Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 29

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Cobras

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

Fails GNG. It has been edited almost exclusively by one IP editor (although their specific IPv6 has changed, all of them edit in the same pattern and time) since April 2020. Before that, it received little editorial attention. It has had a {{more citations needed}} since February 2011. There are nearly no inline citations. It has nearly 0 sources to corroborate the majority of information in the article. Of the 4 that exist, only 1 is reliable and has significant coverage (Chicago Tribune). Attempts to find sources have failed, as nothing that I can find satisfies RS and also has coverage beyond 2 words (or 3). It also reads as a FORUM and is full of ultimately unverifiable information. If it does turn out to be notable, it would be far better to blow it up. WhoAteMyButter (🌇talk│🍂contribs) 23:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable and has many sources, particularly in newspapers and crime-related sources. Article would be better re-written instead, not deleted. I withdraw my deletion nomination. WhoAteMyButter (🌇talk│🍂contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From poking around, there is an insane amount of coverage on the (Insane) Spanish Cobras, especially starting around June 1977. So there is WP:RSed coverage via newspapers.com and from the Schaumburg Police Department educational pamphlet on street gangs covers them. Surely, any city police department with a gang unit would most likely have material on them. There is coverage in books. 1, 2, 3 and more. There's coverage in newspapers and here by a guy who says he's only interested in researching 20th century (street) gangs. In 2019. They feature in arts and culture too, and the FBI's got a file on them. Perennial crime coverage won't stop. So stay tuned for more to come, folks, as they are a "folk" gang, not a "people" gang. 4, 5, 6, in 2023. United Gangs, Hour Detroit has brief mentions. Perhaps the article should be worked on. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good reference finds, greatly appreciated! Disappointed in myself that I couldn't find them. Seems they definitely are notable. Although, I do believe the article should be re-done anew. I'll see what I can do and work on. WhoAteMyButter (🌇talk│🍂contribs) 21:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to withdraw my nomination, there's certainly a lot of potential here. WhoAteMyButter (🌇talk│🍂contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ but noting also that the nomination was withdrawn, hence the early close. Star Mississippi 17:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 1997 North American storm complex

October 1997 North American storm complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is totally unsourced and any assertions that prove notability should be unsourced. WP:BEFORE search shows vague results that may not be this storm as with no sources there’s nothing to base which storm this even is. Should be deleted per WP:TNT and restarted. Nominated on behalf of User:74.101.92.237 at Talk:October 1997 North American storm complex#Reason for deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also expanded the article which should meet notability guidelines. Tails Wx 23:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After further researching, I found 1997 Western Plains winter storms, which should be merged to this article or even redirected to this article should it not be deleted. Tails Wx 12:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heysell Martínez

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. NOTE: Name also spelled Heyssel in sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 22:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes

AfDs for this article:
List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure WP:FANCRUFT, with healthy doses of WP:OR and speculation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Both keep and delete side have some bad arguments that aren't policy based, but consensus does lean very heavily towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yandere Simulator

