasn't been cleared here. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The kid's been active for over a decade, one of his most notable works is Diary of a Wimp Kid. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you realize, don't you, that he is not actually the Wimpy Kid in question, that his name does not appear in the Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film) article, nor his character in List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters? StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "was he in a thing you've heard of?" — it's a question of "was he the star of the thing you've heard of, or just a minor walk-on bit part somewhere in the middle?" He wasn't the star of Diary of a Wimpy Kid, so Diary of a Wimpy Kid doesn't magically clinch him as notable all by itself: we're not looking for the prominence of the franchise itself, we're looking for the prominence of his specific role within it. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The murder and plot to kill Trudeau have been widely reported by multiple large news companies. Even though he may not be a major celebrity he is still a person of Note, and the crime he committed is still a major one regardless of whether or not the person who was killed was a significant person in the grand scheme of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolan361 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and it's not a particularly close call. Grantham had many acting credits and plenty of news coverage of those roles to qualify for an article had the crime for which he's been convicted never occurred. The fact that an article hadn't yet been written about him has no bearing at all on whether this article should be deleted. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he had WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about his career prior to the murder, then how come absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about him can actually be located outside the context of the murder? Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the reasons articulated by Editors above. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, He is a notable actor who has been in many projects and nominated for awards. He was also referenced in the diary of a wimpy kid movie diary which surprisingly is the bestselling book about filming of all time. Even if the two events if his acting career and his crimes aren't notable, the events put together make a good and notable story to me. I say keep. September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:A703:32CA:4868:75DD:BA35:E6DB (talk)

The number of projects an actor has been in is not a notability criterion; the notability of an actor hinges on the amount of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in media he does or doesn't have about his performances, not on the raw number of performances he has or hasn't given. And the notability of an actor also isn't clinched just because the article has the word "award" in it, either: even "notable because awards" still requires the awards themselves to be notable ones that pass WP:GNG on their media coverage, and cannot be established by awards that have to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published website about themselves or photo galleries because real media coverage about them is nonexistent. At least as Canadian awards go, the only surefire "notable because award" clinches for an actor are the Canadian Screen Awards or the Prix Iris, not the Leos or the Joeys or the post-1986 regional ACTRAs — because it doesn't hinge on the word "award", it hinges on the amount of media coverage that the award ceremony does or doesn't get. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has multiple acting credits and has been the subject of much reporting by news sources lately - however unpleasant the reason for that may be. Certainly meets notability guidelines. The Vital One (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has had notable roles long enough to be considered a reasonably well known actor, and even though he has not had a wiki page before his conviction, it just provides another reason why he should have one.
• Delete, the above comments seem to be based on a misunderstanding of our notability criterion for actors, Grantham most assuredly does not meet WP:NACTOR, as he has not starred in any notable productions, only appearing in bit parts, and he received no coverage other than passing mentions for these roles. The coverage that exists for his crime is a failure of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the exact same reason as stated above. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 12:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- he starred in notable movies and shows like Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Riverdale, and now he has been convicted of a serious crime resulting in life imprisonment. This shows he is notable and the article shouldn't be deleted 747pilot (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just being in notable movies and shows is not the notability test for an actor — the notability test for an actor hinges on the amount of reliable source coverage about his performances in movies or TV shows can or can't be shown to establish that his performances in movies and shows were significant roles and not just supporting or bit parts. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one find coverage about performances? In movie reviews, interviews and other articles about films. And guess what, plenty of published reviews and articles out there on films he's been the lead in, which naturally specifically discuss his performance. Examples:

[10] [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Happy Evil Dude (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound like Becoming Redwood needs an article. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, those aren't all reliable or notability-supporting sources; some are, certainly, but some are not.

