Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 14 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Poarch Band of Creek Indians. Liz 06:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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

A search of sources fails to find WP:SIGCOV beyond re-hashes of the same press releases about future expansion. IMO, fails WP:GNG, could be merged to Poarch Band of Creek Indians if need be but don't see the benefit since the information is largely unsourced and has not attracted coverage. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, what target would you see for a possible redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looking for a redirect target or were you considering Poarch Band of Creek Indians as well, MrsSnoozyTurtle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment - The OWA district was previously known as Park at OWA, and there is some significant coverage under this name. The Sun Herald published multiple news articles about the area in here, here, here, and these other articles, and al.com also covered it here, here, and in all of these other articles. The Pensacola News Journal also covered the opening of the Park at OWA here. I'm not going to !vote "keep" because the sourcing is pretty bad, and I do not have the time to improve it myself, but it's also clear that the article should not be deleted. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There was disagreement as to whether notability was met, and most users appeared to consider that it had. On balance, I believe there is a consensus for keep over any other outcome. If anyone disagrees with my close, please ping me on my talk page and I will undo the close and leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Lice Waqailiti (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep There is significant coverage on the subject as posted above. I disagree with User:BeanieFan11's assessment of the sources as significant coverage appears to be shown across the Fiji Sun article and there are a few non-quote paragraphs in the lead of the first FBC post which provide just enough for it to be considered significant. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep Coverage by multiple sources that lend notability, as noted above. RedBaron12 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pseudoscience. Editors are welcome to improve an article that is part of an AFD discussion but do not move or change the status of an article while a discussion is ongoing. Liz 07:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Parascience (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 believe this article should be deleted as it is based on a single cited author's idea of "parascience". Additionally, the examples on this page provide little distinction over what is pseudoscience and "parascience", using examples such as Ufology next to Philosophy. I think the dilemmas of using scientific theory within other well established and regarded disciplines outside the natural sciences, such as social science, should be left as discussions on their methodology pages. Looking at Google Scholar, "parascience" as a term returns back a poor collection of sources, when searched on other databases such as Scopus it only returns 15 published articles where "parascience" is used as a pseudonym for pseudoscience, not a distinct conceptualisation as this page is presenting it.

In my opinion this is a very good and clear article as a counterpoint to pseudoscience. This article brings some nuance and states that certain sciences can also be seen as parascience rather than pseudoscience. But that is my opinion. I don't know what others think about this? S. Perquin (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I have changed the first sentence to the first sentence from the Dutch Knowledge (XXG) article. Sincerely, S. Perquin (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 21:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Msida Lions S.F.C. (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 evidence of notability. An Internet search yields no significant coverage that would meet the WP:GNG requirements. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Work 21:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Jeff Shapiro (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 do not believe this person is notable by our standards; the sourcing certainly gives no indication of that. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Work 21:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Isaac Ngoma (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Work 21:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Skatterbrane (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 company. Does not pass WP:GNG. DelUsion23 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Work 21:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Jack Cook (footballer, born 1998) (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 footballer seems to have played, at maximum, in the Scottish fourth tier. Consequently, the only nontrivial coverage (not passing mentions or statistics) I'm finding is on the website of Berwick Rangers, as linked in the article – nothing else coming up in a search. Not sure if this is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. /Rational 20:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The subject of this biographical page does not appear to satisfy criteria for sufficient significance to be included in Knowledge (XXG). Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 21:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Nur Amin Malik (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 according to my searches in Google News, ProQuest and DDG. The best source that I can find is ESPN but this only mentions him once in passing meaning that the article potentially falls short of WP:SPORTBASIC as well. Spiderone 19:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Work 19:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Stats stub that looks to fail WP:GNG per my searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest. The best that I can find is a passing mention in Panorama Sport which is not even close to significant coverage. Spiderone 19:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Work 19:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Rayed Derbali (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 21:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Kai Cenat (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)

other than some super puff pieces from huffpo, I don't see any actual in depth coverage in reliable sources of this Youtuber. There is nothing substantial to be found, in fact, the only coverage of him relates to a term he supposedly coined but that itself doesn't seem notable and neither does he. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment I originally created the article under the assumption that his song "Bustdown Rollie Avalanche" would be the start of a notable music career and that the page would grow. However, he does not seem to have released any music since then, so idk how much more notable he will get. Overall, I don't have a strong opinion for or against page deletion. Liljimbo (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Please do not create articles on the assumption that they will be notable. They need to be notable at the time of creation. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought he was notable enough at the time to start an article. I will be more careful. Liljimbo (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres#Heat 3. Liz 21:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Jean-Max Faustin (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)

Barebones stub which merely recites that Faustin was a Haitian sprinter who competed in the 1972 Olympics. Faustin was not remotely competitive in his event, finishing with the slowest time among all competitors in the 400 metres (almost 8 seconds slower than the winning times) and failing to qualify for the quarterfinals let alone the semifinals or finals. Fails all applicable criteria: WP:SPORTBASIC (mandating at least one source with WP:SIGCOV, excluding database sources), WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources), and WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist). Cbl62 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Plane (esotericism). Liz 21:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