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

Most of the body of this article, other than the plot and lede, seems to be just WP:ROUTINE. There is some reliable sources that cover it, but that does not always justify notability. Other than the sources, the article seems to be a collection of random information that does not wish to justify the body. Taking into account the numerous WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP situations associated with this article with them being constantly removed for good reason, it should be decided whether this game meets WP:GNG accounting for how the current article presents itself. The sources are fine, but the body suggests that it is just a collection of illegitimate information that doesn't seem to justify how Yandere Simulator is notable. 8ID (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete To be frank, I think it's really easy for someone to make a standard "but there's coverage" GNG argument. I think this is one of those cases where we should really pay attention to the fact that GNG very carefully notes that these are just "indicators" and a discussion may still find the topic non-notable for an encyclopedia. I pretty much agree with the nominator. There was a flash of coverage, mostly driven by the controversial nature of the game, and then it all dried up. It doesn't seem any reliable sources have appeared in the last 3-4 years, despite the game's rocky development continuing. Nom has already pointed out the BLP issues, since half the coverage is about the developer, and half about the game. If we look at it from an WP:NPRODUCT view, sustained coverage is failed. Frankly, I don't believe there's any long-term significance here. I also want the note that this article has recently required Oversight due to BLP allegations lacking any reliable secondary coverage. The talk page has the details on THAT. -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the absolute worse kind of deletion rationale. "There are tons of sources, but it doesn't seem notable". What does that even mean? How are you defining routine coverage? The essay you linked doesn't really support your rationale, either. I see reliable sources about this ranging from its release to a day ago (although, yesterday's coverage was less than pleasant). Clearly it has sustained coverage (and even then, notability is not temporary). Any BLP issues can be taken by locking it, especially when the article is about the game and not the developer. (Although, obviously, the developer will have to be mentioned.) Why? I Ask (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the current ongoing controversy (I haven't seen any reliable coverage, only blogs, social media and unreliable sites) about the game, or about the developer? It seemed wholly focused on the developer, with mention of the game being passing. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The current controversy applies to the game too. Here is a reliable source that shows that it is being impacted (voice actors and volunteers are stepping away from the project and the game is explained). Yet despite the coverage, the nature cannot really be included in the article due to obvious BLP issues. 8ID (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see MarySue and TheGamer were both just added to the article. Both I think have been considered questionable sources in the past, with TheGamer being until the Valnet umbrella which are generally seen as not suitable for BLP claims (Screen Rant, Game Rant, etc). -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad if they aren't suitable, I can go ahead and remove them if that's what you want. Jurta talk 21:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Mary Sue and TheGamer are reliable if they aren't focused on bloggy, spammy coverage which I do not think this is. But even then, a small mention could be made that they have stepped down from the project without mentioning why to avoid BLP (since grooming is a pretty steep accusation and the sources aren't concretely, super reliable). Why? I Ask (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are tons of reliable sources for the original subject of Kiwi Farms, yet any mention of them is not allowed because discussion, not the availability of sources, determined that they are not noteworthy of anything particular. Like Ferret said, they are just indicators and discussion can determine if these indicators are still valid. A good indicator is just by looking at Google News for this year alone. Everything there cannot be particularly included, well, because it does not add to the context of this article and not to mention the BLP violations from sources that are not deemed reliable. Sure, it has coverage, but any sustained coverage from up to now would not be placed in this article due to WP:BLP and the lack of further sources that do not vaguely appear to be just WP:ROUTINE. Like my first point, further discussion is required from other editors to determine if general notability really applies to the subject of this AfD. 8ID (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does. It was seen as a notable in 2017, so it would still be notable today. Even if it only got major coverage from its release to something like 2018, notability is not temporary. The reliable sources already present in the article from those years is plenty for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed again, just because big time outlets don't often cover the game anymore doesn't make it any less notable. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are plenty of reliable sources and the game is incredibly notable. It has billions of views across YouTube and TikTok coverage and has plenty of media coverage as well. This is the sad part about indie games on Wikipedia, since not all coverage is going to be mainstream their articles often don't get enough justice. A part of me feels like this article is only being nominated due to the developer being somewhat of an asshole. I completely understand that and agree, but I think this game getting years of coverage (and in light of recent accusations will probably skyrocket the coverage) I feel the article needs to stay. I don't understand the rationale of deleting this whatsoever. If the worry is vandalism, that's been taken care of for years, the article could just be locked if it's that big of a deal. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC) — MarkJames1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete This is a video game that is still in development; no official release date has been announced nor are there any independent sources which indicate that a formal release may be imminent. While the article has gotten some media coverage, most of this was confined to the mid to late 2010s. There has been coverage recently, but this has focused predominantly on the developer rather than the game. (As 8ID mentioned, these sources carry significant BLP concerns restricting our ability to use them). Fundamentally, I see this as an unreleased product that got a flash of coverage before interest waned. Generally, I would not bring in the WP:NOTNEWS policy or our guideline against creating articles that only received “mere short-term interest” for an article that has received a few years of coverage. However, in this specific instance I think it is appropriate to apply these rules to the article’s coverage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter if the game was released or not. Indefinitely worked on or even cancelled projects can still be notable, so that aspect of your argument means very little. And we also have different views. "A few years of coverage" is more than enough for thousands of Wikipedia pages. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean it's got a completed story, millions of downloads, and a lot of coverage. Minecraft was the same way, and you could argue that Fortnite was never completed. This isn't as unique of a case as it seems. It's for sure a notable game. Not to mention, like another user said, "A few years of coverage" has been more than enough for plenty upon plenty of Wikipedia articles. MarkJames1989 (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, when a topic gets several years of media coverage, we'll have enough information to write a comprehensive article covering all of the main aspects of the article in at least some level for detail. This article is not comprehensive; the available sources have given us a collection of random bits and pieces of information, mostly from the first few years of Yandere Simulator's existence. The sources really just do not provide enough information to write a decent article. Regarding unreleased creative works, Wikipedia does generally require strong evidence of likely publication before allowing the creation of articles. For unpublished books, we generally require independent sources providing both the title and approximate publication dates. For unpublished music compilations, we require independent sources providing the title, cover image, release date, and track listing. For unpublished movies, we require independent sources that confirm that principal photography has started. The general trend across these guidelines is that we do not create articles on unpublished works unless independent, reliable sources have confirmed enough progress has been made on the unpublished work that future publication is very likely. This has obviously not occurred with Yandere Simulator. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not comparable. Forms of the (uncompleted) game are out. You can't discuss unpublished books, movies, or albums on the same vein as a game that has been played all over YouTube. The demo itself is already notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fundamental issue here is that the existing coverage consists of a bunch of bits and pieces of information mainly released during the first few years of the game's development. I'm not impressed by the breadth of the sources and I don't believe that a few years of early coverage on a topic that's been ongoing for nearly a decade amounts to sustained coverage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see any reasons for deleting the page. Anyway, we have such pages as RapeLay. Why don't we delete it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Shadow666666 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Dark Shadow666666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NegativeMP1 01:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eurogamer article, Kotaku article, and the Vice article used as a source in the page show that GNG is clearly passed. Whether or not it's notable because of its own merits or because it's exceedingly controversial don't really matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned, only that it got coverage from major sites, which it clearly did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because the developer's a subject of controversy, doesn't mean the page should be deleted. Rickraptor707 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consistently covered in gaming publications for several years now. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has been linked to from a major Yandere Simulator subreddit. I’m not sharing the link since there’s a lot of BLP stuff, but the post has gotten hundreds of upvotes and contains comments providing instructions on how to vote in AfD nominations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A subreddit that hates the developer of the game and yet they still want the article up. Hundreds of upvotes yet you're trying to argue the game isn't notable.
