Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 25

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 17 (Tue) September 16 (Mon) September 15 (Sun) More...

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

< September 24	September 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

Croydon City Arrows SC

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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

None of the sources establish notability (WP:GNG). Couldn't find any online either. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - This is a semi-professional football club that has been around for well over 50 years and has played at various levels including the top tier of football in Victoria. The club has also produced several former Socceroo's. There must be loads of sources especially in print media. Simione001 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Simione001, was Victorian state champion, willing to AGF that there are offline sources. Giant Snowman 19:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would helpful if some sources were produced to counter the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Draftify I agree that there are a few ofline sources given that I found a few on Archive.com here. If you consider these then you could probably find something. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - Per above. I also found , and among many more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thanks for that, ill withdraw ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 23:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Liz 18:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Knox United SC

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

None of the sources establish notability (WP:GNG). Couldn't find any online either. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - Semi professional football club playing in Victoria. Plenty of sources must exist including in print media. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep - Per Simione001. Definetlyu has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
any evidence of such? ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 23:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: No evidence of notability, fails GNG and NORG. None of the sources in the article or found in BEFORE are WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 05:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is listed in Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § There must be sources. Keep voters must locate sources that demonstrate the topic passes GNG. Speculative statements are not convincing arguments. We need to see the evidence.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was draftify‎. I see a consensus that this could be potentially suitable for mainspace with better sourcing, but we're not there yet. And I think it's been worked on enough by other editors to void eligibility for WP:CSD#G5. /_Rational 23:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Terry Waya

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

Draftify There is little doubt that Waya passes WP:BIO, but I have reached the conclusion that this article is pure cruft. I have been verifying the references, and have found far too many that fail verification. This needs to be developed in Draft space and submitted for review. It requires a radical pruning of useless references, and a substantial précis, probably to a stub level. At present it is a fluff piece, serving only to promote the subject 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Draftify Several sources fail verification, several lines dont seem neutral. Overall it reads as promotional and could probably use some copy editing. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have taken out time to take out the trash that were identified. Also, I have tried to add one reference per fact as suggested by @Timtrent. I removed a couple of primary sources that are hard to verify, merged two sections into one and took out fluffy statements too. This is an effort towards its improvement as suggested. I also took your advice on doing some copy editing. We all can take a second look at the article and decide if my efforts saves it. My intention is to learn and get it right. I initially gave up it's improvement but as advised by @Timtrent, I worked on it again. Feedbacks are welcome. Thank you Peaxman (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment I believe we should interpret this as the creating editor's !vote to keep in mainspace 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Draftify: Per nominator. I had previously draftified this before. Not suitable for mainspace in its present state. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment: It is fair to say that this has been much edited since the nomination. I will leave the community to judge whether this is sufficient and whether the references are now appropriate 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I would interpret this as "Big Progress" for which You have been helpful. Thanks Peaxman (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Draftify: Article is pretty organized, but it isn't sourced enough to satisfy mainspace. Checking the article history, it seems that it has been draftified at least once before. HarukaAmaranth _香 01:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Draftify and require the page pass an WP:AFC review before moving to main space again.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment: The article creator, Peaxman has been found to be a sockpuppet. Perhaps the article is eligible for G5 speedy deletion. I have not nominated it because of the ongoing deletion debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bri I think it likely that sufficient other editors have edited it post creation to make G5 fail. But likely is not certain. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 19:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree, which is part of the reason I wrote "perhaps". ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Draftify and must pass through AFC. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 00:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ben Aulich

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

Brought up at BLPN. After reviewing the sources in the article and through google news. I believe this is a WP:BLP1E. Notability is from his alleged money laundering activities. WP:CRIMINAL Every other sources involve the cases that he took and are supported only by trivial mentions of his name in RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Notability problems aside, I find this article highly problematic. It reads like a piece of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. Additionally the article engages in flagrant WP:BLP violations by claiming that persons who were respondents in civil disputes were prosecuted. This is irredeemable rubbish. TarnishedPath 11:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment I've just reviewed the edit history for the article, particularly material removed by another editor which was in the original article and that has cemented my view that this article was created for the sole purpose of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. TarnishedPath 11:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - the only possible claim of notability relates to the money-laundering allegations but that has WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL issues per the nominator. All the rest is cases he's been involved with but that's just a lawyer doing lawyer stuff and doesn't make him individually notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nomination by Morbidthoughts. The comment by TarnishedPath is informative as to why this article exists at all. The motive relates to real world concerns in court and in ragsheets. Motive of authors isn't a reason to delete, but helps me understand why WP:GNG etc. was never a goal or concern for this article's authors. JFHJr (㊟) 21:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts @Shellwood @TarnishedPath @JFHJr @Neiltonks I am the article’s author. Thank you for your feedback regarding its issues. It’s my first attempt at creating an article and this is helpful information. I will edit the page to address the concerns raised around WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW, WP:CRIMINAL and also adding links and sourcing. I believe the article on Ben Aulich is a valuable encyclopedic resource. If his case goes to trial in the Supreme Court of Australia it will likely be newsworthy at a national level (given the issues around disclosure that link closely with the high-profile Lehrmann/Higgins case and a similar cast of prosecutors and police). I believe the Knowledge (XXG) page would be a good reference for those with an interest in finding out more about Ben Aulich, including media covering any trial. I understand there is an option to move the page into draft space until the issues around notability are resolved. Would appreciate any feedback on whether this would be a consideration rather than deletion, if the consensus is that the page should not be published? Thank you. 2023WikiUser (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read all of those policies you linked in full plus more. Also this subject just doesn't have independent, in-depth, non-trivial, broad coverage from reliable sources that justifies an article. A simple google search confirms that, with most of the hits being their own firm or social media. TarnishedPath 23:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The only problem with speculative newsworthiness of a future court case is that it does not speak to notability of this subject. If the hypothetical SC case were itself notable, there should probably not be a WP:BLP on each litigant, but an article on the case. JFHJr (㊟) 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. A draft? I would eventually WP:MFD a draft of this if one is made. It will go stale because you can't remedy notability where it ain't. Otherwise, I'd chip in at MfD if anyone noms said hypothetical future draft before I notice. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Liz 18:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Heritage International Xperiential School

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

Fails to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for educational institutions' notability, as defined in WP:NSCHOOL. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Haryana. Spiderone 19:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep - unlike many other schools, there seems to be enough coverage to support meeting on notability. - Indefensible (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, per the definition of notability for WP:NSCHOOL. As a privately run public school, most of the references fails WP:SIRS as routine coverage, and as they are not independent of the subject. scope_creep 09:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep Notable content changes have been made, and a substantial number of additional sources have been incorporated. HIXS is a top school in India, covered by many mainstream media outlets. The school was ranked 3rd among India's top 5 schools by India League IB TableZehnasheen (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The sources that are now in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. Jacona (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep. As it now satisfies the WP:NSCHOOL — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. /_Rational 00:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

List of Twilight Struggle References

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

There is no indication of list notability for this. I suggested merging to Twilight Struggle, but the editors at the talk page there do not seem to feel there is anything worth salvaging. Courtesy pinging participants CohenTheBohemian, Literally_Satan, and VQuakr. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, History, and Lists. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete I find the list mildly interesting, but this is something that should be on Fandom or something of that nature. It's over-detailed for an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Strong delete. Trivial WP:FANCRUFT to the nth degree. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete as fancruft. Thanks for the ping. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete No independent sources, doesnt pass WP:GNG, could potentailly be considered promotional Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - The very definition of non-notable trivia. I concur with the editors on the talk page that the material here would not be appropriate for merging. Rorshacma (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Poor quality violation of WP:NOTTVTROPES. Fails WP:NLIST/WP:GNG/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
obviously delete fancruft. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete per above --Lenticel 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Hot30 Countdown. Liz 00:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Hit List TV

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV, WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. I have only added 3 references to the article so far, and I hope someone adds additional references, or as an alternative option, maybe redirect to Video Hits. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Hot30 Countdown and merge details in, as it seems to have been blended into the latter's continuity. Nate • (chatter) 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Hot30 Countdown. Agree with Nate that 'Hot30 Countdown' is more appropriate than 'Video Hits'; and given that according to source, 'Hit List TV' was "renamed Hot30 Countdown", a merging of information would seem appropriate. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Miss Germany#Miss Germany 50 plus: From 2012 by MGC - Miss Germany Corporation GmbH. Seraphimblade 02:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Miss 50 plus Germany

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

Unsourced article which serves only to list unlinked winners of a beauty pageant. If the pageant isn't properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for events, then the people who won it cannot be deemed notable for winning it, so the page serves no purpose besides being a list of non-notable people. As I can't read German, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived German media coverage can find enough to salvage it, but beauty pageants aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt them or their winners from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Germany. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Miss_Germany#Miss_Germany_50_plus:_From_2012_by_MGC_-_Miss_Germany_Corporation_GmbH. No need for an 'article' which just lists out the winners which can easily be provided for at this target. ‡ El cid, el campeador 14:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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 00:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

National Youth Advocacy Coalition

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

No in-depth third-party references. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone 21:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - fails GNG, NORG. There are some sources, but there is no in-depth coverage of the organization itself that I can find. Passing mentions fail to satisfy WP:N. ‡ El cid, el campeador 20:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Adwaith PV

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

This article is about a martial artist with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The only claim of significance is holding the Indian record for number of karate punches by a teen from a horse stance. Its a record that does not give rise to notability by itself, nor if there any coverage about this record beyond it being documented in a book about India records. Whpq (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, I couldn't find any coverage of him in RS, and it's been back and forth to draft, where it was declined. Highly persistent SPA creator suggests autobiography, COI or UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, India, and Kerala. Spiderone 21:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Holding a world record is not an automatic notability pass. This will probably need WP:SALT at some point as it has been deleted 3 times in the past 24 hours and I imagine that the creator will just keep restoring it until they are blocked from doing so. Spiderone 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete for now. If they manage to advance their career to a point of notability, then the article can be recreated. Deauthorized. 22:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Clearly a vanity page. Nswix (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete A vanity page with no evidence of meeting any WP notability criteria. Being an Indian, or even a world, record holder does not guarantee notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete and salt Blatant vanity page/COI probably written by the subject.Lethweimaster (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Santiago Bedoya Pardo

