Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 07 October 09 >

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 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! 04:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock (New Zealand)

[edit]
Black Rock (New Zealand) (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:GEONATURAL. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 8 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. Star Mississippi 23:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kazuhiro Mori

[edit]
Paul Kazuhiro Mori (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 from WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 3#Paul Kazuhiro Mori, which did not find support for it to be deleted or retained as a redirect. Draftification was also suggested. The page had been turned to a redirect within 20 minutes of its creation, as not meeting GNG or SNG. Jay 💬 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A little English coverage here; no opinion on the reliability of this source. Relevant Japanese sources should probably just be searched for using the "Kazuhiro Mori" part of the name. I haven't really done that, but hopefully someone has per WP:BEFORE. Dekimasuよ! 19:41, 24 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! 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has authored a significant amount of books which appears to make him meet notability as an author. There is plenty of information out there in Japanese that can be used for expansion. Thriley (talk) 06:23, 12 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! 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armando González (kickboxer)

[edit]
Armando González (kickboxer) (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)

Tagged since February, doesn't look notable, looks promotional, checking the history, it was already moved to draft space by an admin but moved to mainspace again by the blocked sock without a draft review Tehonk (talk) 22:35, 8 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! 04:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nethradhama Superspeciality Eye Hospital

[edit]
Nethradhama Superspeciality Eye Hospital (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 any evidence of any notability, Fails NCORP and GNG –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 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. Consensus is to Keep this article. This decision doesn't disallow a future trip to AFD depending on what happens with this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 XFL season

[edit]
2024 XFL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an odd deletion request. But, because the USFL and XFL plan to merge in 2024, it seems it is too soon to have pages for the 2024 USFL and XFL seasons. Once their future plans are confirmed, an article could be created. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and merge if/when the merger is finalized. There is still a possibility of a 2024 season for each league if the merger happens too late to complete before February 2024. Both leagues have stated they are moving forward with the status quo until then, so technically, though this may change in the future, the 2024 XFL season is still on. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a matter of curiousity can you provide a source that says they are going status quo. I couldn't find it. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the lead paragraph of the article. Not the greatest link (as it is a f/k/a-tweet from a reporter) but the league President released a letter explicitly stating that "The XFL will continue to run business and football operations as usual." From the same source, a USFL statement reads "We remain as focused and committed as ever to deliver a heightened level of excellence for the USFL's third season." J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if both leagues merge there's still value in keeping the article as a "cancelled season" (as such pages exist for multiple league throughout the world).StanleyKey (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep certainly not WP:TOOSOON considering the season will start in less than four months. Also plenty of coverage related to the season and potental merger with the USFL is already present in the article. If and when the two leagues merge, this and the USFL season can be consolidated into a single page, but the time for that is not now Frank Anchor 14:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the reliable sources I have seen have noted that the merger still requires some sort of regulatory approval. It is still unknown whether this will take place in time before each league is scheduled to begin their respective 2024 regular seasons. And even then, there is still a possibility that the Feds could reject the merger on whatever reason. The leagues must continue to operate separately until then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:49, 15 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. Consensus is to Keep this article. This decision doesn't disallow a future trip to AFD depending on what happens with this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 USFL season

[edit]
2024 USFL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an odd deletion request. But, because the USFL and XFL plan to merge in 2024, it seems it is too soon to have pages for the 2024 USFL and XFL seasons. Once their future plans are confirmed, an article could be created. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if both leagues merge there's still value in keeping the article as a "cancelled season" (as such pages exist for multiple league throughout the world).StanleyKey (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these then change it when an official announcement is made BoxScoreStuffer (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 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 Draftify‎. Solves to both PROD ineligibility and the lack of accessible sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Keaton

[edit]
Danielle Keaton (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:GNG. PROD removed in 2010 b/c of a minor award. Tagged for notability since 2014 DonaldD23 talk to me 19:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 8 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 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Katihar

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

Not notable (WP:NSCHOOL) Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 8 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Recap