Secondly, WP:NACTOR requires multiple roles to have received significant coverage, not just one. But of those sources, the ones that are reliable sources are virtually all addressing him exclusively in the context of Becoming Redwood — the only reliable source that has anything to do with Considering Love and Other Magic comes from the local newspaper of the city where that film was shot, and thus wouldn't even establish the notability of the film all by itself let alone the notability of any individual performance within it, so you haven't demonstrated that Considering Love and Other Magic would count as a second notable role under NACTOR. And therefore, having been analyzed and reviewed in the context of Becoming Redwood isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made my way from a well known "Hollywood Gossip" site as I was unfamiliar with his crime. I believe situations like mine are exactly what makes Wikipedia so useful and popular. Should not be deleted. (Christopher Thomas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.12.197 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Speaking as someone who uses Wikipedia more than they contribute, I found the page very useful. It was one of the first search results on Google and could be expanded. TheFatJamoc (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 12.138.186.65 (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no reason to delete this page. This actor turned murderer is culturally relevant and noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C80:3E10:A571:6463:E32:8EBA (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Why would you delete this record and not delete many others such as Paul Bernardo ,John Wayne Gacey, etc perhaps one rule should apply ? Either delete all convicted killiers or don't delete any, personally myself I lean towards the delete them from history altogether , but that's just my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.115.76.105 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bernardo and John Wayne Gacy have enduring significance that clearly passes the ten-year test. No, we do not have to either keep or delete all convicted killers indiscriminately: just as in any other field of human endeavour, there can still be both notable and non-notable killers at the same time. Also, new comments go to the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: he may not have been notable enough as an actor to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but he has received a significant amount of media coverage for his crimes (more than enough to warrant an article here, I think). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep articles about criminals on the basis of recent newsiness; we only keep articles about criminals if they can show a credible reason why people will still be looking for information about them in 2032. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a lot of coverage at the moment, but it's not substantively different. The various roles Mr. Grantham played were not sufficiently major to count for notability, regardless of whether the productions themselves did. There are awards for which simply being a finalist is a claim of notability; none of the awards for which Mr. Grantham was a finalist meet that criterion. There are awards for which being a winner is a claim of notability; again, none of Mr. Grantham's awards meet that criterion. Mr. Grantham's plans to attack Mr. Trudeau might have made the difference, but fortunately Mr. Grantham came to his senses and reported himself to authorities while he was still several thousand miles away from Mr. Trudeau. Delete. DS (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a very strange case. He murdered his mother; he planned to murder the Canadian Prime Minister; he planned to carry out a mass shooting at a university, but had second thoughts and stopped before he did so. The motives are very strange. It's definitely suitable for an encyclopedia article. Also, I disagree with the WP policies on articles about convicted to criminals. I understand that people feel that the notoriety of murderers obscures the lives of their victims, and they think that is unfair. I don't agree with that. But even if we leave aside murderers, there are many convicted criminals whose lives and criminal careers are important to document. Financial criminals are a very important category that should be included and described in full - in part so that we can know what to watch out for to stop the Bernie Madoffs of the future.Jmkleeberg (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the person is notable and the article has potential to expand, which is all that is required for a bio article at Wikipedia. SurgeArrest (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep He's gotten enough coverage in Canadian media [22] and [23]. Mostly for being the Riverdale kid that killed his mom and tried to kill/wanted to kill Trudeau. Some of the coverage is getting into gossipy tabloid stuff (worried his baby face will make him a target in prison). But it's coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep Most of the reasons posited for a keep are tabloid in nature. There is not enough Encyclopedic data to warrant a full article EXCEPT for the individual's acting career. The article should be greatly reduced from it's current state at a minimum. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Interesting—it's not every day that an actor kills his mother. And he was certainly more than an extra in the productions he appeared in. There is enough here to merit keeping the article—and it was an interesting read, too! Dflaw4 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Wanlin[edit]

Hu Wanlin (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)

Violates WP:BLPCRIME, specifically For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. There has been no conviction for homicide, only a conviction for practising medicine without a licence. The person is not independently notable fails WP:CRIMINAL. See also the discussion at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of serial killers by number of victims. Polyamorph (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. Polyamorph (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yikes. Too many WP:BLP concerns, no conviction for the crimes, notability is marginal. Ovinus (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at the BLP noticeboard. The only possible case for notability seems to be the allegations of a crime that he has never been convicted of committing; as a non-public figure the BLP implications there are not good. His actual conviction for illegally practicing medicine is completely mundane (hardly rising to the levels recommended in WP:CRIMINAL of being well-documented and historically significant), and the coverage of it appears to be completely routine. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Caeciliusinhorto's analysis.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 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 delete per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyvio. Kinu ^t/_c 15:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Manning[edit]