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

This article has no sources that indicate notoriety through WP:SIGCOV. 3 of them are pieces by the journalist and 3 are genealogy websites demonstrating his relationship with notorious people. Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and Peru. Spiderone 19:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so people do not get Knowledge (XXG) articles just for being related to other people who have Knowledge (XXG) articles — but the article is documenting absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, and the sourcing isn't even starting to get him over GNG: three of the six footnotes are just supporting his genealogy; he's the bylined author, not the subject, of two of them; and the only one that comes from an independent third party source is a WordPress blog just embedding one of his tweets (I will not call them Xs), which means absolutely none of them are notability-building sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Passes NPOL as MLA. (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 17:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

K. Annamalai

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

A low profile party member and former MLA. There has been no news of this person lately, therefore, failing Knowledge (XXG):NPOL and Knowledge (XXG):BLP1E. Often confused with the BJP politician K. Annamalai. Hence, I suggest this page to be deleted as along with the above-mentioned reasons, this page has been inactive for a long time and relies on a single source as mentioned in the article heading. FlyJet777 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 25. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Every member of a national or state legislature is notable, according to Knowledge (XXG):NPOL. There is no reason to delete this article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone 19:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, India, and Tamil Nadu. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment. The other person with this name, K. Annamalai (BJP politician), has never been a member of a state or national legislature. Being president of a state party does not guarantee notability. In 2021, an article on the BJP politician was deleted. See the discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Annamalai k. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the BJP politician K. Annamalai has not been a member of state or national legislature yet, but he has gained a lot of traction in India and particularly, in his state Tamil Nadu due to his En Mann En Makkal padayatra (foot journey) in the past few months, thus gaining notability.

Whereas, the AIADMK politician has never been in news since he became MLA in 2001. Also the page of the AIADMK politician has been inactive except for a few cases of hijacking of the article wherein people confused the politician with BJP's K. Annamalai. Is it wise to keep the less notable politician's page but delete the politician's page who is more popular? Moreover, when the BJP politician's page was deleted previously, he had less to no popularity. But now, that has completely changed. FlyJet777 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as an MLA; notability is not temporary. Curbon7 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep, notable per NPOL. End of. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Article does need improvement, but serving in the national legislature is the kind of inherently notable role where we need to have something. We don't care whether the coverage was recent or not, either: if he had coverage while he was in politics 20 years ago, then that's still notability-building coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep, easy pass of notability criteria as legislator. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

903 Peachtree

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

The current lead text is spam copied from https://903peachtreeatlanta.com/ and added by an IP editor twice. Even with WP:TNT though, the title of the article would suggest the article is about the company, and not actually the physical address 903 Peachtree Street. The history of the building development does not seem notable in itself as all ten existing citations seem like WP:ROUTINE news coverage and I cannot find any heritage or other historical information. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - truly awful advert. Surprised it’s not already gone through speedy. KJP1 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Utterly unremarkable building which replaced an utterly unnotable strip mall; the article copy is just 'On date thing happened' details about building progress. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 19:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Card enclosure

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

I am sure Brits don't say this. Might it be a US term? If so it would be good if an American could add a cite Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

i am an american and have never heard this term PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
It's called a "wallet" in Canada, rfid blocking or not. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete No mentions of the term found, RFID blocking wallets are a thing, not sure where this term comes from. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete I also have never heard of such a thing and was unable to find any sources, apart from RFID blocking wallets as mentioned above (which are called...wallets, as far as I know). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Article is largely unchanged from its creation in 2006, and searches for "card enclosure" or even "card case," in quotes, mostly turn up wallets. I'm not convinced such things are common - though they do exist, and I have one - or that there's enough coverage to warrant an article. Moonreach (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 19:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Almohad conquest of Tripoli

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

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and is full of WP:OR, fluff and sources misrepresentation. The Almohads didn't "conquer" Tripoli as its citizens rebelled against the Normans when the Almohad reached Ifriqiya (this is what the sources say in passing). M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Libya. M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. It is an unreliable article which, if retained, would need a full rewrite with closer attention paid to actual sources. Personally, I don't think it warrants even that as we have articles on Ifriqiya and the Almohads. I think those should cover events in Tripoli which, as you say, are not significant enough for a standalone article. PearlyGigs (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete as redundant to Almohad conquest of Norman Africa. This reduplication of material is getting absurd. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Alcácer do Sal (1191)

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

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. All the sources that are cited mention (in passing) that the Almohads captured Alcácer do Sal and that's it. Everything else in the article is WP:OR and fluff. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete, i.e., turn into a redirect. No basis for a standalone article at present and sources for expansion have not been provided. Srnec (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahrix

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

No significant coverage from reliable sources. Majority of sources about charting relate to his collaboration with Alan Walker, all other sources found are suspected unreliable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. No SIGCOV. Even few passing mentions. gidonb (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Veer Teja Vidhya Mandir School

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

This is a small (only metric level) school in Rajasthan and does not even pass the qualifying criteria for wikipedia notability guidelines and surely this article is for promotional and advertisement purpose. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Rajasthan. Spiderone 19:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Almost little to nothing has been updated or expanded since this article's creation 11 years ago. Also, when the article was created, there was a mass deletion of promotional content so the article was likely made to promote the school. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 07:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to The Grapes of Wrath (band). Editors can work on draft versions of this BLP article and submit to WP:AFC when there are sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Liz 19:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Kane (musician)

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

This is a disputed WP:BLAR and it's unclear whether there's enough notoriety to warrant the musician a standalone article. His solo career doesn't seem notable enough per WP:MUSICBIO so it seems to me a case of keeping a redirect per WP:BANDMEMBER. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Restore redirect. He was always a redirect until a day or two ago, when an WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI spun off a standalone article — but as always, musicians are not inherently entitled to have standalone BLPs just because they exist. If their notability derives from being a member of a band, and they cannot show that they would pass WP:NMUSIC as an individual separately from that, then they just get a redirect to the band rather than a standalone article.
But this is not sourced to coverage about Kevin Kane: it's sourced almost entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, coverage which mentions Kane in the context of the band rather than being about Kane as an individual, and glancing namechecks of Kevin Kane's existence as a supporting session player on other musicians' albums, and the amount of coverage that's actually about Kevin Kane is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG.
For the record, the only one of Kane's Grapes bandmates who has a standalone article is Vincent Jones, and even his notability for a standalone article is kind of questionable under contemporary NMUSIC standards, as it also hinges far too heavily on "session player in other people's bands" — the Hooper brothers both just have redirects to the Grapes. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Kevin Kane has been performing independently of Grapes of Wrath for over a decade, probably much longer (I know from personal experience, having performed with him around 2012). He is one of the primary songwriters for Grapes of Wrath, not a session player or "band member." He also performs with his wife Nadia under the name Faux Know and alongside Brian Potvin as a band member in Northern Pikes, and with Potvin as the singer-songwriter duo Kane & Potvin. He has been active in the Canadian music industry for 40 + years and is very well known among Canadian musicians from coast to coast. Mr. Kane is a Canadian icon, rare as that is, who has not made his fame outside Canada. Readers will appreciate the deeper biographical and contextual info about him if they are at all interested in Canadian music history or the current state of the industry.

Here are links supporting the info I have entered:

https://www.discogs.com/artist/4642614-Kane-Potvin

https://thenorthernpikes.com/bio/

https://www.facebook.com/9382189345/posts/faux-know-is-a-new-band-comprised-of-my-wife-and-i-and-our-fantastic-debut-album/10154028618489346/ Jasonmeredithball (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, @Jasonmeredithball. However, you need to prove that Kevin Kane meets the notability criteria. You have provided two primary sources and one unreliable source. None of these sources count toward proving Kane's notability. Please review the notability guidelines for musicians at WP:NMUSIC. Significa liberdade (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Musicians don't automatically get articles just because their solo music exists — there are certain specific WP:NMUSIC criteria that a solo musician still has to meet over and above just being a musician whose music exists, and the musician has to be the subject of third-party reliable source coverage about him in media independent of his own marketing.
Also, I think you might find it fascinating to look at the page's original creation: it was originally a standalone article, and it was originally a standalone article created by me. But our notability criteria for musicians changed since then, because musicians were very, very prone to trying to misuse Knowledge (XXG) as a promotional platform — so there were specific criteria introduced to determine when a musician qualified for an article, and simply existing as a musician isn't enough anymore. Bearcat (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Restore redirect: Kane doesn't meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO, but as Bearcat noted, this redirect has existed for a while. Kane is notable as a band member just not as an individual. As such, a search for him should redirect to the band. Significa liberdade (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 19:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Champions Soccer Radio Network

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

Subject lacks the sourcing needed to pass WP:GNG or any other notability criteria due to a lack of secondary sourcing. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, Football, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see how this meets the notability guidelines. The station's own website is defunct and there is probably very little information out there. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade 02:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Teahouse (Anglican Network)

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot seem to find in-depth references to this group from orgs that aren't in some way affiliated to the CofE. Note also that the user who created this article has been blocked for spam/advertising. – GnocchiFan (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Notifying users involved in previous deletion discussions: Buidhe, JMWt, Pbritti, Scope creep, Siroxo – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete the in depth sources that would qualify a corp/org for a stand alone article still don't exist as pointed out in the last two AfD's. I'm not sure if a mention of this obscure organization would be WP:DUE in another wikipedia article but if there is a suitable redirect target I would not oppose that. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. It almost qualifies as spam. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned here on BBC Liverpool: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09swrbl Daichopstix (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Weak delete per the persistent concerns and failure of now three AfD discussions to definitively demonstrate notability. I still think an article is possible, but probably not at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
By all that is holy, make it stop - this is the third time we've had an AfD in a month. We don't need to keep doing this. Do some WP:BEFORE and read the comments that the closer made last time. Which was last week. JMWt (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete I thought it would be a couple of months before it was posted again, or even 6 months, but I'm glad its back up. The last time when I sent to to Afd there was nothing that indicated it was notable and there was no attempt to provide sources per WP:THREE to show it was notable.Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
As it happens, I did in the original AfD offer 3 sources for discussion here but instead of discussing them others seem to think it is appropriate to keep opening new AfD when the last one gives the wrong answer.