This page is a tiny stub and has been since creation in 2008. There are no sources whatsoever. The subject matter appears to relate to Theosophy and anything on the matter of a divine plane can and should be fully contained within that article. There is nothing in this article that could be merged, so merge is inappropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with the nominator, also there is mention of the "divine plane" on the Plane (esotericism) article. I am not sure why we have all these unsourced stubs for many of these "planes" when an article already describes such content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Plane (esotericism)#Divine plane - I am not finding any sources that would justify a separate article on this topic, as the sources I am finding that do discuss it are not ones that would generally be considered to be reliable. But, while I agree with the nominator that the complete lack of any sourced content would prevent a Merge, the fact that the subject is already covered in its own section in the article on a broader topic means that a Redirect would be preferable over straight deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:RS under 'Kay Ken' or 'Kwesi Kendrick'. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. All sources currently used are user-generated so cannot support a notability claim. Spiderone 16:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Consensus for keep appears unanimous, with only a few hours left and no active discussions occurring I see fit to close this per SNOW - if anyone disagrees with me close ping me and I will undo and leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Only source is the publisher himself. This may be relevant either here or at Destroyer Magazine Doug Weller talk 15:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Sweden. Spiderone 16:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems like there's a number of articles about Straight in some of the major Swedish newspapers, to be found in the Swedish media archive. I'll see if I can do something about this article in the next few days. /Julle (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. (This deletion discussion has been noted at Wikipediocracy.) I'll look here again to see whether Julle found anything, but the best source I found was this interview article in the tabloid Aftonbladet, which mentions it and confirms that it was started by QX (without naming the latter); however, it's mostly about Destroyer and Andersson. This 2012 English article in Out also merely mentions Straight in the context of Destroyer. There was also an interview article in Vice in 2012, and there's recent coverage of Andersson's projected PhD dissertation and a scholarly article that has been pulled by the publisher, including this article in the Daily Telegraph, and the Aftonbladet article provides a smidgen of biographical info, but I do not find sufficient biographical coverage to agree with the opinion expressed at Wikipediocracy that he himself has achieved notability, so I cannot advocate creating a BLP to which to redirect this. (The red link in our article was originally a link to the Karl Andersson disambiguation page; judging by their username the creator, Swekarl, has a conflict of interest with this Karl Andersson, so the red link should not be presumed to suggest notability.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC) (Changed to Keep, see below)
    Yngvadottir: I've taken a (first?) stab at the article now. I don't think we should conflate it with Karl Andersson – the magazine was published for a few years, and he wasn't the only editor-in-chief throughout its life. I'm not sure I would advocate a re-direct to a BLP even if we had one. Anyway, I've found some articles in Svenska Dagbladet and Sydsvenskan (two of the major respected Swedish newspapers, SvD based in Stockholm and Sydsvenskan the dominating newspaper in southern Sweden) I think are far better sources than the ones listed in this AfD so far. They can be accessed through Retriever/Mediearkivet, but if one lacks access, I've described length and which role Straight plays in them below. /Julle (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment so it was published for 3 years by QX . Dagens Nyheter has a snippet describing its scope and here it is confirmed that the print is, similar to QX, at 30 000 copies. While the coverage on Straight is lacking, a merger to the publisher could be argued, but we don't have an article on "QX förlag". I'm not sure that a translation of the svwp article would survive AfD since it relies heavily on QX.se as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draken Bowser (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Draken Bowser: Do you have access to Retriever/Mediearkivet? I've added a couple of significant articles as sources (as well as a few shorter ones). If not, I've tried to briefly explain why I think they show notability below, but if you've got access to Mediearkivet you can check them out yourself. /Julle (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    No, I looked through kb.se, Aftonbladet, Expressen and DN. So I overlooked the coverage in SvD. Maybe I should apply for access after all... Draken Bowser (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, the significant coverage is mainly in Svenska Dagbladet, who had a reporter who kept following the Swedish gay magazine scene in the late 90s and early 00s, and Sydsvenskan. I'd recommend applying for access – you can usually get a lot of things you can't get from kb.se if we're looking at the last 20–25 years. /Julle (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have looked at the Swedish media archive, and I think there's enough here to meet our requirements. There are a whole bunch of shorter 300–400 word pieces, and I've used a couple of them as sources, but the best I think is the 900 word piece "Straight on! Karl Andersson tänker göra Sveriges kaxigaste bögtidning" in Svenska Dagbladet, focused entirely on Straight, from 29 October 1999, and "Tidningar utanför normen säljer", Sydsvenskan, 1750 words from 10 March 2001, where Straight is a significant part of the article. /Julle (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Julle Can you please add links to your sources? I couldn't find the first one I tried. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Doug Weller: As far as I can tell, they aren't available online in a linkable way – few Swedish newspaper articles from the 90s or very early 00s are. I've been able to access them through w:sv:Mediearkivet. I'd link to them if I could do so in any meaningful way, but unless you've got access to the Swedish newspaper archive I'd recommend treating them like you would do with print sources. /Julle (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Changing my !vote based on extended coverage found in reliable sources by Julle (and used to expand the article). Assuming good faith that these sources are visible with appropriate on- or offline access. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep the coverage in reliable sources seems sufficient. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is enough coverage. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 21:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Gyilkoló (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, lacking significant coverage by independent reliable sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 21:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Alyssa Yard (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Field hockey at the 2005 Maccabiah 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)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Swimming at the 2005 Maccabiah Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rugby union at the 2005 Maccabiah Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football at the 2005 Maccabiah Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 all except Mazraeh-ye Jonubi Rural District and Mazraeh-ye Shomali Rural District. Liz 06:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Mazraeh-ye Tahqiqati Tutun (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:GEOLAND#1, WP:CORP, and WP:GNG. Name means literally "Tobacco research farm" according to machine translation. As such this is a business or other such WP:ORG, however nothing even close to a notability pass for a business or other organisation is present. GEOnet Names Server is an unreliable source. The Iranian census counts people according to a local reference point, in this case a farm/research centre, meaning that this is not a legally-recognised populated place as such. The co-ordinates provided in the article (the source of which is not known) point to a random field on the outskirts of Urmia.