    Something tells me the game is notable. MarkJames1989 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Popularity on reddit and youtube are not part of WP:N or any SNG. -- ferret (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at here. Yes, sources cover this game, but is there enough material for the game to really be anything beyond the state the article is in now? The game is notorious (amongst the Internet, which means nothing for notability) for having an absurdly long development cycle to the point where the situation could be comparable to what happened over at KFConsole, the game will never be finished and most of the coverage comes from stuff from years ago with silence afterwards from most sources up until the developers recent outing as a potential groomer. It's even possible from rumors that the game was never intended to be finished to begin with, and no reception for the game exists. I think cancelled games can have articles, but based on what this game has and will likely have for as long as time lasts, this game and page have no long-lasting value or notability. NegativeMP1 01:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition the the sources provided by others above, here is an additional academic source covering the game:
  • Janik, Justyna. (Re)weave the Gameplay. Analysis of the spatial textures in Yandere Simulator. Philosophy of Computer Games Conference 2017.
If there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, then it should be kept, even if we WP:DONTLIKEIT. Jumpytoo Talk 03:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns here (as page creator) is finding sourcing that does more than give brief announcement or summarize primary sources. This looks like a good step in that direction. The person in question is a PhD student and it looks like the event was held at a university. The main thing would be trying to establish that this event had significant oversight in what was presented, which would be the biggest difficulty. This book mentions the presentation, but I'm not familiar with the publisher. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is better, as it's a PhD dissertation and while the game is used as an example of a larger topic, the author goes into some detail and also provides commentary in a reasonably neutral fashion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep
I am in favour of keeping this page because I don't quite see any reason to delete it. We have lots of sources over a sustained couple of years. I also believe it meets the threshold of notability enough to be sufficient. It is my belief the only reason this is coming up is due to recent controversy surrounding the developer. Radiourgía Promithéas (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Radiourgía Promithéas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Page creator here. I wasn't sure of notability when I created the page. I'm STILL not 100% sure on notability because ultimately the game suffers from the same issues source-wise that it did when I made it, controversy coverage aside.
Those issues ultimately center upon a depth of coverage. There's a lot of coverage out there but what I had problems with was that the coverage was kind of shallow. An outlet would report on the game, but said coverage was more along the lines of short articles that basically said "this is going to come out" or articles that were essentially them summarizing YandereDev videos or another outlet's article on the topic. It was actually kind of difficult to find anything that could feel like someone commenting on the game itself or "reviewing" the test builds as in most cases this would be limited to a couple of sentences rather than anything in-depth. This was an especially big issue with the updates. Those kind of took on a "slow news day" feel, as they tended to fall into the "reprint of press release" hole.
Case in point is this article from Silicon Era, where it's just a summary of a YD video. It looks good, but when you really look at it you'll notice that it lacks any true commentary or reception on the update. Another example comes from Destructoid, where the article is little more than a basic announcement article. These are borderline trivial sources and unfortunately, most of the coverage out there is like this.
That's not to say that this topic is completely non-notable. I wouldn't have made it if I thought that was the case, but I will admit that I created it with the thought that future coverage would make up for the sub-par coverage at the time. That's on me. My thought here is that we need to look to see if there's any better sourcing, particularly ones that do more than just summarize and give brief mentions. We need more in-depth coverage and especially ones that give some sort of review of the game and/or the updates. My concern is basically this: if the game coverage stops here, then is the coverage enough to justify notability in ten years? I personally don't really think the coverage in the article is enough to do that but I think there's a good chance that the needed coverage is out there. (And hopefully hasn't been taken down by those outlets.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to make my basic point: I think the article needs some cleanup to really determine notability. I'll try to make some time for this task this week, but my job has really been keeping me off Wikipedia lately so if anyone else wants to help with this please do! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and being a meme is not a disqualifier for inclusion despite people assuming that "ridiculous" topics should not be covered. It goes by whether reliable sources have seen the subject as important enough to write about, which they have, and that's really all there is to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I’m not sure why a game that’s produced collaborations with other indie games, has released multiple demos, and still receives notable news coverage from reliable sources is being proposed as “not notable” because the current article version needs work, because the creator’s notoriety attracts vandalism or drama, or even the bizarre notion that it USED TO have more coverage then it does now. Those are not valid reasons for removing an article on Wikipedia. Even the submission acknowledges the plethora of notable sources in the article. It makes sense a game that once had more active development but still hasn’t released would have coverage dry up - all video gaming coverage is like this especially for indie games like this. Sorry but this whole nomination feels like it was done in bad faith. Rebochan (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - controversial subject but appears to meet requirements on notability and referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is Wikipedia not a website about providing a knowledge base for as many subjects as possible, in an explanatory method, as opposed to the Internet Archive's storage of actual content? Considering the notoriety of this game I really think it makes no sense to all of a sudden remove the article. Somehow I feel that people are proposing the deletion of this article because they want to retaliate against the developer for a recent controversy. It would seem to anybody impartial that the right solution is not to try and sweep the internet of any mention or "homage" to him in any form it takes, but to put, in all available spaces, some coverage of the controversies. I will note that this article has made mention of the controversies over the game itself, and bringing up the controversies over the developer on the same page seems like a solution that will not inflate a sense of the game's notoriety but instead give a space where a game that is pretty notorious gets a fairly summarized overview. If the issue of not having enough information or referential material is up for question, then the solution is again not to delete the article, but to provide the information and the references, which the internet provides a myriad of, as this is a game that has achieved quite a level of infamy; but, like similar games such as the PC game Harvester, needs summaries of the controversies for people to read and make up their own mind about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.71.123 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, almost none of that is based in our policies and guidelines. The problem with Yandere Simulator is that it had a burst of coverage around 2016. Then, until this most recent controversy about the developer, not about the game, no reliable sources were covering it further. This is where the WP:NPRODUCT argument about sustained coverage comes in. It was controversial, had a burst of coverage, then disappeared from secondary reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This game, despite being unreleased, is still quite notable and has had much significant coverage. I think the development process itself is notable in this case. Bensci54 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Several of the sources demonstrate clear notability. Yes, the game is unreleased, but that does not make it unnotable. The reception section especially shows the real world development. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in my personal judgement we are at that point where lolcows should have articles if they've done something profound enough that warrants one. This article isn't about Alex Mahan, sure, but it's about his passion project and it's a part of internet culture. It's so much bigger than just a game which in itself has countless countless countless sources by PC game journalists detailing it. But if none of that matters and we are looking at this solely from the "video game article perspective" alone then my question is rather: why do so many articles exist for trivial Nintendo 64 games then? Many of which don't "meet WP:GNG", but this on the other hand can pass almost four times over when compared to those. Second Skin (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet selection