[edit]
Revolution Recap (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)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a podcast or radio show. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, Football, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @GiantSnowman, @Let'srun, I just finished going through the article: fixing grammar, removing dead links to other pages that don't exist, and adding sources to back-up the radio show's claims to being on air, and sources highlighting the show collaborating with other notable media programs (Yahoo, ESPN, etc.) Please let me know what you think. EmperorQuingus (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The issue I see with many of these sources is that while they cover the founder, they fail to cover the podcast itself anywhere close to WP:SIGCOV levels. WP:ITEXISTS is also not a valid keep argument. Let'srun (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman @Let'srun Please see additional references added as evidence of notability, including the league’s recommendation and inclusion on a popular TV program. Revolutionfan (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not seeing any significant coverage about the show itself. The segment is more about the team (and its fans) rather than anything else, with the founder and show receiving only a minor mention (and the show isn't even referred to by its name). Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Let'srun@GiantSnowmanAdditional resources have been added showing it’s multiple rankings as the top podcast covering the New England Revolution and among the top soccer podcasts on Apple Podcasts. Would like to see others weigh in before the deletion of a 17 year old page. Revolutionfan (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the sources show significant coverage of the podcast itself? GiantSnowman 11:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman where I struggle with "significant coverage" is that by definition it's implying that a media source would for some reason write a story about another media source. That seems like the type of thing that would only happen if something bad happened to the media source being written about. "Notability" in terms of hosts from the show being sought out for comment, or interviewed, or the show's reporting being consistently quoted by secondary, reliable, independent of the subject, sources, as part of their own pieces, does a lot more to establish the legitimacy of a show. EmperorQuingus (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying, yet if the show can't even get a passing mention in the sources provided, how does that show that it is in any way notable? If that was the case, there would be many more articles on shows of this type which have little to no coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points:

    1. The audio / radio sources mention the show. The Channel 5 piece with the founder of the podcast (then radio program) shows him in studio with a guest (Michael Parkhurst, then-Revolution player.) I also think it should carry some extra weight that Major League Soccer itself would take the time to recognize the show as independent media worthy of / reliable enough to list on its own site for fans looking to find more coverage of MLS teams. I understand that "it exists" isn't enough to argue the show should have a Wikipedia page, but Major League Soccer giving a nod to the podcast is pretty impressive. They wouldn't do that for some fly-by-night outfit.

    2. While it's true some of the sources don't mention the actual name of the show, I contend that's more a stylistic choice than a refusal to acknowledge the show. Anecdotally, The Athletic, and other blogs, do that constantly. I think they do it because it's just easier to cite reports with what are effectively embedded footnotes than it is to consistently say "according to," if that makes sense. EmperorQuingus (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per recently added evidence of notability. Revolutionfan (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like others, I am not seeing significant coverage of this podcast. I'm not sure where people get the notion that casual mentions and namedrops satisfy the GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but they do not. Never mind that it doesn't matter worth a tinker's damn what "stylistic choices" lead a source not to name the podcast at all; under no circumstances conceivable can a source that doesn't even name a subject possibly be considered as providing significant coverage to that subject. Honestly, that's an absurd suggestion. That this article has been kicking around for seventeen years is far less a measure of whether or not it meets notability standards as of the ongoing syndrome that with nearly seven million articles, a lot drop through the cracks, and of course longevity is no immunization against notability guidelines and deletion policy. Ravenswing 03:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, most of the references do in fact name the podcast and the few that don't cite its hosts. One of the sources is Major League Soccer itself recommending the podcast and noting the hosts' knowledge. The podcast is also the topped ranked podcast by Feedspot covering the New England Revolution, which numerous other articles here cite for notability. Revolutionfan (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Splendid. Now, if you would, kindly link to the notability guideline providing presumptive notability for being a "topped rank podcast" covering a sports team. (For that matter, if there are "numerous other" articles that claim notability for that reason alone, kindly identify them as well, because they sound like AfD candidates.) Ravenswing 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: It probably would've helped our argument earlier had we been discussing the show as a podcast rather than a radio show. Wikipedia:NPOD notes an individual podcast is generally likely to be notable if it has been produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster or media company.

    To that point, Revolution Recap is distributed by Bleav, part of the Cumulus network.

    Wikipedia:NPOD goes on to state: However, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the podcast's affiliation with any particular entity. Podcasts are also more likely to be notable if they have won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability.

    Revolution Recap was just nominated for an award, so we will see how that goes.
    Finally, Wikipedia:NPOD states: It's also more likely that a podcast is notable if it has reached a high position on a notable podcasting chart that updates at least weekly.