I don't really care about this page either way, to be clear. But I do care about WP:BLUDGEON, ignoring the closing admins comments and ignoring the reality that I was the only person in this whole process who seemed to be serious about assessing the sources. JMWt (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment I closed the first two AFDs and can't believe this article is already back at AFD for a third visit. I really don't understand the focus on this article and why it has gotten so much attention and brought to AFD three times. There is no way I'm closing an AFD on the same article for a third time, another admin can review this discussion. Liz 00:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

American Desperado

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

Article currently fails WP:GNG, and there is nothing of substance in the article to suggest that it could pass GNG. Nearly all of the content is verbatim copy of publisher content from amazon (that actually no longer exists and cannot be verified), which suggests WP:PROMOTIONAL. Simply existing as a published work is not sufficient to be notable. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Literature. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Ebsco search finds reviews in Kirkus (Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, p1909-1910) and Publishers Weekly (Publishers Weekly. 2/27/2012, Vol. 259 Issue 9, p83). Proquest finds another review (Cogdill, Oline H. South Florida Sun-Sentinel 04 Dec 2011: G.11), an interview on NPR (From Mafia Soldier To Cocaine Cowboy Weekend All Things Considered; Washington, D.C. : NPR. (Oct 30, 2011)). The audiobook (read by Mark Bramhall) received a 2012 Listen-Up Award (The 2012 Listen-Up Awards. By: BORETZ, ADAM, Publishers Weekly, 00000019, 1/7/2013, Vol. 260, Issue 1). Also suggestion that there was an upcoming film adapted by William Monahan (King, Loren Boston Globe. 21 Dec 2014: N.10.) There's a lot of press about it in around 2012–13. I think the film ended up being retitled Cocaine Cowboys (2014). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep per compelling evidence of notability found by Espresso Addict. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep per EA and K. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No (band)

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

Band appears to have minimal coverage and little notability. While most of its former members seem to have achieved notability separately, this can't be said for the group itself. Attempted redirect to one of its members, but this was reverted. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Directly satisfies WP:MUSIC#6 with respected music writer Dr. Marcus Breen noting of the band "Marie Hoy and Ollie Olsen are almost legends in their own lifetimes". That Breen article itself is a full article about them in a mainstream major newspaper. Combine that with coverage from Ian McFarlane and we already have decent coverage for a late 80s Australian band. And that's without yet considering Dan's expansion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep per above and new sources. This is an example of the 1995 year-zero effect, where print-only coverage never made it to the Web. e.g., there will have been a ton of coverage in RAM and Juke. But the recent additions help a lot. There's also a Forced Exposure interview that I'll add at some point. No were a significant and influential band, presaging a huge amount of '90s industrial metal - even as Olsen himself went techno - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep, satisfies a number of the criteria under WP:BAND. Is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the ban itself. Dan arndt (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to CSI: NY#Lindsay Monroe. Liz 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Lindsay Monroe

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

Sources in the article are primary or unreliable, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: NY#Lindsay Monroe. Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Yet another plot summary and nothing else. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect per nom --Lenticel 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Lord Napier. Liz 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Francis Napier, 15th Lord Napier

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

Fails WP:BIO: insufficient coverage in reliable sources,WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Had an unsuccessful run at a by-elections to the House of Lords whose only coverage were two sentences beyond his non-independent candidate statement. . Redirect possibility: Lord Napier. Pilaz (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Lord Napier. Will consider changing !vote if sources found, but as things stand and from my brief searching, there seems insufficient to pass GNG or WP:NPEOPLE for a standalone article so a redirect to the family's page seems an appropriate AtD. Rupples (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

List of gacha games

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

Since the list is limited to "notable gacha games which have been released in an English-language version", it's mostly redundant as most of the gacha games that are notable and do have articles are in Category:Gacha games, and a game having an English-language version doesn't seem like enough of a defining characteristic to require a list. QuietCicada (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep "A category already exists" is not a valid argument to delete a list. Lists and categories serve different purposes and can exist together. The idea of a gatcha game passes WP:LISTN as a viable subject matter to merit a list. The idea of it only encompassing English games is indeed nonsensical, but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep and I support this reasoning fully. Killuminator (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I'm blanking on what the link is, hopefully someone else can find it - but it basically says that redundancy to categories are not an issue, so you may want to take another angle or this will likely be kept pretty quickly. There might be some sort of WP:INDISCRIMINATE type argument towards deletion - there's a lot of gacha games out there these days - but I'm not sure. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
You're probably looking for WP:NOTDUP. —siro χ o 20:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, that's it. All I could think of was CATDUP which is of course irrelevant to this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Defaulting to Keep, as it's been a few days and the nominator has failed to advance a rationale that doesn't violate WP:NOTDUP. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
keep Took a moment to evaluate, readily passes WP:NLIST. And indeed, WP:NOTDUP. —siro χ o 03:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep Yeah this passes WP:NLIST and I am not seeing anything else wrong with this list. Mori Calliope fan talk 17:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep per above --Lenticel 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article with support for having a Talk page discussion on a possible Merger of elements of the article and/or a Renaming of the article. More importantly, I see no support here for a deletion besides the nominator (which is a given). Liz 19:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series

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

This is a relatively recent Good Article (2020). It is also, I fear, a major fail of WP:GNG and WP:OR (and of Good Article review requirements...). No sources cited use the term 'recurring' in the title. We don't have any category for "recurring elements in work of fiction" (the closest concept we have is on recurring character). The article does not define the topic outside lead (with no references there); in fact the term "recurring element" is used in article just three times: in the very name, in the lead, and in a single sentence in the body ("Twin antagonists, with the second main antagonist being hidden for the majority of the game, is also a recurring element" - a sentence sourced to... errr, an offline game trailer??) No sources I can see in my BEFORE tackling this particular topic. The article is effectively an essay stretching the definition of recurring - it discusses stuff from the obvious ("Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters..." - wow, those recurring elements might be found in any and all works of fiction!), series-specific (crystals, chocobo, character names or specific characters recurring in the series, game mechanics), to irrelevant ("The Final Fantasy series and several specific games within it have been credited for introducing and popularizing many concepts that are today widely used in console RPGs." that have nothing to do with "recurring elements"). Bottom line, the fact that FF series have recurring elements like chocobos or like is trivial, and might merit mention in the article on Final Fantasy media franchise, but it is not an encyclopedic topic that merits a stand-alone article, not until such a time this topic (of "recurring elements in FF" is covered in depth by reliable sources - not offline video game trailers...). Again, this is a major failure of OR and GNG, as I fear the author of this confused Knowledge (XXG) to publish an essay on video gaming trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As a note, this article was not someone's personal essay, but a 2016 merger of Gameplay of Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy character jobs, and Character design of Final Fantasy in an attempt to consolidate these series-aspect spinouts into a more cohesive whole. Those article themselves were the result of a decade of consolidation of minor spinouts like Minigames of Final Fantasy (merged 2011). --Pres N 13:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment - After my initial skimming of the article, it all looks like valid content that is routinely covered by series articles. Given giant scope of the respective series article, I assume this was more of a WP:SIZESPLIT. I'm leaning much more towards re-titling than deleting. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Do note that SIZESPLIT stresses that splits should occurr "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia". There is also the OR angle to consider. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I say "retitle" as a means of addressing your OR concerns. It's very clearly reliable source commentary on the series. No one would bat an eye if all of this was just in the series articles, so there's obviously ways to do it while avoiding OR. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge (Or perhaps the better word to describe it would be "split"?) It seems like overall this article is a very excessively-detailed description of stuff that should (and is) covered in the mainline articles via summary style (the series article itself is 43 kB, not exactly in a "dire need of splitting" state, and duplicates some of this content anyhow.) I agree with Piotrus that stuff like Cid and the characters completely veer into trivia; that stuff isn't necessary to understand the series, and it's not integral. The fact is that Final Fantasy has a lot of commonalities, but it's also a very diffuse and sprawling franchise at this point and trying to address everything like it's one big video game development section doesn't seem like it has the sourcing behind it. This fundamentally isn't any different than those "Development of..." articles the VG project has realized are generally not appropriate; it's duplicative and forking of a lot of content already on Knowledge (XXG). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Just popping in as the creator of this article to say that, regardless of my feelings on the language used in the nomination, I'll abide by the decision reached. If the decision is to merge/delete, salvageable information can be condensed into other articles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep There are lots of mentions of the series' recurring elements, such as this IGN article. I think it's a separately notable topic to discuss, and dispute the claim that it is entirely WP:GAMECRUFT. Let's not throw out the baby along with the WP:BATHWATER. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - I'm open to reworking the information or retitling it, but this is well-sourced, well researched, well-written content. There's ways to fix the noted concerns without resorting to deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment – This article would be Final Fantasy's version of a "Universe of " article, à la Universe of The Legend of Zelda. I don't think it's in good spirit to literally look for "recurring elements" or similar terms in source titles: I'll grand that this title might not be optimal. It would take a dive in the sources to find if there's enough to say about the franchise thematic and universal consistency (or inconsistency?) to form an article. I'm taken aback by how many sources used are tweets or development updates for sequels; in that sense I do think there's a problem here. I also think an article somewhat similar to this one is probably very reasonable, however. The recurring elements and inconsistencies of Final Fantasy's worlds is quite well-discussed I'm sure. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
"Shared elements of the Final Fantasy series" may be a better way of naming it. "Recurring" does sound a bit like the writers of the article are looking for anything and everything that is the same in later entries. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Nomination is not convincing here IMO, way overfocusing on if the words "recurring element" are applicable. If you dislike the title of the article, that's cause to go to WP:RM - not for deletion. "Recurring elements" is a descriptive title (WP:DESCRIPTIVE), i.e. just a Knowledge (XXG) term, and thus isn't expected to be mentioned constantly. If anything, perhaps parts of the article should be split back out again for more coherent topics like in 2016, but this would not be in an AFD sense but rather a content organization sense with no content lost. To get to the topic AFD is more interested in, are there valid secondary sources for all this? Yes (by far the most important criterion!). Would this cause bloat if moved into other articles, meaning this is a valid WP:SUMMARYSTYLE split? Yes. Does this also help with repetition so that an element shared across the series can easily be wikilinked so that the general idea of a character named Cid can be invoked? Yes. Not seeing a problem here. SnowFire (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Whether or not the article should be retitled to better reflect its content is one discussion, but deleting the whole thing is another altogether. The article contains a spate of in-depth RS coverage on the article's topic. The exact phrase "recurring elements" is unnecessary here, in the same way that, for example, sources in List of Final Fantasy media do not need to use the exact word "media" if the items listed all fit the plain definition of the term. RSes treat these elements as important enough to dedicate sustained coverage to them, and treat them as defining aspects of the series, and that is good enough for an article. Phediuk (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - The nom's argument that the topic fails GNG and OR is easily debunked by examining the article's exhaustive and extensive sourcing. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. There is a lot of poor argument here: "useful" doesn't cut it by itself, but "NOTDIR" is only slightly better when lists of television programs grouped by broadcaster are commonplace. Our various guidelines are descriptive, rather than prescriptive, with respect to whether lists with a valid navigational purpose also are required to meet LISTN. The argument that this meets LISTPURP-NAV hasn't really been challenged, and I'm not comfortable overruling considerable precedent on navigational lists. This doesn't mean this result is set in stone, but rather that we shouldn't be litigating this issue in individual AfDs. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST as no source establishes why this list is independently notable. It's probably also a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think anything has changed since the previous two nominations. Please read both those discussions to put the current nomination in context. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Eastmain: I did read the last two nominations and still think this discussion should happen. Nomination 1 happened in 2008, and none of the editors involved provided a reason for keeping the list that was based on reliable sources. This list also does not inherit notability because the channel is notable. Nomination 2 was speedily closed at WP:AN without prejudice against renomination. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep: This is an useful page, there are a bunch of list of TV program articles here on Knowledge (XXG). ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree this list is more of a directory •Cyberwolf• 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I presume this is a delete !vote? LibStar (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment If it really violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, then we need to nominate also the related articles (eg: List of programs broadcast by GMA Network, List of programs broadcast by TV5 (Philippine TV network), etc.) ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Plus there are a bunch of them on Template:List of television programs by region. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@ThisIsSeanJ: This is the reason the second nomination exists; someone decided to AfD a large number of these lists due to WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep but add and find references on the list to keep its notability. Supercrumblesph (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Supercrumblesph: This seems like a WP:MUSTBESOURCES-type argument. Could you provide a reason for why the article should be kept? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade 06:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep and I invite all editors to review this paragraph of WP:CSC