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

No sources, disputed definition. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar Khan Khoso

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

Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 20:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Andrus

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

I don't think "first African American in the United States to earn a PhD in juvenile justice" is a noteworthy enough first to get a Wikipedia page, and the lack of any national news coverage seems to support that. The fact that his U.S. Senate campaign has also attracted little attention is also telling. Also--and I know this isn't really relevant but it's worth mentioning--the article is terribly written and not at all neutral. Sentences like "For more information or to make a donation to the Tracy Andrus Foundation, please visit www.tracyandrusfoundation.com" should not be on Wikipedia. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Running for Senate isn't notable. There are few hits for a female Tracy Andrus, who was the daughter of the Idaho governor at one point, nothing found for this person. Routine coverage, having to shut down his foundation because of the political campaign etc. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My fave is when the showers for the homeless people are open, given days of the week and hours of operation. I don't know what to say, this isn't a social services directory; if having showers available is what the creator thinks gets you a wiki article, well, just don't bother creating it. Flowery language... I'd have deleted this for promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Critchley

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

There are no independent sources that I could find that would make this individual notable (nor does the article have any such sources), thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about...other fellowships also confer notability , IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since meets PROF#C3. @Ozzie10aaaa, you are right that the other fellowships do not contribute to notability. As in many British societies they are a senior membership level that one applies for and pays higher dues. Often there is an Honorary Fellow level in those societies which does meet C3. However there was an independent source for the RSE fellowship in the article when it was nominated for deletion. The link was dead, as are many, since it was an http address and the society had converted to https addresses. That security change has caused a lot of dead links for us, so something to check before nominating. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma Purely for clarity, I'd say FMedSci definitely also counts, as an honorary elected fellowship of the Academy of Medical Sciences, which also checks out with source (though wasn't in the article at time of nomination.) I probably should not have rolled the other fellowships up into one sentence. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict, like the US National Academy of Sciences, members of the Academy of Medical Sciences are elected for "exceptional contributions' as explained here, so definitely counts as meeting C3. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to ANT1. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANT1 Prime

ANT1 Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not meet WP:GNG as a former television network due to a complete lack of secondary coverage. I suppose a redirect to ANT1 Group might be reasonable, but I appreciate any other thoughts. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎. My WP:BEFORE was not especially good this time, it seems. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 10:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The One About Friends

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

This episode of The Cleveland Show does not individually meet WP:GNG. The references used are insufficient for a determination that the subject is notable, and my WP:BEFORE did not reveal significant coverage elsewhere. Articles about television series' episodes, like all articles, need to be about subjects that are notable in order to merit inclusion. Unilateral redirection was attempted two times, by longstanding editors, but has been reverted by IPs, and the most recent restoration was done by an IP with a singular focus on the series (see WP:SPA). —Alalch E. 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. St. James, Emily (2009-10-12). ""The Great Wife Hope"/"The One About Friends"/"Spies Reminiscent of Us"/"Home Adrone"". The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 2023-10-01. Retrieved 2023-10-01.