Michael G. Manning (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must show some externally validated evidence of their significance (e.g. notable literary awards, critical attention, etc.) -- but this offers nothing of the sort, and instead two of the three footnotes are of the "book circularly verifying its own existence via its own publisher or an online bookstore" variety, which is not support for notability at all, and the only one that actually comes from a media outlet is a 32-word blurb about one short story in an anthology, which isn't enough media coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself.
Note also that an article about his book series was deleted by AFD last year for also not backing up its existence with any reliably sourced evidence of notability either, and the creator has directly stated on their own user talk page that they "collaborated" with the subject in writing this -- which means it's a conflict of interest violation.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. You don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to third-party media coverage about his work as proof that it got GNG-building external attention. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G12; entire article is a copyvio from [24]. Ovinus (talk) 15:19, 1 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Pagluha ng Anghel[edit]

Sa Pagluha ng Anghel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NF, no independent coverage apparent, no evidence the film was released BOVINEBOY2008 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find any evidence of release, and production wasn't notable enough to warrant keeping article. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally unsourced and fails notability; seems like the article was created by one of the lead actors and then abandoned. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nomination. Fifthapril (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A triple nothing, no references, no release, no reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM with a possible WP:HOAX perhaps. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Obviously meets WP:GNG and will not be deleted. Concerns about material in the article should be discussed on the talk page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Spade[edit]

Kate Spade (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)

Troubled fashion founder that committed suicide. 64.18.11.66 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article has many reliable sources. 208.125.9.178 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- very clearly notable, with plenty of references already. JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. No reason to delete given and subject clearly notable. Skynxnex (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well referenced article, passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Nominator does not make a serious argument for deletion. Article easily passes BIO and GNG. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a second page for this AfD here for some reason. The AfD notice on the Kate Spade page goes to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion/Kate Spade" which redirects back here, but that page is still there if you ignore the redirect per that link. This whole AfD seems a little unusual to me, even aside from Spade easily passing Wikipedia notability guidelines that the nominator seems to have not considered. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. KS might be a household name for some shoppers, but not everyone knows who she is. 67.254.131.226 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good deletion reason. Please read WP:AADD. And please stop trying to redirect this AfD discussion. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article and fix it but Delete any original research from the article. 12.190.178.37 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saptarshi Gayen[edit]

Saptarshi Gayen (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)

Autobiography, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rivugayen with no indication that the awards (beyond the BBC) are notable ones and not sure whether that's enough for ANYBIO. Unable to find any other indication of notability. Note, if this is deleted, Draft:Saptarshi Gayen may need to be. If it's kept, possible history merge. Star Mississippi 13:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and India. Star Mississippi 13:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non Notable person who got Not Notable Awards. Contributor008 (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G5.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:G5 Uhai (talk) 20:01, 9 October 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 Glossary of video game terms. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spam (video games)[edit]

Spam (video games) (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)

Possibly failing WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Not a lot of notable coverage I can find, and most of it seems to indicate that its content could be adequately covered in other articles like Fighting games, or a definition in Glossary of video game terms, but I could be mistaken. For all the words in this article, it only has one citation (to an unreliable source). ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This information is interesting to gamers, yes, but it would a better fit on a pertinnt video gaming Wiki. TH1980 (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Glossary of video game terms where the term could be listed. Article itself fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, Popular culture, Technology, and Internet. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Glossary of video game terms per Zxcvbnm. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and trim appropriately to Glossary of video game terms where I am surprised to see it is entirely unrepresented. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Doesn't need it's own page, but this is exactly the sort of reason the glossary page was made. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above, for failing GNG, with a note that due to having just a single footnote, we are merging just one sentence and redirecting this piece of OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 3 October 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 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Csima[edit]

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

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

Played 5 minutes of professional league football then disappeared. Nothing in Google News or a Hungarian source search suggests that Csima can pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC despite trivially meeting the old NFOOTBALL guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:23, 3 October 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 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to return this topic from deletion? 188.172.110.245 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Igli Gjeçi[edit]

Igli Gjeçi (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)

None of the current references are acceptable for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and I was unable to find anything when searching in multiple search engines. I found one single trivial mention in Panorama but this is not even close to being sufficient. Gjeçi has spent his entire career to date in the lower divisions of Albania which might explain the lack of in-depth coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:19, 3 October 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 13:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October (singer)[edit]