Together with this article I am also nominating the following articles, all of which are Iranian "village" articles apparently created by Carlossuarez46, all of which include the words Mazraeh-ye, which apparently means "the farm of". These all appear to be potentially farms, often ones belonging to someone identified by name or to a numbered location, and as such are unlikely to be real villages. In some cases Carlossuarez46 appears to have realised that this is what they actually were and then redirected them to names that they made up by removing the "Mazraeh-ye" part of the name, but this hardly made things better. In a lot of cases, the articles have co-ordinates added to them apparently based on GEOnet Names Server data or GeoNames data, both of which are unreliable. WP:BEFORE sampling even of the more promising of these articles (e.g., Dashtok-e Olya, Yazd) failed to turn up any significant coverage needed for a WP:GNG pass or evidence of legal recognition such as is needed for a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass.

Complete list of 129 other Carlossuarez46 articles about "villages" with "Mazraeh-ye" in the name
*Mazraeh-ye Yek

*Mazraeh-ye Jonubi Rural District

*Mazraeh-ye Shomali Rural District


Bundling is justified per WP:BUNDLE as these are spam/hoax articles created by the same author according to the same template.

Now that I've got AWB approval I plan to template all the articles in the list, but it may take me a day or two to do it so please have patience.

PS- you might think that 130 articles is a lot, but please remember that Carlossuarez46 was creating these articles at a rate of up to 100 or more per day so in reality this is still only dealing with their articles at a fraction of the rate they were created at. Deletion has to keep pace with mass-creation, otherwise we are allowing mass-creators to establish a fait accompli. Similarly WP:BEFORE as to be proportionate to the original work that was done to confirm the notability of the article that was created, which in this case was zero, otherwise again we are simply permitting a fait-accompli. FOARP (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks LP, will strike those from the list. BTW - "Mazraeh-ye Jonubi" just means "Southern farm" and "Mazraeh-ye Shomali" means "Northern farm", but they are listed in the census (after a lot of looking) as Dehestans, though whether a Dehestan is not also just a creation of the Iranian census is an open question. A WP:Before of both of them turned up nothing, but that’s probably not a surprise given their generic names. FOARP (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Local amateur football league that appears to exist way below the defined part of the English football league system as far as I can tell. This is in no way different to Furness Premier Football League, Mid-Somerset Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League all of which were deleted for failing WP:GNG and not meeting the rule of thumb outlined at WP:FOOTYN, in fact it's 6 tiers lower than where it would need to be to be presumed notable.

Google News contains a few hits all of which are single passing mentions of the league. ProQuest has a few results roundups and a few trivial mentions in local papers. I couldn't find anything useful on BNA. Spiderone 14:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Maynooth University#Publications. While there is no need to merge, nor consensus for this to remain as an article, there's no reason not to redirect it to where it's mentioned in case a reader is looking for information. Star Mississippi 01:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Maynooth Philosophical Papers (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 part of cleaning up efforts to bring the article in line with our writing guide (prior version here), I've looked into this journal more closely and... I just can't find any indication of notability. It's not indexed in any selective databases, and there's no substantial coverage that I can find per WP:GNG.

I could be convinced of merging to Maynooth University, but it's already mentioned Maynooth University#Publications and that might be sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but "28 citations just on the first page" is quite frankly pitiable. Insofar as a negative can be proven, this proves lack of notability... --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
This wouldn't make a scholar notable. Let alone an entire journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect, since there's an obvious target. Agree with nom, chiming in to say that the Irish Times mention is just that - a mention. (In the journal founder's obituary.) -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Philosophy is not a large academic area but Worldcat reports this journal, now on its third decade of continuous publication is held in academic libraries worldwide. For example, Tuskegee University (Alabama), Tilburg University Library (Netherlands), Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Germany), Brunel University London (UK), Universidad de Navarra (Spain) . Unless someone versed in philosophy can dispute that this is a key journal in the field, I think it's a keeper. Can someone identify some (WP:LAWYERING) technicality for which the article should be deleted? Maybe (but probably not). But the wikipedia would be poorer for the effort if this were deleted. XavierItzm (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's hardly "wikilawyering" to ask that article topics pass either the general notability guideline or a subject-specific guideline. This is absolutely not a "key journal" in the field of philosophy (which is an entire discipline - what definition of "large academic area" are you using, that it manages to not be one?). -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This article, in its current form, does not amount to much more than an entry in a list of philosophy journals. The information it contains is readily available elsewhere, for example, here and here. The original version of the entry went beyond this trivial kind of information by including quotations from the journal itself, to illustrate its purpose and contribution to Irish higher education. Unfortunately, an editor felt that this amounted to nothing more than "undue" "puffery." It might be worth considering the entry in its original form. Wissembourg (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Please note that quotations from the journal itself (even if it would not be UNDUE puffery) do not contribute to notability. Of course, lengthy statements on the journal's "ethos" are UNDUE puffery and Headbomb was absolutely correct in removing that stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that the nom deleted 55% of the article (which had perfectly valid sourcing per wikipedia policy) and then immediately nominated it for deletion. Wow. (!!!) XavierItzm (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing wasn't the issue for what was cut, relevance and puffery was the issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Maynooth University#Publications. It's reasonable to have something on this journal, and to be able to link the title should we cite a paper published in it, but there just doesn't appear to be enough to say about it that we need an article. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: I've made a few changes and additions, in the hope to improve the article while taking into consideration the criticisms made by some editors. The article is now succinct, avoids any undue praise, but still contains some worthwhile (and documented) information.Wissembourg (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Surrey & Hants Border Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local amateur football league that appears to exist outside of the English football league system as far as I can tell. This is in no way different to Furness Premier Football League, Mid-Somerset Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League all of which were deleted for failing WP:GNG and not meeting the rule of thumb outlined at WP:FOOTYN.