      This is a 262-word review of the episode. The review notes: "The Cleveland Show: This one I’m a little less sure on. There were fewer laughs than in last week’s episode – outside of pretty much anything featuring Cleveland, Jr., and Cleveland’s inappropriate come-ons to a variety of teenage boys – but the storyline made a lot more sense. I mean, if you’re the kind of person who thinks that a man having an opossum stuck to his penis equals instant laughs, it’s entirely possible this was your favorite episode of television of all time, but I’m sad to say I’m not that kind of person. The cut-away gags still aren’t working, as though the show is trying to figure out a way to be its parent show without really being its parent show. ... Grade: B-"

    2. Haque, Ahsan (2009-10-12). "The Cleveland Show: "The One About Friends" Review". IGN. Archived from the original on 2023-10-01. Retrieved 2023-10-01.

      This is a 565-word review of the episode. The review notes: "Thankfully the best gag of the episode was reserved for Ernie's possum latching on to Cleveland's crotch. Sure the entire segment of a naked Cleveland trying to wrestle this creature off his crotch came across as very juvenile, but it was pretty well done and it's hard not to laugh at the sight of Cleveland humping a dresser in attempt to shake the possum off. ... The other memorable segment of the episode was towards the end when Cleveland and a small army of rednecks attempt to rescue Ernie from his foster home. The ensuing gunfight was ridiculously over-the-top and was nicely choreographed, with plenty of bullets and the kind of violence you'd expect to see from a show like this."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow "The One About Friends" to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudokuro

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

I found one short review and a few very short announcement articles like this one, but no real significant coverage. QuietCicada (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Algerian-Israeli naval incident

2021 Algerian-Israeli naval incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Not news. A transient event that had no consequences. Can easely be added in a section to Algeria-Israel relations instead of a whole new article. Dl.thinker (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On face value this incident seems notable - this isn't a particularly unusual type of event, but they're rarely this well documented as they're usually hushed up by both sides (for instance, it's been reported that an Australian submarine got trapped in netting off China during a Cold War intelligence gathering mission, but essentially no further details have ever been released by either government). However, I'm concerned about the sourcing, which is somewhat low quality and includes Fars News which is definitely not a reliable source. Are better quality sources available here? Googling doesn't turn up anything of higher quality, which makes me somewhat skeptical. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A minor incident with no significant repercussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There has been an abject lack of actual discussion from those !voting 'keep' that would establish the notability of this subject. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Ali Palijo (singer)

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

Created as a redirect to a now deleted page. Appears to fail NMUSIC/NACTOR.

Background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asad Ali Palijo, [3], [4] KH-1 (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to do better than that. Refs 3, 4, 5, 11 just list him a cast member (no SIGCOV or indication of whether the role is notable), and he's not specifically mentioned in the rest. Plus you'll need at least two notable credits to have a chance at WP:NACTOR.-KH-1 (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, Has played major and notable roles in movies. M. Umar Lal‬ (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Umar Lal (talk • contribs) [reply]
None of these sources do not have significant coverage of the subject playing major and notable roles in movies. Doesn't pass GNG nor NACTOR based on the given references. Tails Wx 02:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official accounts post [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Wikee (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Liga 3 Riau

2023 Liga 3 Riau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Refs in article and BEFORE showed nothing other than promo, stats and game recaps. Nothing meets independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  10:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Criminal Minds characters#Jason Gideon with the history under the redirect if you'd like to work on it in Draft, BD2412. Star Mississippi 16:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gideon

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

Sources in the article are primary (one's an interview with the actor, other is just a random trivia fact released by CBS), 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 List of Criminal Minds characters#Jason Gideon. Spinixster (chat!) 10:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. (non-admin closure) 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Finlay

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

Sources in the article are more about the actor, 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 List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Calv

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

After Draft:Julian Calv was rejected for failing WP:NMUSICIAN, this article was simply recreated in main space instead, which is not a promising sign. The draft itself was subsequently deleted after a PROD nomination.

The subject appears to be a busker and member of a non-notable avant-garde chamber music ensemble "Non Prophets" (NB - not Non-Prophets) with some local-interest coverage but no evidence of yet meeting inclusion criteria. The single Route 4/Thorn and Roots is included in this nomination and contains a couple of additional references.