    We've cited Revolution Recap's ranking on FeedSpot, as well as PlayerFM, as well as Apple's podcast list. EmperorQuingus (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOD being an essay -- and blatantly flagged as such, so there shouldn't possibly be any confusion or question on the subject -- it has no bearing here. I was asking for a link to a genuine notability guideline. Ravenswing 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A genuine notability guideline does not exist for podcasts. There was a proposal, but it failed. Thus I'm looking at Wikipedia:NPOD to get the opinions of others on what makes a Podcast notable. EmperorQuingus (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, of course, have no bearing on deletion discussions. We retain (or delete) articles based on whether they meet notability guidelines, not on issues of WP:ILIKEIT. The only notability guideline bearing on podcasts is the GNG, and failing meeting that guideline, an article cannot be sustained. No one is saying that this particular podcast sucks or lacks merit; it just doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 14:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will stand down, then. If the page gets deleted does it get archived? Just in case the podcast one day qualifies as notable and can return? EmperorQuingus (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators can see deleted content, and here is a list of those willing to set up copies of deleted articles in your own user space: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. That way the content isn't lost, and you can restore the article at such time as it meets notability standards. Ravenswing 21:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, I cannot find any reliable sources that have significant coverage of the podcast itself. Passing mentions? Sure. Talk of the hosts? sure. But little on the podcast itself. -- Mike 🗩 20:19, 9 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! 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gregson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dave Gregson (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. There are some links which prove a party to non-mnotworthy litigation and some self-published work. That is all. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:59, 17 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! 21:46, 24 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! 21:36, 1 October 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! 22:32, 8 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! 21:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torin Didenko

[edit]
Torin Didenko (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 a source that provides an introduction of him directly. The link to the Hong Kong Football Association is broken, and the external link actually leads to a database. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:32, 8 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! 21:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuț Oprescu

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

It doesn't seem necessary to have an encyclopaedia article for Oprescu when he has only played one minute of professional football and makes no other claim to notability. Prosport mentions him in passing 3 times, Arges Sport also trivially mentions him in a match report and GSP is just a single passing mention. Not enough for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as none of the coverage addresses him in detail. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 8 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! 21:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Osipov (footballer)

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

Article created due to playing 23 mins of football but I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best source found in Russian was FCNH, which is neither significant nor independent of the subject. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 8 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! 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Tyulin

[edit]
Maksim Tyulin (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)

Has played 20 mins of football to date but doesn't seem to have been registered to a club for over a year now. Following WP:NSPORTS2022, Tyulin must meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC to have an article. The only non-database source found was Volgar FC, a trivial mention of him and on a website run by his employer, so not an independent source. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:45, 8 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! 21:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten pennies

[edit]
Ten pennies (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 seems to be a guide on how to play the game rather than an article about the game Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 8 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 Canada Cup (floorball). Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Cup (floorball)

[edit]
Canada Cup (floorball) (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)
2009 Canada Cup (floorball) (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)
2010 Canada Cup (floorball) (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)
List of Canada Cup winners (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)

Completely unsourced (and tagged as such for a full decade or more) articles about a defunct minor-league sports competition, two years' individual runnings of it and a redundant "list of winners" that's really just a retransclusion of the same template that's already at the bottom of the main article as it is (and consists almost entirely of redlinks anyway).
These are basically a gigantic nest of permanent redlinks, because almost nothing wikilinked in any of the articles actually has its own article: virtually none of the teams, virtually none of the people, no other year besides the two listed here, and on and so forth.
As always, every sports competition is not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it existed -- this would have to be shown as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear our notability criteria for sports events, but these clearly don't if nobody's been arsed to add even one citation to any of them in 10 to 13 years. And even if the head article could be salvaged with better sourcing, it would still be questionable whether any of the other three would be needed as separate standalone topics: the list, in particular, is profoundly redundant to the main article since it lists nothing that the main article isn't already listing. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to have opinions and evatulations of all articles in a bundled nomination, not just one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deleting, merging into the first? Needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:09, 8 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. There is a clear consensus among non-single-purpose accounts in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fela Akinse

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

This has been kicking around draft space for ages with extensive sockery: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princek2019 which was addressed at the prior AfD. It has been accepted at AfC in absolute good faith, but I don't think this businessman is sufficiently notable, so bringing it here for consensus. Sourcing is run of the mill and the awards do not seem notable. Star Mississippi 16:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 16:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as it stands, having been précised prior to acceptance, shows a businessman on the cusp of notability. If pushed hard I woudl say that he is not quite notable, WP:BIO borderline fail, but that his company is just notable, WP:NCORP borderline pass. That means that the decision is complex and may come down to redirecting to the company.
There is a further element in play here. The creating editor states that they are Fela Akinse. They also state that they have paid editors to create prior versions. There is also the prior AfD with the outcome of 'delete' but slightly ambiguous close wording. Perhaps 78.26 will sort that out?
Alongside that there is the SPI, which, if proven, will likely result in a G5
All sorts of decisions to be made. Does inciting paid editors to create a prior version mean that this should be deleted, for example. I will consider my opinion further. However, should I not have reached a further conclusion, please register this as a weak delete 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: sorry for confusion. I'll try again. I wanted to note that there was a policy-based keep argument from an editor who was not involved in sockpuppetry, etc. However, I found the delete arguments stronger, and therefore judged consensus as delete. Is that better? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26 here, yes. There I remain perplexed. Perhaps it's me! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revise my opinion to Delete, and Salt the mainspace article even if it has been speedily deleted by a different process. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[7] [8] [9] and they are good source for WP:GNG and WP: BASIC ( They satisfied SIR : Significant, Independent, Reliable ) aswell along with: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