I've tried multiple searches under variations of the name and found this Google News search to be the best but its two trivial mentions. Likewise in ProQuest. BNA also only contains trivial local coverage. A results roundup in a small fraction of a column on one page of the Staines & Ashford News is hardly worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) article. I mean the local school fête and Easter egg hunt would take up a similar amount of space in such a paper and we'd never dream of writing an article about those! Spiderone 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Zdravko Ponoš. Star Mississippi 01:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Serbia Center (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)

Serbia Centre is not notable as a movement at the moment, I'd say it fails WP:GNG considering little amount of information about the movement currently exists. Reliable sources regarding the movement exist, although they only cover two announcements that Zdravko Ponoš made regarding the movement (this can be seen at his own page). Considering that it was created less than a month ago, I think that it is too early for this movement to get its own page. It can be re-created when it gets more media coverage, and national attention, and when it certainly gets more notable around the public. Vacant0 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Golan-1000 (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 reliable sources with more than passing coverage found. Most sources are either deprecated (Sputnik), or very questionable (like Al Manar, owned by the Hezbollah, or Pars Today, a state-owned Iranian website). Some WP:SPS as well, but nothing reliable. BilletsMauves 12:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Everest Premier League players (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:LISTN and WP:NOT. Seems obvious why we don't maintain WP:FANCRUFT lists such as this. Anyway, no independent sources outside wide ranging databases discuss this non-defining intersection of cricketer and league. wjemather 10:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs substantial editing, primarily to turn it into a proper alphabetical list and get rid of all the flags. I'm entirely happy to include lists like this - the EPL is a serious cricket league, there are no verifiability issues and the use of lists of player is a fairly standard thing across cricket articles. Sure, it's not an official T20 league yet, but it's still played in by people who have often played in those sorts of league (or internationally) and is the highest level of T20 cricket in Nepal I think. Unless I'm missing something significant? I'm not about to edit this to improve it until I know it's kept btw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Please could you address WP:NOTDB and WP:NLIST concerns. For example, where are the independent, non-database sources that substantially discuss EPL players as a group? wjemather 11:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we'll get into the stats, so NOTDB doesn't seem to apply. Partial groups of players are discussed at a range of sources: here, here, , here, here, here, here, here, here and so on. That sort of discussion - who's playing, when, for whom etc... - seems enough for me to say this is OK as a standalone list as the group or set have been discussed. Haven't they? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The list is simply raw data with little prospect of being anything else, so NOTDB absolutely applies. Announcements of individual players and squads (relevant to one year only) provide the required coverage to (content in) support season articles, but not complete lists of players throughout history. wjemather 16:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Olawale Ayilara (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)

Solely notable for appearing in Forbes Africa (not the real Forbes or a subsidiary) 30 Under 30. No significant coverage save for interviews. Reading Beans (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. Can't find anything meeting standards for both independence and SIGCOV requirements, either for the company or the person. Would argue that coverage of the company is even worse quality TBH. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Swapnali Gaikwad (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 singer with lack of coverage in WP:Independent sources. Of two sources cited, one is a link to her IMDB. A Google search shows that the sources that discuss her are mostly paid ones. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SINGER.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

i have submitted news article most authentic and organic news which covered hindustan times and times of India and more she have Creadiblity
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/city-student-teaches-indian-classical-music-to-students-across-the-globe/articleshow/92645418.cms
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/pune-news/online-classes-to-music-label-pune-student-hits-a-high-note-on-women-entrepreneurship-101656095124778.html
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/singer-swapnali-gaikwad-pays-tribute-to-veteran-singer-lata-mangeshkar-sets-a-new-world-record
https://www.hellomumbainews.com/hello_womeniya/taking-online-classes-to-owning-a-music-label-young-student-from-pune-swapnali-gaikwad-holds-the-bar-for-women-entrepreneurship/ Vishwajyot (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Swapnali Gaikwad should also be deleted given the creators inclination toward ignoring instructions (repeatedly removing AFD) to prevent them moving it disruptively again. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Movement for the Confederation of the Communists (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)