October (singer) (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, which was very possibly originally written by the subject (it was created by a single-purpose account called 'Octoberrocks', which matches the name of the subject's personal website), concerns a surfer and musician. It has been the subject of a slow edit war, in which several accounts (two of which I have just CU-blocked) have been trying to remove mention of the subject's conviction for benefit fraud. The material is verifiable - aside from the two sources in the article, Google tells me that The Times also covered the case (but I can't read the whole article because of the paywall). Aside from the stuff about the conviction however, I don't think she's notable - aside from Wikipedia and mirror sites, I'm not finding any sources giving her significant coverage apart from those which are about the court case. I think WP:BLP1E applies here - she's a relatively unknown person, who shows up in news reports purely because she was convicted of a crime. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are various articles on the fraud issue when searching for "October Hamlyn-Wright", almost all in the UK, but there is the odd international one (e.g. https://www.worksydney.com.au/surfer-36-falsely-claimed-14000-in-disability-benefits-while-touring-the-world/). WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME should be considered. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete All independant coverage seems to be about the fraud, and isn't WP:SUSTAINED enough to meet WP:GNG, though I'm saying weak as there was a little bit of international coverage of it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Her music has not attracted reliable notice from music journalists, and her surfing has not attracted reliable notice from sports journalists. So she's a person who does two things, good for her. That does not add up to notability. Meanwhile, she indeed made the news for her fraud conviction, but she is not notable for that either, per WP:CRIME, which says the crime itself must be worthy of widespread analysis or at least committed by a notable person. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not much found for the singer, the benefits fraud is rather minimal. Not terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the NPOV sources regarding her committing fraud were removed, I assume this is just COI spam. Regardless, this person isn't notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:58, 3 October 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 nomination withdrawn. Graham87 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOWSA[edit]

NOWSA (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 notable enough for Wikipedia, no matter how laudible it may be; the fact that the article is probably mistitled is the least of its problems. I found this page because of this attempt to de-orphan it; the fact that such lengths need to be taken at all shows that it doesn't fit on the site. I can't find much in the way of secondary sources either; I could only find *one* non-trivial mention in the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, which contains articles from many major Australian newspapers/magazines from 2000 onwards, and it's a surface-level treatment of the 2010 conference by the Newcastle Herald (the newspaper of the host city) entitled ""Women's voices to be heard". The article was created by Mysteriousity, whose only other edits (20 out of 90!) are to the page Humanitarian Crisis Hub, which was speedily deleted as spam. Graham87 10:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, this clearly isn't going anywhere and there are enough good sources to make this article viable. Graham87 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant, long-running (correctly-titled!) national conference. I've never heard of the "Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre", but it only took me a minute to find coverage like this profile in The Age. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's called "Young feminism alive and kicking", for those like me who can't access it via the above link (it's probably available in ProQuest/other Wikipedia Library places. I've added in a link to this page at [[Feminism in Australia#Support groups and societies (which seems much more appropriate), so the page is no longer orphaned. I have some ideas for cleaning up this article (some of the weakly sourced blow-by-blow descriptions of the conference seem excessive), but I'll keep this open a little while longer to see what happens. Graham87 13:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the profile mentioned above is sufficient, and/or if further sources can be found. JesseW, the juggling janitor 14:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The article underwent editing during the course of the discussion. The sense of the discussion overall was to keep the article, and this was particularly true of those who opined on the later versions of the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Management[edit]

Magic Management (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. Certainly there are a lot of cites, but they are mainly from Billboard . Since clicking the link gives you the whole of the appropriate issue & there is no indication of a page number actually finding what has been said is difficuly: in the couple I looked at I coulnt not find anything and my bet is that it is all run of the mil coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete likely a promotional article to boost GSearch ratings, who knows, if they're even still active... No sources, GNG not met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and Reply to both TheLongTone and Oaktree b, .. .. .. .. OK, reply to TheLongTone first. Well, first of all, a music management company is most likely going to have a good deal of info about in in music trade magazines. Now, there are more cites than just Billboard. There's RPM Weekly and there's some that I have seen in Record World. I'm not sure what you are talking about there being no indication of a page number. Take the reference: RPM Weekly, Volume 19 No. 25, August 4, 1973 - Page 2 MAGIC MANAGEMENT LAUNCHES PR PUSH. I have highlighted the page number for that article. Now take this reference: Billboard, June 22, 1974 - Page 52 Canadian News, Magic Puts It All Together Under 1 Roof. I have highlighted the page number there. And the full-page article about their subsidiary, Slic-Bros: RPM Weekly, Volume 25 No. 12 - June 19, 1976 - Page 14 Slic Brothers, Designers to the Canadian music industry. I have highlighted the page number there. The page numbers are on the references and the page numbers can be seen on the scans of the magazines. I don't think that there are, but if any of the other cites that come from the Internet Archive, you can see the page number there and look at the page for the relevant content. Failing that, there's a search thing that looks like a magnifying glass. That can be utilized there. Ah, OK, here's one. The Cash Box ref. OK. Cash Box, February 3, 1973 - Page 45 Truck Stops P.A.'s For Sessions. With that one, yes, it does bring up the whole magazine. All you have to do is press, Control+F, press Enter and then the Box comes up. Just type in "Magic Management" and then press the downward arrow and you'll see the article plus the page number.