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

Content guideline is pretty unambiguous here. This list is obviously notable because WP:NLIST, but per CSC guidelines, non-notable list entries should be removed. BrigadierG (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@BrigadierG: Thanks for your comment! ~~I don't think WP:CSC is relevant here — this is not a short list by any means.~~ The list is also not "obviously notable"; in fact, lack of apparent notability was my original nomination rationale. WP:NLIST states that "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (emphasis original). This article is supported by only a handful of references, none of which specifically discuss the list topic. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe there are almost certainly more offline sources. I refuse to believe that the largest media broadcaster in the country with an original shows catalogue of independently notable programs that large has never been discussed as a set. WP:NPOSSIBLE. My mention of CSC was regarding calls for NOTDIR deletions - it's a NOTDIR violation only if it includes non-notable entries. Right now, this seems like a valid navigational list to me. WP:LISTPURP-NAV applies here.

BrigadierG (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not denying WP:LISTPURP-NAV — it's one of the main ideas behind making lists in the first place. I've looked around for sources that discuss the topic, and wasn't able to find any. I can't comment on the existence of offline sources, but unless you can point to one of them, what you're saying is simply a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

KEEP! Archival purposes! Please note it referred to old program that had aired before. 2001:4454:313:C700:C18C:7ED1:C84C:1BA7 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)— 2001:4454:313:C700:C18C:7ED1:C84C:1BA7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unfortunately, "archival purposes" is not a reason for a Knowledge (XXG) article to exist on the subject. Notability of the subject has to be shown; in particular, my concern is that this list fails the WP:NLIST guideline. Would you be able to state your argument in terms of the policies and guidelines I've mentioned? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion of whether this list meets the common selection criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete Six sources out of a network's 70-year history, and a long term WP:TV project pain point with heavy IP vandalism. This article needs to simply be blown up and started over again with much stricter criteria and editing standards. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Only six refrances and only four of them are independent. Half of them are about a closing and the other half are about a failed bid. It doenst seem to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 06:27, September 22, 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Only now seeing Ritchie333's relist message. I've struck a comment from my earlier reply as it seems I was mistaken — WP:CSC advises a limit of 32K, but this list is 20K. That means that this discussion is in fact relevant to the third point of CSC, as BrigadierG mentioned. However, it also requires that "every item... is verifiably a member of the group" (emphasis original), which is really not the case here. The vast majority of entries in this list are unsourced, and it will take a lot of work to fix that issue. My !vote as nominator remains to delete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I struck every example without its own Knowledge (XXG) article from the list. Is verifiability the hill you want to die on? Feel free to remove any items you feel are not verifiably group members. BrigadierG (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
"Is verifiability the hill you want to die on?" I sincerely hope that no one is taking this discussion so seriously as to be considering their death. However, verifiability is a core policy that has to be followed across the encyclopedia. Also, am I missing something? I still see only a handful of citations for the more than 200 list items, and none of those sources discuss anything outside the one show that they're focused on. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Every entry in the list is its own Knowledge (XXG) article, each of which has its own citations identifying it as being an ABS-CBN production. Verifiability is an issue only if there are no citations that exist that verify a claim, not that they are necessarily present in the article. Pick any random example from the list, click into its article. Does it have citations verifying it is a ABS-CBN production? The reason I asked if it was the hill you wanted to die on is that literally every single entry in this list without fail has citations because it has its own Knowledge (XXG) article.

To put it another way, if the citations in the articles were copied as inline references to each list item, would that satisfy you? Doing so isn't actually a requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY, but if the answer was yes, would that change your view about the nomination? It actually gets even better than that because quote... "Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references."

To put it yet another way, if verifiability is in fact the only reason to delete the article, do you believe the claims made in the article are unlikely to be sourceable? Do they contain any of the four types of content that require inline citations per WP:MINREF? BrigadierG (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep: Meets WP:CLN, AOAL for navigation list. A lot of the individual entries in this list lack notability and should be reviewed, but the list itself will meet CLN and an index list. // Timothy :: talk 19:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@TimothyBlue: WP:AOAL is a subsection of WP:CLN. Could you clarify what you mean by the list "meeting" CLN? As far as I can see, AOAL is just a list of useful things that lists can do, similar to WP:LISTPURP-NAV cited above, and not a set of criteria for determining whether or not a specific list should exist. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
CLN/AOAL describes ways navigation aid can be used to improve the encyclopedia by helping readers find information. I think this list does this. Navigation list articles such as outlines, indexes, timelines are common when large numbers of articles exist and readers may benefit from a index (alpha), timeline (chronological) or outline (topical) style listing. If there is a consensus that this serves a useful navigation purpose per CLN, it should remain. If there is a consensus that it serves no useful navigation purpose per CLN, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this but I'll be relisting this instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep, standard /list of programs broadcast by – / page, detailed article to facilitate navigation. Sources exist. Fwiw, the page has received coverage. Smile.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment Then please, add them. Six out of the eight sources in the article now detail the network's demise with 'best known shows' in summary form, leaving only two sources for the entire article. If sources exist, they should be added (and it should be damned standard with TV lists that a source must be included when adding a show). I'm dog-tired of articles being kept despite radical and lazy non-sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (series). Clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Rogue Squadron

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

This is a pure plot summary that fails WP:GNG. No reception section, no scholarly analysis, nothing. Well, there is a one sentence "Cultural impact" with trivia about references to this in another work of fiction. My BEFORE failed to find anything that is not a plot summary. Maybe an ATD could be a redirect to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (series)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete as redundant to other plot summaries. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish this as a separate article. A redirect would be fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (series) per above as an alternative to deletion. Fails GNG as stated above. Tails Wx 18:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Dagobah

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

This is just a plot summary about a fictional planet. BEFORE fails to find anything helpful. At best this WP:GNG-failing topic can be redirected (merged?) to List of Star Wars planets and moons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep I believe this is notable after all: Vom Artushof zum Palast der Saelde, p. 33-35 has two-and-a-half pages discussing Dagobah in the context of Joseph Campbell's hero's journey; Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars: An Anthology, p. 38-39, is very similar if shorter; "Wizards and Jedi: A Comparative Analysis: Between Merlin and Mentors in Star Wars" compares Dagobah to a location of an Arthurian story; and there are shorter mentions, like "'From sequel to quasi-novelization: 'Splinter of the mind’s eye' and the 1970s culture of transmedia contingency’" with a piece of creative background. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not seeing much about the planet itself. Plot summaries, yes, but analysis? And let me note that stuff like "A prototype of Luke's symbolic experiences in the Dagobah cave appears in Kurosawa's Drunken Angel" is not about Dagobah but about Luke Skywalker. Luke is notable, but not all places he adventured at are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