Practically unknown communist organization, absent from the sources. It ran in the Italian general elections in 2001 in Tuscany, with poor results. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather than using Google hits as the only reason for keeping the page (and indeed it is not a valid motivation for keeping the page) why don't you try to explain why this party has encyclopedic relevance?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Checco Google hits are no indication of notability. We would need the sources you mention, can you provide specific links? I could find passing mentions as well that the party existed, but we need reliable, independent and significant coverage. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus on where to merge this content. Suggest continuing the discussion at the Talk page as there's no case made for deleting, nor for a standalone. Star Mississippi 01:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hardtack (game) (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. Article lacks any refs, and my BEFORE search lacks any RS meeting GNG. Apparently, it's so obscure, that no one rated it on BGG, where it also lacks refs. As there're no refs, IMO this should be deleted. Possible PROD candidate, but BOZ, Piotrus, or Guinness323 frequently find older magazines covering niche, obscure games, so I'm taking to AfD instead. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

1971? There'll be no Polish reviews, there was no organized fandom in Poland for those things until at least a decade later if not two. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Guidon Games until old paper-only sources can be found. There are undoubtedly hobby press reviews from 1972, but I have not been able to uncover any of them on line.Guinness323 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Guinness323: I'm curious, but I'm not sure what to merge? To its history section? The current article cites no refs (not even just no RS), considering it's all OR, I'm absolutely supporting deletion. VickKiang (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Given that it has a page and an image on BGG, and numerous small mentions in various sources (but no in-depth reviews), it clearly existed. The fact of its existence should be mentioned on the Guidon Games page.Guinness323 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear that it exists, but if you could find short mentions in RS (could you find any other refs than BGG?) I'll then be okay with merge, right now I still support the deletion nom. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
If a merge cannot be done, then redirection can always be done and harms nothing. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see support for "Delete" as well as "Merge" but more than one merge target mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment The Guidon Games article contains no individual game discussions, just a list of games published. So merging information there would break the existing page format. Zocchi's page does contain discussion about individual games he designed, making that merge more consistent with the existing article. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Guidon Games, merging information to Zocchi would be UNDUEWEIGHT, but it is possible that the Guidon Games article could be reformatted in the future to allow for some information on individual games to be present there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    Then you'd need to nominate the other game articles indexed at Guidon Games for deletion. Some of them, like Ironclad (game) contain less information than this article does. Others, mainly those involving Gygax, have more. Give that these articles are mostly short, it seems to me less content is lost if the information is shifted to the various main designers. Intothatdarkness 16:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Guidon Games as a WP:ATD, as is usually the case with non-notable products of certain publishers/companies (Template:R from product name). VickKiang explained fairly well why merging is completely pointless, and no sources to be found anywhere I searched. A clear failure of WP:GNG, but should be of course preserved as a redirect as it clearly existed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to The Order of the Stick. I see a consensus that this article should not be left as is. In terms of the outcome, merges have both a numerical and a policy-based advantage. -- Guerillero 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

List of The Order of the Stick characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not appear that there is enough independent coverage of the characters themselves to provide notability for a separate article on the characters. The main article on the comic can provide coverage of the key characters. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe lesser sources, but Order Of The Stick: Degrees Of Good And Evil analyses characters and this review talks about their versions in The Order of the Stick Adventure Game: The Dungeon of Dorukan Mithoron (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that review concentrates on the characters. It contains a brief list of them in one paragraph, and then another paragraph with one to two sentences of coverage each on the main hero and the main villain. The fist "lesser source" does not appear to be a reliable source, and the second one seems to be little more than a bunch of passing mentions. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Looking back at this a day later, I do see what you mean about the review providing significant coverage of the characters. Personally I still feel a merge is warranted unless enough secondary sources can be found to go into more detail than already exists or would belong The Order of the Stick#Characters without relying on primary sources, whereas all that could be sourced from the above review is a sentence analogous to the last paragraph in the lead, and maybe one or two more sentences in the Roy and Xykon sections. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep There is plenty of independent coverage of the characters on the Web. See discussion of Roy here. https://thecinnamonroll.co/2014/03/20/webcomic-review-the-order-of-the-stick/
Also, I'd be interested to know how much independent coverage of characters in many TV shows.
Consider this article, which has chalked up 102 edits since 2007, and which contains 0 citations: List of Felicity characters RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive argument at AfD. Feel free to start Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Felicity characters * Pppery * it has begun... 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Selectively merge per Pppery and others. I would expand the paragraphs at the main article on the Order themselves, especially, and add in some of the longer-running or more pivotal supporting characters such as Celia. But I don't believe the near-exhaustive coverage given them here can be justified. —VeryRarelyStable 11:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Kakuto Murayama (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, WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep the article doesn’t fail WP:NGYMNASTICS as Murayama meets the criteria Won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition, particularly 3 individual medals at the 2017 Junior Asian Championships. WP:GNG is also met as the FIG link describes the gymnast’s information directly & in details, & FIG is a reliable source & independent of the gymnast himself. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 21:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Michael Brandon (pornographic actor) (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)

Most of the sources are adult industry publicity, and the few that aren't give trivial coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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


The result was keep. Aside from the fact that a substantial majority of discussion participants !voted to keep (leaving no possible interpretation of the outcome as a consensus to delete), there is certainly no question or assertion that this article is a hoax, or indeed that the subject of this article is not, in fact, one of the leading athletes in the history of his country. As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries. I would encourage editors researching this article to look for transcripts or recordings of Tuvaluan radio broadcasts on the subject. BD2412 T 18:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Doesn't meet GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT even with the sources presented last AfD, per source assess table below (does not include the database sources).