  Now Oaktree b, I can't see how with any kind of interpretation you would think that I'm "creating a promotional article to boost GSearch ratings". And then you say, " who knows, if they're even still active." Well I doubt if they are active so why would I create something like this just do do that. It wouldn't make sense! I would be willing to bet too that Peter Francey would be well into his seventies or pushing eighty and more than likely has retired! Then you say "No sources". Well there are!! Look, if I was guilty of anything it would be just furthering my current exploratory interest in Canadian rock and jazz-rock music of the 1960s and 1970s and desire to improve and expand etc.. And by editing and creating articles I learn a bit as well as take care of something that I have noticed in the last few months. And that is .... Canadian music, Canadian bands are very neglected on Wikipedia. I was surprised at how neglected they were! What partly sparked me off was the Dianne Brooks article. Even though she was born in the US, she had made such a contribution to Canadian music that she should have been given a medal. I knew of her but had no idea of the extent she was involved and the massive contribution she made. Karl Twist (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An integral part of Canadian music history. During the 1970s, they managed acts such as Jeff Addams, Terry Dee, The Good Bros., Hit & Run (English group in Toronto) Christopher Kearney, Touchstone (Feat. Lisa Hart) Truck, Jay Telfer, West (a group that had prominent lawyer Paul Sanderson as a member) and others. Their subsidiary, Slic Brothers designed the covers for artists Peter Foldy, The Greaseball Boogie Band, Moe Koffman, The Stampeders and Jay Telfer. See: Billboard, June 22, 1974 - Page 52 Canadian News, Magic Puts It All Together Under 1 Roof. I have seen Slic's work in rock music mags etc and they were prominent in the business. Please go and compare this company to other Canadian music management companies. I'm too tired to add more as I want to finish off editing some other stuff. Karl Twist (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment and Notice to closing admin , I'll just post this and leave at this. There are several levels of this organization. Their subsidiary Slic Brothers had 3 Juno Award nominations in 1975. See RPM Weekly, Volume 25 No. 12 - June 19, 1976 - Page 14 Slic Brothers. I have posted what the article looked like just prior to the AFD nomination in the Talk section so that if anyone wants to examine it they can see that the refs do show page numbers etc. see here Also I'll be surprised if this is deleted but if it is, could the closing admin please consider re-directing the page (thus preserving the history) to one of the agencies acts. Perhaps Christopher Kearney as they had a lot to do with this artist. Or maybe to Peter Francey. Thankyou. Karl Twist (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are at least three sources that deals with the company itself (two on Magic Management, one on its subsidiary Slic Brothers) given in the article with a few other shorter ones, and there are others in relation to their artists and activities. Once there are actually articles about the company, then accusation of WP:REFBOMBing would be inappropriate, since all information need to be sourced (some of them are duplicates, I've tidied them up). A few of the sources could be better, then a tag requesting better source would be appropriate. As it is, it should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Hzh.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 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!} 07:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 AFC Futsal Championship squads[edit]

2016 AFC Futsal Championship squads (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)

Can't see that the page would ever be completed, as this kind of tournament does not even have a lot of current references. The page has been in this incomplete state (only 2 teams have been added out of 16), since the beginning. Anbans 586 (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Anbans 586 (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of WP:RS discussing this topic and, if ever completed, at least 15 of the 16 squads would have issues with WP:V Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 7 October 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 GoTo (US company)#Products. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoToTraining[edit]