The main article references are:

  • (1) Primary (dekoentertainment.com).
  • (2) Local (Seven Days; perhaps the most interesting reference in that it is in the form of a comic strip).
  • (3) Local and passing (Valley News; the article describes a charity event which included a Non Prophets performance).
  • (4) Not a reliable source (The Comenian; student media)

The single article references are:

  • (1) Primary (antiMusic; written in the first person).
  • (2) Primary (press release in allaboutjazz.com).

There is therefore no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or any of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Known for his intimate concerts", yet has no coverage in sources... I can't find anything for this person. Delete for not meeting NMSUIC. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neither album nor musician shows any notability as far as I can tell, and there is no mention of their popularity or success.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiralwidget (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavleen Gujral

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

No RS independent coverage (all interviews or quotes from subject) for this minor actress from Delhi who has not, despite the article's claims, had a starring role in a major production. Web series, non-speaking/small parts - the actors and actresses she has worked with do not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer more thoughtful rationales than merely "Keep" with no further explanation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chatham County, North Carolina#Townships. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albright Township, Chatham County, North Carolina

Albright Township, Chatham County, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and substantively fails WP:NGEO as it is functionally similar to an "area in an irrigation district", as townships in NC have been politcally defunct (though technically legally extant) since 1880. All sources I can find are either old copies of legislation/legal documents with single mentions or websites that scrape from the US census. The provided source for the "Geography" section doesn't even label the township or show its borders, it's just a map of North Carolina that one can zoom in and out of. Indy beetle (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sure I see the utility of having a redirect even after deletion.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manavs

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

The topic is definitely notable and deserves an encyclopaedic entry. However, it was extensively edited by POV-pushing sockpuppets: Öztürküm (the creator), Kumanof, Hatymat, Lionzm, Suyumbikä, ManavAnton. Basically, the majority of the edits and content are from the aforementioned accounts. There are clusters of several sources that need verification, and since they are all placed after the end of each paragraph and not interspersed throughout, there is likely a problem of synthesis. To save time, I suggest a WP:TNT for this article, so that when it is created again, reliable sources are used with a NPOV. Aintabli (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R/art

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV. The only sources specifically covering it are related to a controversy in late 2022. A bunch of other sources are about art on Reddit in general but only fleetingly mention r/art as one (of very many) places the reader can find that. ― novov (t c) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Reddit. Possibly merge the controversy section with AI art, though I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be worth mentioning there. On reconsidering, I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. There's not a lot of major coverage, but I think what's there is nontrivial enough to justify an article.
Revolutionary girl euclid (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very well-known subreddit focus on art with 22 million members, if art on Reddit is to have an article at all this would be it. The controversy itself is worth keeping the page and not merging it elsewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment, many Reddit sub r/ are notable and a precedent should not be set for considered them for deletion or merging (or picking topic articles off one-by-one, as seems to come up on AfD too often). This one is one of the major r/, known to artists and art historians, and if it gives space to covering a controversy then that only adds to its sources and notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but I'm seeing No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the AI art section is so notable then the entire article of this well-known community is notable. Your found sources add to the already adequate sourcing of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Adobe Illustrator#File formats. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Illustrator Artwork

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

The topic does not seem to meet WP:GNG and my BEFORE is unhelpful. This is effectively a documentation cobbled from primary sources and mentions in passing. Not sure what is the best redirect target - some Adobe's software of some list of file extensions? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to: Adobe Illustrator PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi

Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2021. PROD removed because it "ran for 37 episodes". Still needs reliable sources though. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This series appeared for 10 years on NHK, Japan's primary public broadcasting station; see WP:NTVNATL, although WP:NTV cited above is not an accepted notability guideline. As noted here and here, I am concerned that there does not appear to have been sufficient WP:BEFORE performed here. Last time I wrote "WP:BEFORE directs us to 'search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.' I understand that this is not practical for all editors, but there is always the option to ask someone (say at the article's talk page, or at WT:JAPAN, etc.) before taking something like this to AfD. In this case we have a nationally-televised series from the 2000s with a double-digit audience share. How did you go about checking for sources?" Pretty much everything I said then also applies here, and I did not receive a reply last time. Dekimasuよ! 05:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More recent sources are easier to find in this case, since the show was mainly broadcast between 2007 and 2009 but the most recent episode was broadcast in 2017. That ranked fifth in the drama category for weekly viewership ratings. An article on that episode from Sports Nippon can be found here. Here is another article on that episode. The book series on which the show is based has sold 20,000,000 copies and the author discusses the TV version here. Dekimasuよ! 05:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The two notes above by Dekimasu are convincing. Notable show. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more evaluation of the new sources discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of misconduct by George Santos

Allegations of misconduct by George Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was created without consensus (as noted here, the discussion was nine !votes for the split to six against, which I agree does not quite establish a clear consensus by our usual standards), and probably against BLP even if it can be said to have had consensus ... as I said here, those advocating for a split purely because the Santos article has grown quite long err when they liken this to the separate articles about Trump's sex scandals (many of which are notable as the subject of individual lawsuits) and cheating in Formula 1 races (not a direct BLP issue). BLP as far as I understand it is not to be superseded by any other policy, certainly not WP:LENGTH. Nor do I know of any other situation where we've created a random, catch-all, grab-bag "Bad stuff about Living Person" article ... this is almost inherent POVFORK.