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"14th IAAF World Championships - Biographical entry list". IAAF. No "Tuvaluan record holder at 100m ... ht Oly 100 2008; ht WCH 100 2009; pr WCH 100 2011" ✘ No
"New Caledonia defeated Tuvalu 8-0 in their Group A match at the XIV Pacific Games". Oceania Football Confederation. No team roster + event listing of a single match ✘ No
"Vanuatu have beaten Tuvalu 5–1 in their men's Group A match at Riviere Salée in Nouméa at the XIV Pacific Games". Oceania Football Confederation. No team roster + event listing of a single match ✘ No
"Solomon Islands have beaten Tuvalu in their men's Group A match at Rivière Salée in Nouméa at the XIV Pacific Games". Oceania Football Confederation. No team roster + event listing of a single match ✘ No
"Tuvalu Olympic Athletes Finish Competition Proudly", tuvaluislands.com ? probably not, site down No "ran in the men's 100 metres race on August 15. The 20 year-old's time was 11.48 in the first round Heat 10." ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220719041558/https://www.bndestem.nl/overig/deel-2-takataka-en-tinilau~ab4446fd No passing coverage of his career, not enough to constitute sigcov ✘ No
http://www.buunvenlo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/buun-2013-compressed.pdf ? Yes ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20220719041604/https://lc.nl/archief/Nooit-een-saai-moment-met-Tuvalu-spelers-20724196.html No passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Avilich (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
NSPORTS requires multiple examples of sigcov, and at best there is only one, assuming that source is reliable. Avilich (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure it's reliable - no reason why it wouldn't be. Is NSPORTS any different from GNG, in your opinion? It only makes sense if significant achievement + one source with significant coverage in the article is used as a proxy for GNG. StAnselm (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
NSPORT says "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability" and "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline", which I take to mean a requirement for multiple sources. Avilich (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
No, of course we are allowed to keep these articles: as mentioned above, WP:NSPORT says "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". And WP:IAR says we are allowed to do anything (subject to certain restrictions, like BLP). Secondly, WP:SPORTCRIT #5 in fact requires (only) one reliable source with significant coverage present in the article, which is what we have here. So even if it's not sufficient to meet GNG, it is sufficient to meet NSPORT, which is all we need. StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, guidelines such as WP:GNG can be suspended by IAR, but only in exceptional circumstances. What is your IAR argument, and what is it about these circumstances - that otherwise appear like a standard sports AfD - that makes them exceptional? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't making an IAR argument - I was responding to the claim that we're not allowed to keep certain articles. But now that you mention it, there is a fairly strong IAR case here, in that the subject is (perhaps borderline) notable in two areas: football and athletics. That's what puts him above run-of-the-mill sportspeople. (The other IAR argument would be a systemic bias one, that we should make sure small countries are represented, and if we were to keep any sportsperson from Tuvalu, this would be the one.) But as I said, I think he passes NSPORTS in athletics. StAnselm (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
What about his matches? –dlthewave ☎ 05:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. As IdiotSavant said last time: "won bronze at the Oceania Athletics Championships, and so clearly meets WP:NATH criteria 1 or 2, depending on where you think the OAC ranks. If you think it needs additional references, please tag it appropriately rather than jumping straight to AfD." To which I would add that his notability is obvious within Tuvalu: an Olympian, national sprint record holder, and member of the country's national football team. He's arguably the most notable sportsperson from Tuvalu, all sports taken together. I find it... odd that when the nomination for deletion failed, the article was immediately nominated for deletion again. Aridd (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
"won bronze", "Olympian, national sprint record holder, and member of the country's national football team" are not valid criteria of notability. Avilich (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
No, but "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition" is. The Oceania Area Championships in Athletics are a major senior-level competition, recognised by the IAAF as an Olympic qualifying event. He clearly and unambiguously meets the notability criteria as an athlete, independently of any football-stuff--IdiotSavant (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That merely tells us that significant coverage is likely to exist, it doesn't establish notability. SIGCOV sources still need to be provided and at least one needs to be in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
"Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" is a criteria and both medals were won in events with less than eight entrants, ie no heats/qualification. Therefore Tinilau fails WP:NATH as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Where are you seeing the list of entrants? StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Here Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The "several heats or extended fields" you cited only applies to "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level..." (rule 1), and is irrelevant for those who finish in the top 3 (rule 2). 24.28.96.202 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
They may be deleted, it doesn't mean they must be deleted. Knowledge (XXG):Notability says, "For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response" (emphasis original). StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion was pathetic, one person gave some sources which were barely discussed and the rest of the keep voters just threw around vaguewaves or illegitimate arguments -- now the sources are actually being discussed, as they should've been the first time. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails GNG and BASIC due to absence of the required significant coverage in secondary sources; even the claim of significant coverage in one source is debatable. Passing mentions in primary sources do not contribute to establishing notability, and that is pretty much all there is here. wjemather 16:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep A number of things wrong with this table. Firstly, the bndestem article contains over 350 words, and is devoted to only two players, one of whom is Tinilau. This is definitely not "passing coverage". Secondly, for the last source (lc.nl), it's not just what's in the article, it's the entire "iPad and newspaper" episode mentioned in the article (which is certainly more than significant). Finally, this nomination comes just a week after a previous nomination on this same athlete, making this a clear violation of rule B5 in WP:AFD and Knowledge (XXG):Renominating for deletion. 24.28.96.202 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    The Leeuwarder Courant article is about Foppe de Haan, who very briefly managed Tuvalu, and contains a passing anecdote about our subject here ditching football for athletics, so is not significant coverage. wjemather 07:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The source assessment table above is pretty accurate, although I'm confused why the independence wasn't discussed for any of the entries. All of the OFC content is non-independent and doesn't even need to be assessed for the other parameters. I also think the single source designated SIGCOV isn't quite that caliber and certainly not enough for GNG. The Bundestem article is an editorial, which is not considered acceptable for BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per StAnselm --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    This is an invalid voting reason. Tinilau does not meet WP:NSPORTS per WP:NATH #3. Proven above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234: You may not have realised that your argument got rebutted above. StAnselm (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
That claimed rebuttal was strongly rebutted several times. Passing NATH (presumably #2, not #3; if indeed he does - which is debatable given the regional nature of the Oceania championships at the time) is insufficient, since when the presumption that significant coverage is likely to exist is challenged, GNG must be shown to be met. That means multiple sources, not just a solitary weak source (and it's questionable whether that even contains the necessary coverage). All we have here is pieced together from bare results and statistics, because that is pretty much all that is in the sources. wjemather 07:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Tuvalu is a small country. Really small. Nevertheless, he is a significant sports figure as far as Tuvalu is concerned. Sure, the coverage may not be what we would like to see, but there is enough there to verify his accomplishments and existence. There are sources even if they are not particularly strong. Ultimately, weighing everything, I !vote Keep. This article is a net positive to WP (isn't that the test for admins?). If nothing else, I am IAR-ing because in an area (sports bios) where there are a lot of one-line articles with 10 pageviews all time for someone who appeared in one MLB game in 1995, I think this is the kind of article which we should be keeping, as opposed to deleting just for deletion's sake (or because the black-letter law says we can). Is this a diatribe? Yes, but I stand behind it. ‡ El cid, el campeador 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Aridd has shown above that Tinilau does in fact pass NATH, which means that SIGCOV likely exists. This article has been at AfD for a long time, and SIGCOV has not emerged. However, we do have this source, which does in fact count towards GNG. We also have a note above about Olympic Islands, an unconfirmed SIGCOV offline source. There is a strong possibility that this subject meets GNG from those two sources, which for someone from Tuvalu of all places would be enough for GNG. Combined with the NATH presumption of SIGCOV, I find it likely that this subject is in fact notable. NATH tells us that there is likely SIGCOV of this person, which is reinforced by the online source and potential for offline sources. Giving due consideration to his small home country of Tuvalu, I find it extremely likely that he is notable. HouseBlaster 00:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC) edited 07:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    That has been debunked. Tinilau DOES NOT pass NATH. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    I believe you are referring to your comment ("Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" is a criteria and both medals were won in events with less than eight entrants, ie no heats/qualification. Therefore Tinilau fails WP:NATH as well.") above. That qualifier is only present for NATH#1, but is not present for NATH#2, which is the criterion he meets. NATH#2 explicitly mentions that "prestigious small field meets" qualify for meeting that criterion (emphasis mine). HouseBlaster 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
NATH presumption of SIGCOV there's no such thing, in fact a recent RfC has done away with presumptions. Avilich (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
That was poor phrasing on my part. I have struck and replaced it with wording that is closer to what I was trying to get at. HouseBlaster 07:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Firstly WP:N states a subject is notable if it meets WP:GNG or a subject specific guideline such as WP:NSPORT. WP:NATH is the athletics-specific part of WP:NSPORT. WP:NATH states that a subject is deemed notable if it meets any of the criteria listed. Criterion 2 is "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets...)" and it goes on to give some examples of "prestigious small field meets" including the Asian Games. The Oceana Games is the equivalent of the Asian games for the continent of Oceana. The Oceana Games are split into two regional divisions (East and West) with medals awarded in both. The subject finished in the top three of the East Oceana Games twice and therefore meets the notability criteria. WaggersTALK 08:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    Subjects that meet NATH are not "deemed notable" or even "presumed notable"; following WP:NSPORTS2022, all NSPORT sub-SNGs offer only an indication that "significant coverage is likely to exist". When that is challenged at AFD, it needs to be demonstrated that significant coverage actually exists. wjemather 09:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    WP:NSPORTS2022 says there was no consensus on proposal 1 (which is the proposal you are claiming is a rule). So that's not an actual requirement. IdiotSavant (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    You are misinterpreting what I wrote. See proposal 5, which resulted in an addition to SPORTCRIT, and applies to all of NSPORT; and proposal 8, regarding the removal of presumed notability to avoid misuse of the SNG at AFD. Many of the comments here illustrate the problem that the changes were intended to address. wjemather 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The speedy re-nomination of this article and the behavior within this discussion feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. The focus on removing virtually all articles about athletes from Oceania feels like WP:BIAS. The countries within Oceania are small, remote, mostly offline and not well understood by the bulk of English Knowledge (XXG) editors. The sources we have are at best a very week keep, so for the first time in my WP history, I'm invoking WP:IAR. This is possibly one of Oceania's and almost certainly Tuvalu's best known athletes. It feels very, very wrong to delete it at this time. Jacona (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Searching for "オキラニ ティニラウ" (his Japanese name) I find many more results in addition to what we already have, e.g. , , . Because he was already close to meeting GNG before based on consensus (and I think IAR is a valid point here) I think it's a clear keep to me. EternalNomad (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    These are just more passing mentions. Is there any significant coverage, because with just one qualifying source with very limited coverage, this really isn't that close to meeting GNG at all. wjemather 15:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of 24 characters. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone article. As there is a redirect target and this is a plausible search term, redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