And while you are right that "Wizards..." compares Dagobah to a location of an Arthurian story, this comparison is one-two sentences long. Maybe three-four if we are being generous. SIGCOV is a problem. If there is not much else to say than "Dagobah has been compared to location associated with Merlin from Arthurian myths", this is good stuff to mention in a list - we don't need a dedicated article for a sentence of analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I cannot read the German text, if you think lenghtier analysis is presented there, I'd ask you to summarize it here (and after that, add it to the article). I am amenable to changing my views, but right now I don't see enough analysis to merit keeping a stand-alone article, I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Vom Artushof...: Luke has to undertake an ardous journey to become a hero, modelled after Campbell's heros journey, with the setting complementing the plot: One station is planet Dagobah, which is "an impressive example of the interplay of space and plot" .... the incredible power of planet Dagobah .... hidden in fog and coulds at the edge of the galaxy, uninhabitabet, persumed uninhabitable, teeming with life... despite or because of the nativeness and inviolcy of nature, Dagobah is a place incomparable in touching the force of the universe... dark side is present...place of hiding for Yoda, place of instruction for Luke... Despite Dagobah being hostile to life, this planet is suitable like no other to influence the progression of the hero through its spacial conception, being remote and full of untouced-untamed nature.... isolated place of power. George Lucas means Dagobah as a place removed from distraction by human civilization to help to focus Luke's individual power and where he has to learn to face his own fears...connection to nature on the planet connects with original energies of the galaxy connects with individual power. This connection of location and plot goes back to anciend creation myths via medieval texts. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
And another secondary source, Interpreting Star Wars: Reading a Modern Film Franchise, p. 85-86, 91, does analogous analysis - Dagobah "fits well" as place to where the hero retreats "from society to a world of more primal symbols where he must conquer his own darkenss" from Campbell's schema - and has additional commentary: "richly constructed a semiotic environment", the Dagobah set evoking "the forest of our subconscious and the jungle of the mind"; "...the dark swamp infested by reptiles is our unconsciousness...", "no other environment attempts such imagery as Dagobah is constructed of"; "Dagobah would also come to be the basis for ... the notion that the film constitutes a form of mythology". Out-of-universe comments on the Dagobah set are strewn through a few sources, like Star Wars FAQ. So together in my view there is plenty enough material to fullfill WP:WHYN. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@Daranios Not bad. I'll ping @Presidentman who may want to take a look at those sources as well. I am prepared to withdraw my nom, but it would be nice if someone would add a sentence or two to the article, with the sources cited. Any chance you can find few minutes for that? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Yeah, I can add at least a bit one of these days. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The German source and the Interpreting Star Wars look sufficient to me. Not sure about the Star Wars FAQ as I cannot access it in full. I'll withdraw my redirect !vote for now. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

* Redirect to List of Star Wars planets and moons. My BEFORE also didn't turn up anything. The sources provided above appear to be mainly passing mentions rather than significant coverage. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep Per Daranios. The Dagobah training sequence is such an iconic moment in film that it's hard to believe there is not coverage out there, per WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Daranios. seems rather notable, with decent coverage. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 01:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Withdrawing. Sources seem to have been located and User:Daranios promised to add something to the article as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Peterson Okopi

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

Article about a songwriter and singer that fails WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Awards are practically non-notable awards. Most of the sources are also sponsored post or PR piece. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment Ref 1, 3 and 10 are either interviews or trivial. Person looks notable, I'll look at the other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Only other good sources per sourcebot 16, 17 and 23 are trivial coverage. Rest are mix of biographies or lists of simple appearances on tv shows. The award might be notable, but I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep Individual is a notable Nigerian gospel artist with several hit songs. Also, the awards are very renowned for gospel musicians. Mevoelo (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: While I am sympathetic to the creating editor's view that Okopi is a fish in a specialised pond, WP:NMUSIC does not really allow for that. When this is accompanied with references that are interviews, announcements and churnalism I can only consider this to be WP:ADMASQ, failing WP:GNG, certainly as written and referenced. It is perfectly reasonable to seek to rescue it under WP:HEY. If that happens I hope to be notified so that I may have the option of reconsidering my view 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Okopi is a highly notable gospel artist in Nigeria as earlier stated. If you review the references properly, you’d see that most of them are actually reliable. Talking about churnalism, I don’t think that applies here because according to “WP:MUSIC”, Criteria for musicians….he clearly meets 1,2,4,6,8,9,10,12. He was a finalist of a major kids competition in Nigeria (9) and has a hit single “Osuba” which is known by almost all Nigerian Christians (2). But I’d do my best to see if I can add more content to further show notability. Mevoelo (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't have extensive sourcing for much of any of it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: for lack of sourcing, only brief mentions. Most articles are less then half a page. They are in good sources, yes, but they don't go into much detail at all about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable topic, sources are unreliable and most not independent. The awards cited are unclear. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Space Shuttle launch countdown

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

This is effectively a manual excerpt sourced from WP:PRIMARY sources (NASA documents), not an encyclopedic topic (this fails WP:GNG). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: basically a regurgitation of primary documents from NASA. The topic is amply covered in the space shuttle article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, delete off per nom. Overly technical minutia of no encyclopedic value. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The actual Space Shuttle article adequately summarizes the launch prep and launch, so I don't really see a need for any kind of merging. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Is not suitable for an encyclopedia. User:Let'srun 03:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 02:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Korai, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

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

I can find no reliable sources that make mention of a place in Lower Chitral by this name. Currently cited sources are computer-generated descriptions based on opendb data that has not been reviewed by any editorial process and thus are not reliable. I was unable to find any mention of a geographic location named Korai in extensive Google Books and Scholar searches, including searches for "Korai" together with related geographic terms and searches in Urdu and Pashto. As there are no RS confirming the existence of this location and no text about it at Lower Chitral District or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, I don't think there's a valid redirect target solution here. _signed,Rosguill 21:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. _signed,Rosguill 21:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep per WP:GEOLAND. Locality does exist. — kashmīrī 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Google Maps does not clarify whether it is populated, whether it is legally recognized, or what kind of place it is (village, neighborhood, tract, gas station etc.) Without this information, it doesn't meet GEOLAND. _signed,Rosguill 16:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I honestly doubt that Google employees walk the globe asking locals for locality names. Seriously. If it's in the main Maps database, then this information certainly comes from an official source.

Otherwise, if your argument was to be accepted, we could delete 90% of localities from Knowledge (XXG) right away, because sources hardly ever confirm their population or legal status. — kashmīrī 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
What? Any official census document for the region, which is what's most commonly cited for stubs like this, establishes recognition and population in one go (there's some countries with less-than-reliable census data and/or that list non-distinct locales in their data, such as Iran, but that's a tangential issue in the case of this discussion). Moreover, Google Maps includes a lot of crowdsourced data, and a lot of fake locations along with it (, ). _signed,Rosguill 13:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
FYI, crowdsourcing on Google Maps does not include base features (geography, roads, localities, etc.) and is limited to points of interests (incl. businesses). Crowdsourced POIs can be easily recognised by an Edit option. Korai has not been crowdsourced but included by Google. Also check satellite view of the locality. — kashmīrī 18:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
That's good to know about the crowdsourcing, but I'm still leery of basing an article entirely off of a Google Maps match. Maps is a constantly-updating online resource with opaque, changing editorial policies that include batch-processing and crowdsourcing (even if the latter is sectioned off to certain map elements at the moment). I don't think it's too much to ask for a single secondary source confirmation that this location exists as a stand-alone settlement. _signed,Rosguill 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you are unable to tell a village from a gas station on Google Maps, maybe you shouldn't use Maps or write about them? Just an idea. — kashmīrī 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The gas station bit is in reference to the past mass-creation of stubs based on Iranian census information, which turned out to include non-settlement localities such as gas stations, etc. that were not readily differentiable to the editors creating the stubs. _signed,Rosguill 18:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri - " If it's in the main Maps database, then this information certainly comes from an official source" - An "official source" here is likely the US GEONNet Names Server (GNS) data. This is both not "legal recognition" (the US cannot "legally recognise" a Pakistani village) and very often erroneous since it is usually based on poorly-compiled decades-old military maps. For example a survey of GNS location-names in South Korea found many Japanese-origin names that had resulted from the US military authorities using Japanese people to compile location names. See also the problems US military personnel had in Afghanistan when it turned out that their maps (based ultimately on GNS) had the wrong names for many locations. FOARP (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting that an IP has added several new sources to the article, but none of them appear to mention Korai. _signed,Rosguill 13:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill if you‘re referring to the IP I think you’re referring to, then it’s a sock - Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet_investigations/Najaf_ali_bhayo. Best, A smart kitten_meow 17:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Noting also that I would revert the sock’s pagemove from Korai, but I don’t want to risk messing anything up with this AfD. A smart kitten_meow 17:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, it turns out that prior to any sockedits, this page (under its previous name Korai) was a redirect to Kore (sculpture): . I’m not going to revert back to that myself as I don’t want to potentially go against AfD procedure, but my !vote would be to revert the move & reinstate the redirect. Best, A smart kitten_meow 17:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - No reliable source provided in the article. GMaps is not a reliable source - it's mostly data from GNIS and GEONet Names Server (both unreliable) with the add-on of user-submitted information. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The consensus at WP:RSP is that Google Maps can be used for finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information. Your opinion about GNIS and GEONet is just your opinion, not a WP consensus. See WP:GOOGLEMAPS. — kashmīrī 06:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
That's not just their opinon - We have community consensus that GEOnet and GNIS "should not be used to determine notability" (see WP:RSP). I don't see any indication that Google Maps demonstrates official recognition, and WP:NGEO specifically excludes maps from establishing notability. –dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 11:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete. No GNG coverage, no indication we could even presume sources exist based on being a legally-recognized populated place. GNIS/Google Maps is not an acceptable source for assessing notability.