  • Been among 12 founders representing 8 African nations at the Africa Startup Summit 2022 [16]
  • As a delegate World Circular Economy Forum

[17]

  • The Africa Adaptation Acceleration Program (AAAP) Supported by

African Development Bank and the Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) [18]

Features:

  • African Union and European Union festival

[19]

Lagos Fashion Week [20]

Business of Fashion [21]

As a Speaker : TEDxLagos [22] [23]

And all this are strong prove of him meeting WP:NPEOPLE going by Qcne the reviewer

Note: There is over 25 awards Received due to the invention that significant enough too.Heywet23 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While this is by no means the worst self-written vanity piece, in that there is at least some semblance of notability, I don't see enough of it to pass. And although AfD isn't a mechanism for meting out punishment for bad-faith editing, I don't think we need to entirely overlook it, either, as that would exonerate the editor and potentially encourage more of the same. Therefore even if it were a close call, I'd err on the delete side, and it isn't that close after all. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is interesting that all, so far all of those who believe this should be kept are WP:SPAs 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- DoubleGrazing The above references should meet notability but If you need more sources to prove notability, I will gladly provide. I can't edit the article as it is , if not I would have done that to prove to you . I have over 25 awards local and internationally with the sources available but I can't updates as it is due to COI. User_talk: Awesome Aasim this not promotional because I got enough reference to prove my point of notability both local and international references. Anyways I am sorry but only wish this is looked at on neutral basis. Timtrent if this is push to draft/deleted/ relisted as punishment I see it as my faith (Hard luck), I am deeply sorry if I offend you or this project. I love you all. lets love leads. Heywet23 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heywet23 We do not punish editors. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked Mahroos to come here to vote @Heywet23? Star Mississippi 21:17, 15 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! 21:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Business Park

[edit]
Oxford Business Park (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)

Well, what to say, presently the article has been reduced to a nothing burger. Uhooep (talk) 15:45, 8 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 OK Orchestra. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK Overture

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

Per NSONG: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

I have found no coverage of this song outside of the context of reviews of the album. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also per WP:NSONG: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". Although this criteria additionally states "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable", there is sufficient coverage of the song through album reviews and interviews to create a reasonably detailed article. Koopastar (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only as large as it is because it excessively quotes just about everything anyone has ever said about the song, including from user-generated MuseScore and a podcast interview. The amount of content WP should include about the song would fit fine in the album article. Mach61 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OK Orchestra per nomination. I also didn't find any coverage. What's in the article is largely unreliably sourced and there doesn't appear to be much that can be merged, though I won't oppose that outcome if that's still preferred. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:13, 8 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 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At Dead of Night

[edit]
At Dead of Night (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 sources used in the article. The TheGamer article is mostly gameplay with only three paragraphs of a review, though it was post-August-2020 and thus reliable enough. The Hey Poor Player review looks solid, but they're listed as inconclusive leaning unreliable. The DBLTAP source doesn't have much usable content and looks like churnalism. The FMV World one is only a database entry. QuietCicada (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge
With Tim's article (the creator)
He's got an easily gng article, I'd say moving this game's stuff to his article might be a decent compromise. Not logged in, but this is user:heyallkatehere, Cheers. 2600:4040:5D92:EA00:F93:1E11:3E83:2F97 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could only find a brief preview in PC Gamer [26]. Sadly non-notable due to a lack of reliable secondary sources. Do not recommend a merge: what content in this article would be appropriately included in an article for an experienced composer other than a credit note? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I patrolled this page a month or so ago and left a list of sources I found when reviewing it for notability on it's talk page. However, upon reviewing them again with the intention to vote to keep, I see a lot of red flags I should have caught. Concur with not merging per Vrxces. To review some of the sources not yet discussed:
    • Dual Shockers Listed as "not a high-quality source" which should be replaced when possible. While various pages describe policies relating to ethics and fact checking, the author of the article is not listed as a team member for the site, so it's likely to be an outside contributor (a noted concern at VGRS).
    • Breezy Scroll Not discussed anywhere in WP:RSP or WP:VGRS, list of team members is entirely informal, no listed editorial policies, no listed ethics policies, can't find any material which discusses the qualifications necessary to write articles, "About Us" is mostly promotional and otherwise useless.
    • FullSync.co.uk Basically identical concerns to Breezy Scroll.
    • MENAFN Churnalism of the Breezy Scroll article. —Sirdog (talk) 05:01, 15 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 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corduroy and Me!