GoToTraining (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:NCORP and WP:GNG. BEFORE search turned up nothing significant. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a separate article on GoTo (US company), with brief coverage of this and their other products under the Products section. AllyD (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to GoTo (US company)#Products: An article summarising a product's features, originally written by an employee of the developer company. I am not finding evidence that this product has attained notability in its own right, but a redirect to the vendor company could provide an alternative to deletion. AllyD (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to GoTo (US company)#Products: Doesn't seem to be notable on its own. Blue Edits (talk) 11:41, 1 October 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!} 06:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Kumari Ghising[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. No WP:SIGCOV available: only mentions are trivial/WP:ROUTINE, e.g. 1-2 sentences about goals she scored, such as here and here. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nepal. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source [1] mentioned in the article provides no information. Fifthapril (talk) 19:23, 5 October 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants this to actively work on in draft, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 17:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julitha Singano[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG; not seeing a whole lot of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Tanzania. JTtheOG (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Julitha Singano is a player for the Tanzania women's national football team and FC Juárez (women). She also played for Simba Queens where she won three league titles. If the article is kept I would add more sources to improve it. Dannyphx (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want the article to be kept, please share sources in this discussion. It's not enough for someone to have represented a team or won league titles, they need to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. For example, two articles from newspapers or websites about the subject would probably be enough. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are some sources I found about Julitha Singano when she played for Simba Queens in Tanzania. [25][26][27] Dannyphx (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, none of these sources address the subject directly and in detail. JTtheOG (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Dannyphx. This perfectly fine article was created today and is already nominated for deletion which is ridiculous. Clearly significant figure in Tanzania women;s and international football with ongoing career, and one of few ever to play professionally and abroad, in North America. I found many Tanzanian sources (searching "Julietha Singano"), especially on YouTube. Keep in mind Tanzania has very little coverage on women's football but she has some coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. I found a lot of mentions but no SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . Not seeing the significant coverage here. Ping me if you've got it. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify. SIGCOV needs to be in the article for it to be in mainspace. From my own search for "Juli(e)tha Singano" I only found passing mentions and very brief announcements of her move to the Bravas. [28], [29], [30] JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - Article fails WP:GNG, but I think with some time it is possible SIGCOV will be available. She gets lots of passing mentions in Liga MX Femenil coverage, and stuff like this suggests she is viewed as an important new signing so I think we can expect this article could pass WP:SPORTBASIC in the future. Jogurney (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - every single source brought into this discussion is only a trivial mention of Singano. Subject is still relatively young and plays in a league that gets good coverage so could pass GNG in the future. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Original rationale for nomination was valid, but subsequent improvements, and the coverage provided during the AfD, strongly support the argument to keep; the !votes to delete no longer carry the weight they would have done. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spite (sentiment)[edit]

Spite (sentiment) (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 article for the definition of word would be best on the wiki dictionary site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 September 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 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTDICT Retinalsummer (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. BilletsMauves^€500 09:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Fxmastermind (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. Spite, obviously, exists as a psychological state, and is well-plumbed as a character motivation in literature. I believe this can be expanded into an article covering these things. We are certainly no stranger to covering comparable states like Resentment, Outrage (emotion), and Contempt. BD2412 T 04:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this as Delete but last minute comment by BD2412 has me wondering if there is any support for a possible article here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand I agree with BD2412's comments about how this a valid topic, but the article as it stands it rather limited. JesseW, the juggling janitor 14:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I'm not sure there's quite enough not-dictionary information on the concept of "spite", because it's harder to define than emotions like "outrage", which have a much clearer definition. It's also an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue; outrage (emotion) seems fairly SYNTH-y to me. Could also merge to Anger per WP:PRESERVE. Ovinus (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The larger issue is once you start deleting word definitions, thousand of other obvious words would be deleted. If you allow Wikipedia to become a dictionary, tens of thousands of words could be added. Currently WP is both dictionary, encyclopedia and fan pages. It is also missing a lot of things that actually exist, while at the same time has countless pages about things that do not exist. This is a matter much larger than spite of course. I'm aware that it is frowned upon to introduce other matters in a discussion about turning a living idea into a Dead body, but it's actually more like vaporizing something when a page is deleted.Fxmastermind (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this comment misses the point that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that the concept of "spite" occuring in history and literature goes beyond a dictionary definition. BD2412 T 03:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Spite as a sentiment has been studied in psychology/ medicine. This article could be expanded with references including these below; some of which I have used to improve the article already.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• David K Marcus, Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Sterett H Mercer, Alyssa L Norris (February 17, 2014). "The psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness". National Library of Medicine. doi:10.1037/a0036039.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Marcus, D. K., & Norris, A. L. (2016). V. Zeigler-Hill & D. K. Marcus (ed.). "The dark side of personality: Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology". American Psychological Association: 121–133. doi:10.1037/14854-007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• "Why We Behave Spitefully: Spitefulness is expensive. So why do we do it?". Psychology Today. October 9, 2021.
• Leon F. Seltzer (June 19, 2019). "Spite: What We Do for the Sweet Sake of Revenge". Psychology Today.
• "Psychological study of spite: 'Virtually ignored' by researchers". ScienceDaily. April 23, 2014.
• Maanvi Singh (April 23, 2014). "Why Are We Spiteful, Even Though It Bites Us Back?". NPR.