JoelleJay (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't apply GNG directly to localities. It's WP:GEOLAND that should be applied here, and GEOLAND suggest leaving the locality in place. —

kashmīrī

06:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete - No indication of notability via either legal recognition or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 13:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Joan Gilmore

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

Fails WP:GNG, a sound career of journalism and a role as columnist for local media in Oklahoma followed by founding a PR agency may be a recipe for a good life but it is not the stuff of notability. It's just someone local doing their job locally. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, United States of America, Illinois, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Beyond obit coverage in the Oklahoman, not much of anything found. Simply a person doing their job, wiki is also not a memorial. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - She was also a founding member of Leadership Oklahoma City and Oklahoma Children's Medical Research Foundation. For her life's work, Gilmore was elected to the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame, among other things. Comments such as those above, dismissing achievements of women, is why various Knowledge (XXG) projects such as Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women in Red, WP:WIG, WP:WOMEN were founded. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever in any imaginable way whatever or any conceivable construction possible got anything at all to do with her gender. Good grief, get a grip... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The article cites three substantial obituaries in three independent reliable sources, that's enough to meet WP:NBASIC. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Joe Roe.--Ipigott (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep The three substantial obituaries, plus other coverage about the multiple local halls of fame she's a member of, plus an entry in a major state university's collections, plus (unsurprisingly) frequent coverage in archived Oklahoma newspapers - she easily passes WP:GNG. TheCatalyst31 15:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep, article has significantly expanded since this discussion began. Penny Richards (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Significant accomplishments beyond "doing her job", as per Maile; significant indication of notability as per Joe and TheCatalyst31. And as Penny Richards points out, this is a new article, still in process. To call for the deletion of an article that is only three days old on the grounds of notability seems extreme. — scribbling woman 18:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame is a serious accolade. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep: I think this is a close call, but the coverage is just enough to meet WP:GNG. Combined with @ Maile's points on the undercoverage of women (especially in Oklahoma) I'm leaning keep.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Coming here from the notice at WiR disparaging this nomination. The pieces about her by her former employer The (Daily) Oklahoman are obviously non-independent, and it looks like the OKC Friday obit is a submission ("Joanie, you will be deeply missed", plus instructions for funeral attendance). Are there any independent sources of SIGCOV on her? JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you're stretching the definition of independent a bit much here. As you said, The Daily Oklahoma was Gilmore's former employer. She stopped working there 42 years before the obituary was written. It's also very normal for obituaries to be written by someone who knew the deceased (it's pretty hard to write them otherwise). What's important in terms of assessing independence is who published it, in this case OKC Friday, which looks like a perfectly respectable local newspaper with no discernable connection to Gilmore. – Joe (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
It is very relevant that she worked at The Oklahoman, as evidenced by that fact being prominently emphasized in the title and body of her obituary there. Coverage of someone by the company that employed them for 28 years does not reflect attention from the world at large, as required by N. We do the same thing for obits on athletes by their former sports clubs, why wouldn't we do so for employers?Obituaries written by people who were affiliated with the subject are flatly not accepted as independent sources, and the prevailing view is that un-bylined obituaries in local papers are presumed to be submissions. The OKC Friday obit is indistinguishable from any of the others this very tiny (three small neighborhoods/villages in the OKC metro area) weekly paper runs, I don't see how we could assume it's not a submission. JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
That does not appear to be the "prevailing view" here and it's the first I've heard of it. Is there a written guideline you can point us to? – Joe (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, here are two from the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame (now refs in the article, but they weren't when you asked).

Rodely, Billie. "Joan Gilmore and Al McLaughlin" Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame.
"Joan Gilmore donates $30,000 for future hall of fame museum, scholarship", Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame (2022). - Penny Richards (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are also not independent or secondary, as they are coverage by the organization that gave her the award (and to which she donated $30,000). JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with Joe Roe that the definition of "independent" may be getting stretched a bit here. She left the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame $30,000 in her will--what they wrote about her after she died can hardly be ascribed to her direct influence. It's also fairly common the cite halls of fame or other award-granting bodies, where they explain why someone was recognized, as in the first ref above. Penny Richards (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Independence isn't only a measure of how much influence someone has on coverage of themselves; it is also a necessary quality to ensure that the coverage actually represents attention from the world at large for reasons that are of interest to the world at large. When the source is also necessarily covering themselves in a piece, that is a good indication that its interest in the subject is not derived wholly from an independent assessment of the subject's noteworthiness. This is especially the case for bodies with a financial incentive to promote positive coverage of themselves and to foster potentially lucrative relationships. What the awarding body publishes about the subject in the press release for the honor is thus not an independent commentary because it is inextricably tied to promotional coverage of itself. There are hundreds of thousands of honors awarded every year, and many of them are accompanied by SIGCOV of the recipients in the award announcements; if we were to consider all of these acceptable for GNG then I would get an article for receiving some external awards in high school, college, and grad school. None of them were remotely major, but each had a couple paragraphs on my background and detailed the reasons I was recognized. I'm not notable because no one who was completely unaffiliated with me or the awards considered those reasons important enough to publish commentary on them independently. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jay, I think you are a bit off base with this particular person. The Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame is a significant honor; enough so that anyone that has been inducted passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO automatically. Trying to equate it to a forgettable award someone could achieve in high school or grad school is simply ludicrous. This is the highest honor given to women in the state and is operated by a government commission. We generally do keep articles on people who have received a major honor at the National or state level. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep per WP:HEY - article has been greatly expanded and improved since being nominated. Ritchie333 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, has been recognized at the state level with two significant honors. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Bernardo Huberman

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

Article lacks secondary sources to establish notability of Bernado Huberman. Sources appear primary, commercial or autobiographical in nature. I am unable to find evidence of secondary coverage in news or google scholar. The citations provided are simply links to a few books he edited or authored. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment - according to Google Scholar he has an h-index of 103; on Scopus, his h-index is 65. His work is highly cited by others (GS: 62,726) Netherzone (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
That is not evidence of notability. He lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Strong keep per WP:NACADEMIC as The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).. I looked into notability a while back and added a citation so this is documented. . Fellow of APS (American Physical Society) is clearly highly selective honor akin to the Institute of Physics that's mentioned in the policy. ~~Note that nominator prodded this first .~~ Nominator self-reverted the prod, only realized now, sorry. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, was not aware being a fellow of institutes was sufficient to establish notability. I would note it is a guideline, not a rule. But Huberman’s coverage in books and news is lacking IMO. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - He clearly meets several criteria of our guidelines for a notable academic, thus passes WP:NPROF. An academic only needs to meet one criteria of that SNG. His Index scores are high 103 h-index on Google Scholar, 65 h-index on Scopus, his work has been cited over 62-thousand times (62,716), therefore he has made a substantial impact on his field. Friendly question to nominator Zenomonoz: How many more book and journal articles does his work need to be cited in to be "enough" (and not lacking) in your opinion? Additionally I am finding numerous reviews of his books in academic journals, therefore meets WP:GNG. In addition, he's a Fellow of several notable associations: Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fellow, Japan Society for the Advancement of Science, Fellow, American Physical Society, CECOIA Prize on Economics and Artificial Intelligence, IBM Prize of the Society for Computational Economics, Trustee, Aspen Center for Physics, Chairman, Council of Fellows at Xerox Corporation and a Senior Fellow at HP Labs, where he also happened to be the Director of the Mechanisms and Design Lab. Please review WP:BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

References

"APS Fellow Archive". www.aps.org. Retrieved 2023-09-25.

happy to withdraw AfD nomination, although I would like to see some of those reviews for confirmation. I don’t think a single page noting that he is a fellow is sufficient content for a Knowledge (XXG) article, so yes, other sources would be needed to establish the notability of his contributions. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) •Cyberwolf• 15:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data Standards

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Technology. UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Medicine, Computing, and Software. UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Per Nom Seawolf35 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. ISO standards have a large effect on the products we use and are well-covered by articles in the technical literature. This one could use some independent sources. We cover ISO/IEEE standards extensively; see Category:ISO standards and Template:ISO standards. There is also ISO/IEEE 11073 and IEEE 11073 service-oriented device connectivity, which has appropriate sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep as @StarryGrandma says, these standards are important and have a significant impact on industry. That's especially true in a field like personal health devices. Questions of how to implement ISO 11073 have been the subject of entire academic articles. For example:

Consideration of the generated network utilization of the IEEE 11073 SDC standard, Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 8 Issue 2 (2022)
Applying the ISO/IEEE 11073 Standards to Wearable Home Health Monitoring Systems, Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing (2005) 19: 427–436 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-005-2033-7 (cited in article).
Integration of a surgical robotic arm to the connected operating room via ISO IEEE 11073, SDC Wickel, Noah ; Vossel, Manuel ; Yilmaz, Okan ; Radermacher, Klaus ; Janß, Armin, International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023, Vol.18 (9), p.1639-1648

It is disheartening to see an article this well developed nominated for deletion, apparently based solely on some editor's decision to add a notability tag 13 years ago. No support given for the claim that it "Fails GNG". In fact, a simple google scholar search (mandated by WP:BEFORE) shows hundreds of articles entirely devoted to this standard. Admittedly many are from IEEE, but all it takes is a it of additional searching/filtering to find independent sources. Per WP:NEXISTS that should be enough to avoid an AfD. No indication is given by @UtherSRG as to why no acceptable sources exist. Oblivy (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep: This topic looks to be very widely and deeply covered in the academic literature at least, just from a few minutes of clicking around here. I think that taking your pick of any pair of sources there establishes GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 05:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

DJ Zeke

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

A non-notable DJ. Previously deleted via PROD.