Yes, all summer as this discussion smoldered I said I would open a BLPN thread about it; at the very least any serious discussion of creating this spinoff should have been deferred until we could have that discussion. I didn't create it because the talk page thread wasn't really getting much interest. I've had computer difficulties in the last couple of weeks that have limited my time online (and appear at present not likely to be resolved for another couple of weeks). So unfortunately someone decided to go ahead and do this, and force the issue here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The allegations are pretty substantial, and because of Santos' position, notable. AFAICT, nothing was removed from the main George Santos article, so why would concensus be necessary to start a new article in parallel? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that Santos is a living person. As TulsaPoliticsFan notes below, we try to avoid this sort of dumping ground article, especially with BLPs. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a policy? All I know of is the referencing requirements policy, and this looks like it's decently referenced.-- Mikeblas (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I would have preferred taking this to the BLP noticeboard before creation. Since more than any other area of content we write about judgement is critical with BLP, and because of the diversity of situations that can't be readily anticipated yet can and have arisen policy there is deliberately written to allow for the exercise of judgement, ideally through community consensus, on a case-by-case basis.

    Just because BLP does not explicitly prohibit something does not mean the community necessarily intended to permit it. For instance, consider the BLPN discussion about whether we should name Santos's ex-wife. It was pointed out by the one editor very much in favor of doing so that BLPNAME, upon which most of us rested our arguments against doing this, does not explicitly say we shouldn't. The rest of us felt that BLPPRIVACY as well argued against inclusion given that while she has been named in the media, she has turned down interview requests through intermediaries and, barring some sort of investigative finding that it was purely a Green Card marriage, her name is so irrelevant to the discussion right now that it would add nothing for readers.

    Granted the same facets of BLP are not what is at play here, but IMO the same general caution should be applied. As noted in my nomination I think WP:POVFORK is relevant here, even if it is not a BLP policy, as it asks a similar leve of circumspection. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any relevant content and redirect to George Santos#Investigations and legal issues. Delete: Per nom, there is apparent pre-existing consensus against the creation of this spin-off article. Also, I agree with the nom's assessments of the BLP issues involved here, this is indeed a possible violation of WP:POVFORK. Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote amended per subsequent comments of Daniel Case and TulsaPoliticsFan. Sal2100 (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it seems like nothing (so far) has been moved from the main article so it's really just a matter of gaining consensus to delete. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the article by simply copy-pasting the relevant sections from George Santos' main article; I didn't delete anything from the main article. If necessary the article can be deleted, but I thought it seemed fine to create a new article, without deleting anything from the original, because the original was too long and there was support for it. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not faulting you for that ... but there were nuances to the talk page discussion that aren't clear simply from a !vote count. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My main concerns are WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:POVFORK. For transparency, in the split discussion I advocated potentially splitting large notable sections (the false biography scandal, the charges/trials) into articles since they'd have defined topics to cover, and largely have a beginning and end. I'm pretty concerned having a dumping ground article that is "Alleged bad things done by person" is not encyclopedic, bad practice for a BLP, and hard to maintain. The Santos article needs a split, but not this one. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is the article about the individual or about his "misconduct" allegations? It reads as a biographical article, but with an incorrect title. That's the first issue. Second, not sure BLP is met, this appears to be an attack article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete unless we can come up with some reason to keep. I can't see the value, it's too overly detailed for what it is supposed to be about. Oaktree b (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS - "Alleged" means these are not proven, and many are already in his bio article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not Wikipedia's place to compile a list of any politician's "alleged misconduct". That job falls to the news outlets, and ultimately to the United States Congress to do any investigation. And it's up to his New York constituents to decide his fate. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omukwiyugwemanya

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

Non-notable fig tree in Namibia. The first source is an actual newspaper, but the article is about sending books to Namibia and just mentions the tree in passing. The second source is a broken hyperlink. I can't find anything else about this tree online that isn't from Facebook or a wordpress blog. BusterTheMighty (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News Watch (Indonesian TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2016. PROD removed because "it ran for 3 years". Still needs reliable sources though DonaldD23 talk to me 03:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. And thank you to the article subject for their graciousness. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Codrington