In-universe fictography more appropriate for a 24 wiki than WP. See maintenance tags for specific objections. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Secrets of 24: The Unauthorized Guide to the Political & Moral Issues Behind TV's Most Riveting Drama has the chapter "CTU Director Bill Buchanan Speaks Out"
  • 24 and Philosophy: The World According to Jack has in its index for Bill Buchanan pages: 6, 14, 38, 46, 92, 97 (could be all plot, or a mix of plot and analysis)
  • Chicago Tribune has the article Death takes a familiar '24' figure
  • The Hollywood Reporter writes about the character in the article The 24 Greatest ’24’ Deaths, Ranked
  • 24 (from the television-criticism book series TV Milestones Series) has a few mentions of Bill Buchanan (again, could be all plot or a mix of plot and analysis)
  • Google Scholar shows articles about the TV show 24 with Bill Buchanan mentioned in them
Furthermore, nobody has even mentioned List of 24 characters as an alternative to a standalone article. I think there is sufficient content for at least an entry at the character-list article. With some grit and deeper research, it could possibly be standalone in the future. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The interview appears to be about the actor's experience with the show, not much to do with the character. The "Philosophy" one's preview looks to just be plot-related context. The rest seems to be the usual pop culture fluff these shows attract and other trivial mentions. Doesn't seem to meet GNG. I don't really such much point in retention of existing content, but delete or redirect are fine outcomes. TTN (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
While I am no impressed with the sources found (mostly fail WP:SIGCOV), I'd be fine with the deletion alternative in the form of redirecting to List of 24 characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 04:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Local restaurant in Finland. I see nothing stated in the article that would indicate why it is notable. It appears to be a direct translation of an Finnish WP article, without verification of the sources. One is a deadlink, and the other says the restaurant is currently closed - not reflected in the article. Does not meet WP:NORG, lack of in-depth independent coverage. MB 03:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MB 03:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not overtly familiar with WP:NORG/WP:NCORP, but here's some Finnish coverage:
    • Helsingin Sanomat review (probably paywalled?): , 4200 characters
    • Iltalehti story describing the restaurant: , 2800 characters; appears to be a background piece for a larger set of stories about Putin's visit to Helsinki.
    • Ilta-Sanomat story: , 6600 characters; similar to the previous.
    • Further, but briefer, coverage by Helsingin Sanomat: (775 chars about subject), (300 chars about subject), (2000 chars), (2500 chars), (650 chars about subject).
The last group is mostly shorter review style pieces, but I did find , and interesting: they appear to describe weird "culinaristic concerts" which combine music by various composers with thematically related foods.
In addition, I found some individual hits in books using Google Books, but these were mostly limited to passing mentions in architectural books and travel guides. The mentions in architectural books gives me a bit of pause w/r/t the possibility that there'd be more coverage in that domain, but I'm unable to locate anything meaningful. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been searching around for a while on this but I didn't find anything to add to Ljleppan's post. Helsingin Sanomat's review is a great source, but that's where it all stops. Reading it thoroughly, Iltalehti's article basically consists of a one short 2-3 sentences paragraph of original content, then a summary of the Sanomat's review, then Tripadvisor ratings mention. Not a WP:SIGCOV for me. Ilta-Sanomat one appears like a large coverage but is mentioning only the happenings of the dinner Putin had, little about the restaurant itself ("The prices of the menus vary between around 40 euros and 75 euros" and that Saves has been the entrepreneur at Walhalla for 30 years). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 03:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Shomari Kentish (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Bakari Battice (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Kapil Battice (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 03:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