Note: there is a "DJ Zeke Thomas" who appears to be a different individual. KH-1 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep since his notability passes WP:NMUSIC and his work as a DJ in hip hop has been covered in multiple independent sources.

Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources are mainly passing mentions of the DJ. St John's University and The Torch (student newspaper) do cover the person in depth but are not truly independent.-KH-1 (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The independent third-party sources are articles from Rolling Stone, Ebony Magazine and other well-known news sources that are considered very reliable sources on Knowledge (XXG) according to WP:RSP.

The in-depth articles that you mentioned have publication dates that go all the way back to 2006. There have been articles about the DJ that have been published this year. Notability can be established for the DJ because this falls under the WP:SUSTAINED section of notability from the Knowledge (XXG) notability guideline which states that "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability." Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Where are these article from Rolling Stone or Ebony, they aren't linked in the article and aren't given here... Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

All of the articles from Rolling Stone and Ebony magazine are there in the references on the Knowledge (XXG) page. The in-depth article and the Rolling Stone article have publication dates of 2006 and 2011, respectively. The music publications and cultural magazines XXL, Complex and Ebony magazine have all covered the DJ over the years with the last Ebony magazine article being as recent as June of this year.

This establishes notability for the DJ since the WP:SUSTAINED section of Knowledge (XXG)'s guideline on notability states that attention over a sufficiently significant period of time and "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability." The DJ also passes the notability for musicians according to WP:NM. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete He was arrested for drunk driving, so there's coverage of that event. Some coverage for being the son of Isiah Thomas the basketball player , he shares his favorite pop culture moments here , very much a fluff piece. His sister had Covid, he's playing a set at xyz club. I'm not seeing notability. Only brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The two sources above, ABC News is fine, he was sexually assaulted and starred in a commercial about prevention. The second link I'm not certain it's a RS. Still not enough for notability I think. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep - the article could do with a bit of expansion but the sources do demonstrate his notability as a musicain.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This table is complete and up to date as of 23 September 2023

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:KH-1
"Ebony.com"			~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
"torchonline"	? Student magazine, may or may not be considered independent of subject		~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	? Unknown
"XXL Mag"			Mentions the DJ in multiple paragraphs alongside Bone Thugs-N-Harmony.	✔ Yes
"Rolling Stone"			~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
"St John's University"	Alma mater, not truly independent of subject		Primarily about subject	✘ No
"Collegiatetimes"			~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
"Complex"			~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
"globalspin365"		?	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	? Unknown
"Pace"	?	?	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	? Unknown
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}}.

This table is an updated source assessment table from an earlier version of a similar table. This table follows the template used in Template:Source_assess_table. Both the previous version of the table and this table are in agreement that Ebony Magazine, Rolling Stone, XXL and most of the articles used are reliable news sources and independent of the subject. The only difference is the significant coverage section of the source assessment table.

According to the overall assessment section of the source assessment table documentation, if "One or more criteria are "~" (partial) and all the rest are "yes" then an article falls under partially meeting GNG. The DJ has had multiple news sources that qualify for this along with media coverage over many years. One of the articles is from 2006 and a few articles from reliable publications have mentioned the DJ this year. This is over 15 years of coverage in the media and this significant time period of coverage falls under WP:SUSTAINED from the official notability guidelines on Knowledge (XXG). Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This table is complete and up to date as of 8 August 2023

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:KH-1
"Ebony.com"			Passing mention - " DJ Zeke's playlist of Afrobeats and Haitian music created a vibe where guests swayed to the beat while sipping on Rhum Barbancourt cocktails and captured their images in front of a door size Rhum Barbancourt bottle photo station"	✘ No
"torchonline"	Student magazine, not considered truly independent of subject		Passing mention	✘ No
"XXL Mag"			Passing mention	✘ No
"Rolling Stone"			Passing mention	✘ No
"St John's University"	Alma mater, not truly independent of subject		Primarily about subject	✘ No
"Torchonline (2)"	Student magazine, not considered truly independent of subject		Primarily about subject	✘ No
"Collegiatetimes"			Passing mention	✘ No
"Complex"			Passing mention	✘ No
"globalspin365"		?	In the headline, but only mentioned in passing in the body of article	✘ No
"Pace"	?	?	Passing mention	✘ No
"Ebony (2)"			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}}.

I'm not seeing any coverage that is both independent and SIGCOV. Also when I say that it's a "passing mention", it's literally just a single sentence mention of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hiphopsavedmylife: - you don't have to agree with my analysis, but don't alter the table.-KH-1 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@KH-1 I updated the source assessment table based on the developing consensus of everyone here in this discussion and I had used the same overall assessment that was used in the SAT documentation but you reverted the update without leaving an edit summary for a reason why you made the change.

There is nothing in the documentation under significant coverage that mentions your phrase "passing mention." The closest thing to that is the ~Partial assessment which states "the article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail."

I respect your analysis and opinion, KH-1, but I am updating the table to fit the same assessment used in the SAT documentation and to reflect the developing consensus of the community in this AfD discussion. Please do not revert the update to the table as it will hinder progress. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO - "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page". Yes this is an AfD but the same principle applies. Notice that I didn't change your comments to suit my POV, I ask that you extend the same courtesy.-KH-1 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@KH-1 I thought that all users in the discussion were free to edit and collaborate on the source assessment table and that there could only be one source assessment table. I see now that there can be multiple source assessment tables. I only changed the table, I never altered your comments. You clearly know the source assessment table very well. I apologize for updating your table, KH-1. I will create a separate table. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment:I do not think that a magazine being a student magazine counts as not independent. If he wrote it, then maybe, but a university can have tens of thousands of students and can also cater towards other universities and non students, so I do not believe that this makes it not count as independent. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hopefully in respose to source table. Again, do not alter the contributions of other editors on a discussion page. You can rebut their claims but do not change their comments on this source table because you disagree with it, instead create your own table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Going on the source table, it's a !delete. I've already !voted, but this solidifies it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Liz Thank you letting me know and for all your hard work on Knowledge (XXG). I wasn't aware that the source assessment table is not collaborative. I made a separate one. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete The source assessment chart pretty much lays it all out. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in multiple INDEPENDENT RS.Jacona (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 03:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Jeffry Life

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete The page has been orphaned for almost a decade. Most claims are missing a source, the few sources that are there are poorly used. :ᗡ OLI (she/her)
- Added Jeffery Life to List of University of Iowa alumni, that should solve the problem. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment. The AfD previously had invalid formatting and transclusion, which have been fixed. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep as a celebrity author rather than as a scientist. There are lots of articles in reliable sources about him. He has written about his anti-aging theories in books rather than peer-reviewed journals, which makes me skeptical of his claims. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. A search at Amazon, WorldCat and Library of Congress result in the same books only, which appear to be nothing more than different editions (2021, 2012, 2013,2014) of his diet plan. The titles are a bit different each edition, but it's still his diet plan. There is just nothing I find that makes this person notable. Other than the author's books, I also see nothing that says he's a real doctor - maybe he is, but I don't find it.— Maile (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

In response to comments right below this, I'm thinking that maybe the real question is if the various editions of his diet book make him notable. Other than his own account of who he was, and the subsequent updated versions of the book, there really doesn't seem to be any substantive info about him. Notability of the book would hinge on its sales figures. I've not run across anything about the sales numbers of his book, only that he later released updated editions. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep per Eastman. Change to delete as interviews don't count for notability. There are articles from the BBC, LA Times, New York Times Magazine, and The Times in the lead, so he clearly passes WP:GNG and ANYBIO isn't relevant. I agree it's not a very good page, but it needs improvement rather than deletion. --CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @CohenTheBohemian:The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them. So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this might be an odd case of having adequate sources to establish GNG but ultimately not being suitable for a main space article. Right now, I see no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite. The peer-reviewed paper from 1968 would largely have been replaced by more modern theories (I think), but we seem to have enough to keep, perhaps as an "anti-ageing activist"? Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep Meets criteria of WP:GNG. However, article has to be rewritten according to the encyclopedia rules in order to have a value for people.

ContributorMix (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete: The few appropriate references fail to support the listed facts. If this passes WP:GNG (which I don't think it does) it should be rewritten from scratch, preferably after a good read of WP:BACKWARD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them. So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete: Qualifications are unsourced, and what is sourced is not notable enough, fails WP:GNG in my opinion. GraziePrego (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. He's only known for being a symbol of testosterone and nothing more. This is my first time particpating in AFD, so my arguments may be a bit invalid. I have removed the orphan tag from the article because I have added his name to his alma maters. For the sources, Jeffry Life is only mentioned as a bodybulider at an old age, and nothing else. Passing mention of Life, the Financial Times doesn't have that much info which I believe mentions that Life was in a commericial(?) the Time article only inclues him in an image, a quick search of Google Books and I found that Life is mentioned only once outside his own books, and there's a passing mention in this USA today article.