• Keep. The article has been expanded past the dicdef stage, and the sourcing above illustrates the availability of quality material to develop the article. All else is an editing concern. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sérgio Alexandre[edit]

Sérgio Alexandre (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:NBIO and WP:NSPORT. No independent reliable sources found in Google search. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I see significant coverage in Indonesia where he most recently coached. Such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and what looks like at least dozens of others...--Ortizesp (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources found above are trivial or non-independent: 1: 3 sentences of transfer buzz N; 2: article from the team he coached N; 3: article about Persiraja being relegated that quotes him a couple times N; 4 routine transactional coverage N; 5: his and a team member's brief commentary on relegation N. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Braun[edit]

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

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

I cannot find significant coverage of this cooperative. It is hard to find even a single reference. Fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Germany, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not pass the general notability guideline. Found a handful of passing mentions on the internet, but nothing substantial enough to establish notability on wikipedia. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the WP:GNG. Would not even call it too soon. Just WP:NN. Good catch, Ruud Buitelaar! gidonb (talk) 01:33, 4 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Taylor[edit]

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

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

Was recently undeleted after a PROD, but I see no coverage anywhere in RS's. Based on my read of her IMDB page, I'm not sure the "significant roles" of WP:NACTOR is met. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of hits in GBooks for Doctor Who, it looks like a bit part. Nothing notable found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I did go over her IMDb credits. She is a veteran British actress with leading roles in numerous TV series, which the article in its present state only mentions one. The problem of finding references in 2022 is that most of her roles happened pre-Internet and so there may be many newspaper, magazine, and TV interviews from back then that have not made it online. You would have to delete the Wiki bios of many otherwise famous character actors of old Hollywood for the same reason of limited references. Her article needs a table list of her credits, which could help and inspire researchers in the UK to find references. 5Q5|^✉ 10:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have had some significant roles, eg in Coronation Street; replaced Julie Walters in the title role of Education Rita on stage. Some more details at the British Film Institute, Theatricalia and Who's who on television Piecesofuk (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article has been updated considerably to show many TV roles, notable ones being in soap operas and sitcoms. Newspaper references have been added regarding theatre work (Educating Rita, replacing Julie Walters). Better than what it was before.Silurian25 (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did an in depth search of newspapers.com and found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Coverage was limited to tabloids and one line mentions even for British print media of the 1980s and 1990s. W42 21:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The newspapers.com hits would seem to indicate there was significant coverage of the subject in the 1980s and '90s—more than merely listing her name in credits. For the reasons above, I believe this article should remain. Dflaw4 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additional sourcing resulted in a definite shift in consensus towards keeping the article despite concerns about the role of a banned editor in creating it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Running Waters[edit]