MIL-DTL-13486 (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 should be deleted because it is about a military standard of little impact outside of military purchasing specifications. It has been tagged for notability for a couple of years with no improvements to suggest it has encyclopediac value here. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are military standards for everything armed forces buy, and few of them are notable outside of their baliwick. This standard is obscure outside of those working in manufacture of wire or in military purchasing. Wtshymanski (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Jaiden Abbott (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 03:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ninja (playground game) (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 has been unreferenced since 2010 and I'm unable to find reliable sources that discuss it in any significant way. ... discospinster talk 02:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete. While in theory this could be notable, what we have is an WP:V-failing piece of WP:OR. Burn. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Environmental policy in China. Seek help with revision deletion of copyrighted content. Liz 01:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Environmental governance in China (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)

Essay-like piece that is duplicative of environmental policy in China. Amigao (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger seems appropriate to me. Quite a lot of good content that's extensively sourced on "Environmental Governance in China" so I don't think we want to lose all that effort. But it is too much like an essay and the subject matter is duplicative of "Environmental policy in China." JArthur1984 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I took an initial attempt at merging some of the information into the environmental policy in China page. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect As I discussed with JArthur1984, some of the text that was moved from this article to Environmental policy in China set off CopyPatrol, and not as mirrored Wikitext, but rather, text from a copyrighted source doi:10.1080/09644010600562567 (many editors won't be able to access that article, but 180 words from it were copied to the Environmental Governance article at some point long ago). That doesn't bode well for additional texts in the article. I believe the article's name should redirect and any information taken from the article should be thoroughly cleansed before attempting any kind of merger.  Spintendo  07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the copyvio. Jumpytoo Talk 02:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 01:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Romare Kelsick (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