The rest of the books are passing mentions of Life and some of them are SPS. Tarantula (speak with me) (my legacy) 03:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete Interviews can’t be used to justify notability. Not much RS coverage beyond that. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spiderone 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Vijay Vasant Tambay

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination. There are sources, just not currently in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Liz 03:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge

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

Zero citations, entirety of content primary-sourced and/or unverified. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep: Unsourced, yes, but sources exist for it. Here are some sources that I believe would qualify notability: . Part of the problem seems to be the account TCWRCD (t c), which edited the article a few times years ago and seems to be owned by the organization. However, I don't think it should be deleted considering the notability of the subject. StartOkayStop (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. There seems to be a lot of secondary coverage of this subject over many years. Here are some more sources in addition to the ones above, . Plenty more. Note also that despite the TCWRCD account's involvement, the article as it stands is not overly promotional, and just need a minor npov pass (along with the need for verification) —siro χ o 05:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep: the sources cited above have WP:SIGCOV of the wildlife refuge and establish notability. The article can be copyedited to fix any neutrality issues. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Liz 03:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Larry Block

AfDs for this article:

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

Character actor with limited notability. I searched books and news sources and found other individuals with his name who are more notable, but no news articles, interviews or other things outside of series fan pages or Facebook mentions, to warrant him inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Putting up for discussion in case other editors have notable sources. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Entertainment. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple significant roles in notable media including:
- films: Shamus (film), Hardcore (1979 film).
- stage: Shlemiel the First (musical) (verification in ).
- tv: Sesame Street

Note also that this subject seems to be primarily a stage actor. Given this and the pre-internet era, I think BASIC is likely met as well based on what I've found. Here's sources we can combine per WP:BASIC, for coverage of the subject's acting ability. (some of these may also qualify for NACTOR, but I'm being cautious as the productions don't have articles on Knowledge (XXG) at this time): ,. This does not represent an exhaustive search, as I haven't checked other newspaper archives yet. —siro χ o 05:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep - I did find sourcing for a number of films, and one stage performance. I have no access to sourcing on TV shows. Most likely he worked behind the scenes in the entertainment field, and filled in for small roles. But where would the entertainment business be without the background actors? — Maile (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see more assesment on recent sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep - I agree with @siroχo here. The sources he has found shows that the subject meets WP:BASIC.Hkkingg (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 02:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Anastacia Brice

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Kpg jhp jm 04:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Not meeting GNG, puffy sources, PR pieces and flowery language. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. COI vanity or fanpage. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. with newly located sources. Liz 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Red Sneakers

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

No SIGCOV. Two sources, one of which is IMDB. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Received 4 notable awards. (see this); and this)

And review in the NYT

(Also this, fwiw) Film internationally distributed (in French, for example as La Légende de Reggie Reynolds)

I am willing to add those sources to the page when/if it is kept.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

None of those are significant coverage. The first is a photo caption, the second is a list of films, I can't open the NYT and the fourth is from a non-reliable-source website. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

....you can’t open the NYT... well, that’s too bad, really....it’s significant enough. And so are the awards, for which the first sources are presented. Just look them up. As for the last source, I don’t know the site but insisted l mentioned it for what it was worth (Please try and read my comment more carefully when you reply, thanks.) This film is clearly notable. Maybe this, this, this brief mention based on a interview, in the Chicago Tribune and this review in The Christian Science Monitor and this one in the Sun Sentinel will help. No further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give you the NYT, I'm able to sort of see the headline in the NYT link above. With the other (Christian Science and the Florida paper), should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
~~Delete~~: I can only find coverage about red shoes in general, nothing about this television item. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep with the sources given, reviews help for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the New York Times, Sun Sentinel, Dove Foundation and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:NFILM due to the awards and also multiple reliable sources.Hkkingg (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Much better than it was, but I question a couple of the sources, particularly in the Awards section. One award is sourced from a photo caption in Jet magazine and another from a book published by Lulu.com, which is a vanity press. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article and the opinion that the sources used in the article and brought up in this discussion are indeed reliable. Liz 01:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Guyver: The Bioboosted Armor

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

No reliable secondary sources attest to the notability of this, yet another anime spinoff. Sourcing consists of a primary Funimation link (don't click on it), and another one, an ANN page about a subject that doesn't even mention the subject, and a dead link to a forum. Existence does not equate to notability.

PROD removed by an IP editor, who said only "linked sources provide adequate references", which I think is obviously incorrect. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep; this article is poor but there are tons of reviews in reliable sources: Anime News Network, THEM Anime Reviews, DVD Talk, UK Anime Network, Otaku USA, Ain't It Cool News, The Fandom Post, AnimeNation, among others. Link20XX (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I looked at all of them, and they are all user-submitted reviews on websites that don't even claim to have editorial overview of these reviews. These fan sites don't qualify as WP:RS, and if ANN is accepted for data like publishing information etc., that doesn't mean the user-submitted reviews on that website add to notability per the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  - These are not "fan sites" as you suggest but reliable sources that have been heavily discussed at WP:ANIME/RS. To address some of the individual sources, Anime News Network's reviews are widely accepted across the website to be reliable and count towards notability (or else s significant amount of the articles about anime/manga would fail notability). Otaku USA is a magazine and far from a fan site. DVD Talk, Ain't It Cool News, AnimeNation, and THEM Anime Reviews are all in the same boat. The remaining don't have Knowledge (XXG) pages but have been nonetheless determined to be written by authoritive individuals in the subject. Link20XX (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
    - They don't show up in Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but the question is whether something made notable only by mention on such fan sites (or whatever you want to call them) is notable in general: as we all know, sites like ANN write up everything that appears, meaning everything would be notable. That a "significant amount of the articles about anime/manga would fail notability" seems like a given to me, but that's not a concern here. Just to look at DVD Talk, apparently the best that could be said about them is "worth a visit" and "a source of information for DVDs"--how could any of that mean anything for notability per GNG? Ain't It Cool News is best known for its founder being accused of sexual assault--where is that site proven to be reliable and noteworthy? Where, on their website, is a statement about their editorial policy? ANIME/RS can say what it wants, but if something can't even be proven to be reliable, it shouldn't be a factor in determining notability. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
      - The IP address below linked to an IGN review, which is listed at WP:RSP. But even despite the other sources not being listed at RSP, that pages notes that sources might not be on the list because they "cover a niche topic" and that "For sources in a specific field, there may be more information about reliability of them provided by specific WikiProjects", which is exactly the purpose of that page. You said ANN "covers everything" but this is innacurate and ANN has some topics it has not covered (for instance Manhole (manga) was on the main page without citing ANN once). WP:GNG/WP:NTV do not make any mention that sources do not count towards notability just because they usually cover niche topics. I'm not gonna discuss why people came to the consensus they did, but discussions in the past have come to the consensus that they are reliable and I've seen articles be kept at AfD with less than half this many sources (like Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Judas (manga)] or Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Pavane for a Dead Girl). Link20XX (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  @Drmies Passing comment: I consider THEM Anime Reviews reliable-ish as they have editorial control. Users don't post reviews, they have staff . I think they have an application for staff position place somewhere in their forums. I know b/c ages ago I wrote a review for them on the forums and they rejected it for not being good enough. So, errrr, they have some standards :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep; There is at least 1 source that clearly mentions guyver. source 4. there are 2 external links, one to IMDB and the other to Anime News Network that clearly and prominently displays the anime and contains clear information about it. a physical magazine is referenced, I don't know how to access that but I'm sure it could be confirmed in a major library. That seems to be fairly credible sources to me, but if that is not notable enough then I guess it doesn't deserve a page, even though this was a published work and was very popular at the time. I don't really know how wikpedia works to be honest but you asked for my input so that's the best I can do. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Mentioning" something only helps toward proving existence, and "existence does not equate to notability"--I said that already in the PROD, which you reverted without, apparently, reading it. IMDB is not an acceptable source. ANN isn't one either, at least not in terms of notability. A physical magazine--if you can't point at what it is and what its editorial practices are, it's not very helpful. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  - Ok, well I'm afraid I don't understand what PROD is and the idea that IMDB is not a decent source seems wild to me. I can't even begin to imagine what these guidelines would deem acceptable. is IGN acceptable? https://www.ign.com/articles/2008/12/16/guyver-the-complete-series ? I mean pretty much everyone I've spoken to knows what the Guyver anime is, so this is crazy. well good luck with it. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
    - If you don't understand what "PROD" is you can look it up--but you were interested enough to remove it. No, IMDB is not a reliable source. I can point you to WP:RS, which is not crazy. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
      I have ADHD, I can't deal with all those regulations. you're good at that stuff so I bow to your guidance. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Anime and manga, and Japan. Link20XX (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:GNG with plenty of reviews listed above including: IGN, Anime News Network, a Chris Beveridge byline at The Fandom Post (note this site is not affiliated with Fandom.com), and a Ross Locksley (né Ross Liversidge) byline at UK Anime Network. None of these publications are considered generally unreliable, the named authors are widely cited both on Knowledge (XXG) and in other reliable sources. I see no reason to consider these specific pieces unreliable for purposes of this article/discussion. If we wish to consider any of these publications generally unreliable, I believe the discussion would need to take place at WP:RSN per WP:CONLEVEL. —siro χ o 05:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete most (if not all) are trivial mentions, rest are from fansites. Might be coverage in the native-language media, but I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep - ANN, IGN, and Otaku USA are reliable sources and their reviews count as WP:SIGCOV. --Mika1h (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep The provided sources by Link are reliable per WP:ANIME/RS and are non WP:SPS, they are written by the sites hired writers. Jumpytoo Talk 05:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Per User:Siroxo (I agree those are reviews in RS), and my comment above on why I think THEM is RS as well. That's enough to meet GNG IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep per other editors pointing out the reviews in reliable sources. Comment: ANN at least has editorial oversight and does not accept fan-written reviews, contrary to the OP's statements. Also, as @Siroxo says, this is the wrong place to discuss the reliability of specific sources. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. Dream Focus 18:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep ANN ... fan site ... user-submitted reviews ... what??? Charcoal feather (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Instabase. Liz 01:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Anant Bhardwaj

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV or WP:INHERIT. Article is basically a repeat of Instabase ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete. as per nom. no Independent RS found Worldiswide (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Software, India, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Instabase, as with the first AfD. Edwardx (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Instabase: The firm is notable, this individual isn't. I can't find much sourcing beyond puffy sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Instabase.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)