Massacre of Running Waters (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 noted in the article's talk page, this is a small page that was entirely written by a user that was quickly banned for admitting to being an SPA working to spread political propaganda on Wikipedia. The sources for this article are very scant, I've looked over them and they only give a single sentence in each with passing mention to the subject. All refer to one primary source. I have also already put in the work to delete blatant falsehoods and work on the article, but it doesn't look like anyone will fix it up any time soon. Given the person who wrote it and the falsehoods I've already found, I propose deleting it, and if the article's topic can be shown to be true or notable it can be rewritten. Per: WP:Dynamite Poketama (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Poketama (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete This is difficult for me, because I think this article has potential. No doubt there is some plethora of hidden knowledge in a library in Australia somewhere that can help this article, but the books there have never been put online. That being said, there was already an AFD for this article, it had a chance to be improved and there were still concerns. I think this article can be brought up to speed, there are some sources, but I think Poketama's WP:Dynamite idea might cut the Gordian knot here. I've usefied what's there now and will try to recreate the article if I ever get any time to do so. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing my comment per this article regarding the previous AFD and comments made by the person that closed the previous AFD. I am unsure if the article should be deleted or not. I think it might be able to be salvaged, but I am not sure. However, if it is deleted, I will try to recreate it in user space when I get the time. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article has been extensively revised since its creation, so WP:DENY doesn't apply. In my mind, the main question is whether it's true, and that hasn't been shown in the the previous AfD or this one, and no policy reason has been provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article reads to me as very similar to when it was initially published, except it has been 'wikified' a bit. All the sources are the same, and I have read the sections of the sources and they are only passing references to Strehlow's account. In my view, this event is not verifiable unless someone can pull up another source. The only source is Strehlow. There is next to no information on this massacre anywhere on the internet except on the biased blog sites that the original creator used. Poketama (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's some policy. WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:NRV I'm happy to withdraw my request for deletion if other sources can be found, but at the moment this article cannot be said to be verifiable or notable because it relies entirely on the testimony of Tjalkabota as recorded by Strehlow. Poketama (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment appears GNG if it has a chapter in the Strehlow book, unless he's somehow connected to the incident. Probably TNT it for now. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael Bednarek who is spot on. What has changed since the last AfD? Deus et lex (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing has changed. The discourse on the last AfD led several users to say they would work on the article to fix the problems that had been highlighted, but then no one did. Poketama (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - why is Strehlow not enough? He was writing down cultural oral history, so he's not a primary source. There has been a mention by Blainey too, so further coverage (even if very limited). The issue really boils down to a content dispute, not notability - and the article shouldn't be deleted if that is the case. AFD is not cleanup and shouldn't be used to further that. Deus et lex (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:SIGCOV. To quote our policy, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." At issue here is that we have only 1 high quality source for this topic which is an exceptional claim. I have no issue with Strehlow as a source, but we need at a minimum at least one more source of equal in-depth coverage to meet our policy guideline for a topic of this nature. Blainey is too brief to qualify. If we had just one more high quality piece of evidence I would support keeping this article, but we don't.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @4meter4: I think your comment shows a bias towards the requirements for current events. This is an historical event where sources are always going to be more limited. Strehlow was the original recorder of the oral history sources that witnessed the event and obtained it from multiple people. Blainey is a well-respected historian even if it is brief, it doesn't have to be long to be a good source. I'd ask you to reconsider - I know it's borderline but I think good faith should lean on the side of keeping the article. Deus et lex (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is this showing bias or being unduly influenced by WP:RECENTISM? WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:SIGCOV are policies that apply to ALL ARTICLEs, not just current events. Further, you don't need to keep WP:BLUDGEONing your point. I think you are just looking for any excuse to ignore our policies as written.4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of ignoring policies is not helping. I'm simply trying to explain that this event is written in a particular cultural setting where oral history is prevalent and therefore you're not going to have the multiplicity and detail of sources that you would for other events. In any case, I've found another one which I'll write about in a minute and add to the article. Deus et lex (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have found another source that describes and analyses this event in detail - Professor Sam Gill has a chapter on it in his book on "Storytracking". The particular chapter can be read in the Google preview. Gill says that the local peoples of the local area recount the event and say it is a shaping factor in their local politics and that there's independent evidence of a revenge attack in 1890, but appears to conclude that Strehlow went beyond reporting the story and the account needs to be seen in that light. I will add to the article. Hopefully this solves things. Deus et lex (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep per the above arguments. If there is doubt as to the reliability of memories recounted in the sources, convey that through the article itself. BD2412 T 03:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the additional source found by Deus et lex. I struck my delete vote above because my concerns have been properly addressed.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 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 Move to Rowley industrial area. I have made the move. The rest can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 17:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowley, Utah[edit]

Rowley, Utah (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)