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. The subject also has previously edited their own page, declaring a COI. 30Four (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I take the comments by the article subject as a Keep so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked hard for sources. He is discussed at some length here:
  • Coming face to face through narratives: evaluating from our evolutionary history the contemporary risk factors and their conceptualisation within a technologised society [34]
but that's not a widely cited paper. His work quoted/cited at some length here:
  • Move over, baby boomers and millennials - 'founders' will be shaping the future [35]
His own papers aren't widely cited (although they are cited). There are a lot of interviews, a lot of mentions in "the future of x" type articles, and a lot of mentions in keynote addresses and such. Clearly he gets around. I just don't see the impact sufficient to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR which I think is the right standard here. Oblivy (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some more reading about Wikipedia's criteria for WP:AUTHOR and do not think I qualify. As disappointed as I am, I concur with the deletion of my entry on this basis. GraemeCod (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI There are two criteria in play here WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Either one could be met to save the article. Park3r (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment. There's a seemingly unending dispute over whether GNG can be met if the specific notability guideline (i.e., AUTHOR) isn't met, but the plain wording of WP:N does seem to provide a parallel path to establish notability.
However, in this case I didn't see a lot of sources talking about Mr. Codrington (rather than talking to him or using his words) which would be what I'd want to see. And, since he's here, I'd like to say I really did look for such sources as I don't think it benefits Wikipedia to to delete pages about people who are "real-world notable" just because they technically fail notability guidelines. Show me the sources that you think provide substantial coverage about him and I'll reconsider my vote. Oblivy (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already voted delete, and stand by my vote, however I wanted to make it clear to Mr Codrington that GNG could also apply, if sources can be denonstrate he meets it. Park3r (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Vazquez (American actor)

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill actor. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only 1 unreliable source and all roles are minor. Per notability guidelines, we're looking for a major role to justify inclusion. GraziePrego (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to reliable sources. Worldiswide (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chak Dhothar

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

Cannot find anything about it on the internet (confused with Chak Dhota in Jammu and Kashmir, even the coords are incorrect), doesn't meet WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG, orphan and lack of useful references. Aydoh8 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep -WP:BEFORE would have provided you with more information:
Here is a link to the list of sources i found: https://sites.google.com/view/souresfordhotharindia/home PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
changed link to: https://sites.google.com/view/souresfordhotharindia/sources-for-dhothar-village-india PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet GNG, which cannot be established with the primary sources above.
JoelleJay (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift (disambiguation)

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

Taking to AFD after a PROD was removed. There's no point in keeping this page per WP:TWODABS when only the topics with the "Taylor Swift" name are the singer and her self-titled album. Nothing else could be more than a partial title match, and WP:PTM says those wouldn't belong on DAB pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swissqual

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

I cannot find any reputable third-party sources for this company, in my opinion this is not notable enough for an article. It's been marked as not being notable since June 2010. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Garrett

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

Procedural nomination per request at WT:AFD. Reason was: "This is not a notable person. He has appeared on one season of a reality TV show that has hundreds of contestants." CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 02:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:GNG A majority of the references are referencing him as a Survivor contestant, which are done for every contestant recently, none of which have their own page, and much of the rest are quite banal. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some more notable contestants of the same reality show do not have pages, and unfortunately he has not yet had enough notability. Purpley24 (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Webster (writer)

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO KH-1 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tholvi F.C.

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

Tholvi F.C.

This is an unreleased film. Unreleased films are only notable if the production satisfies general notability, which is seldom the case, and this article says only that the film is in post-production. The references are mostly about the teaser, and so are promotional rather than encyclopedic, or are interviews. The article is a reasonable summary of what the sources say, because neither the article nor the sources say much.

There was a draft, which has been blanked by its originator. The draft should be deleted as blanked by the originator, and this article should be draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've made some changes and added new references. Please do take a look Rageshar07 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input, since article has been somewhat improved...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several articles in Wikipedia that are of movies yet to be released. Have done several improvements to the draft and added new references for the same. Please do make arrangements to publish this article on Wikipedia as major requirements have been already met. Rageshar07 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Campfire Legends

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

Non-notable game, fails WP:GNG. Metacritic has zero reviews, critical or user, for any of the three games denoted here. WP:VG/S search comes up with nothing but database entries, with one exception: GameZebo. GameZebo has reviews and walkthroughs for each of the three games, yet no other publications seem to have a whisper about it. GameZebo also ran a promotion for their forums to give away free copies of the game. That means each individual game has exactly 1 source of in-depth significant coverage from our vetted reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PANIC at Multiverse High!

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

I couldn't find anything besides the PC Gamer source already used in the article and a short demo announcement from Rock Paper Shotgun. QuietCicada (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pedley

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

This biography of a wine expert and Master of Wine is sourced only to a book he co-wrote. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I wondered whether being a Master of Wine made him notable, but the discussion I found about this from 2010 did not reach consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Pedley is a published author and a former TV personality. He is notable for these things alone.
RE: I wondered whether being a Master of Wine made him notable
There are 28 other people in Masters of Wine category. Do you propose deleting their pages and the category as well? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if they fail the test of verifiable notability. For more, see here. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. No policy-based, source-backed argument for retention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gema Zúñiga

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has appeared for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invoked WP:FOOTYN. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers - WP:FOOTYN is an essay and has no official standing. In fact, this is a direct quote from FOOTYN: The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. The guideline that supersedes FOOTYN is WP:NSPORT, relevant section being WP:SPORTBASIC which requires... significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Zúñiga does not have significant coverage and nobody is arguing that she does. Redirect. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_29&oldid=1178994647"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 29, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.