[edit]
Corduroy and Me! (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)

Contested PROD by another editor. Fails GNG, complete lack of sourcing in both article and BEFORE search. Could be a case of being too soon, so not adversed to draftification. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 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 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir (Indian spy character)

[edit]
Kabir (Indian spy character) (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 out-of-universe notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:53, 8 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire of Love: Red (2023 film)

[edit]
Fire of Love: Red (2023 film) (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)

Draftify: Disputed draftification, blatant advert, unreleased, currently fails WP:NFILM. Cannot remain in main space 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:55, 8 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! 08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling female music artists

[edit]
List of best-selling female music artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unnecessary list WP:FORKed from List of best-selling music artists TheWikiholic (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a suggestion, not a vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is just List of best-selling music artists but with the male artists removed. This is duplicative and serves no additional purpose. Reywas92Talk 03:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the two votes so far. This list has always been somewhat incomplete and there are female artists who have had the required record sales, but are not included due to lack of certifications. With the rise of streaming, some modern female artists' record sales could be very much inflated. It is challenging keeping up with other female artists that sold over 75 million or more records, so I nominate this article for deletion. FSU2024talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.149.245 (talk) 03:42, 12 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! 08:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya Rao

[edit]
Ananya Rao (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 Notability (people). Only one notable show. Being eliminated on day 7 of another show is immaterial as is co-winning along with your sister. DareshMohan (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability as no substantial coverage about her GraziePrego (talk) 07:12, 8 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Skylerblue77 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netrunner

[edit]
Netrunner (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 last release for this specific game was in 1999. The more popular current game, Android: Netrunner, is more commonly referred to in the community as, simply, Netrunner. At this point, it is simply not notable. Skylerblue77 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator: It has come to the nominator's attention that the nominator was mistaken in the guidelines for deletion, specifically regarding WP:GNG. This nomination has been withdrawn, and the nominator will seek to close it with WP:SK. Skylerblue77 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Edward Rothstein in New York Times, Feb 1996 has a >700 word article about the game.[27]
  2. Jack Skrip in InQuest, May 1996, has a multi-page article about the game. Listed under Further Reading in the article.
  3. Richard Weld in Scrye, April 2003, has a full page article about the game from after it went out of print. This includes some retrospective history of the subject, further demonstrating sustained notability beyond doubt.
Please also note that the existence of other subjects with similar or identical names is never a reason for deletion. For handling such casees, please see WP:Disambiguation. —siroχo 06:21, 8 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 no consensus‎. While keep has a clear majority of !votes after two relists, all but one of the editors arguing for keep provided reasoning largely unrelated to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astalavista.box.sk

[edit]
Astalavista.box.sk (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)

Aside from the three-paragraph coverage in Le Monde, linked in the article, my BEFORE is not seeing much, Google Books shows the site is mentioned here and there in lists (with short descriptions) of hacking sites, but I am not seeing anythign that meets WP:SIGCOV. Seems to fall short of WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Can anyone find sources to rescue it, or suggest a redirect (merge?) target if not? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources and cleaning up the article. Personally, I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. After some digging, it does seem like it is an important part of internet history. The issue is that it is part of a culture that tries to cover its track and does not seek publicity. It has mentions in books about cyber security from the early 2000s; it is likely mentioned in more books that are not indexed online. Ideasmete (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of English books are indexed through Google Books, I think? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have indexed a lot of books, but definitely not most, according to Google themselves. Besides, it might be mentioned in periodicals that aren't indexed/archived, and very likely on web pages that have not been archived and therefore lost. The fact that it is frequently mentioned as a well-known website in the security community in the early 2000s, makes me believe there must be noteworthy mentions of it.
I can understand if other people want to see astalavista.box.sk deleted, but in that case I think it would be most appropriate to relocate the content elsewhere, together with pages like SecurityFocus (one of the sites sometimes listed along astalavista). Ideasmete (talk) 09:05, 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! 04:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think we can be pretty confident this meets WP:GNG. Also taking into account Ideasmete's note about the importance. I'd consider GNG from this perspective of the table I've included below my comment. A solid platform of Le Monde to build on, and a lot of coverage across many other sources. There seem to be many more of these sources in non-English language as well, I've included one as an example. It seems reasonable, given the era, that we can expect other coverage like Le Monde to surface at some point in some language. If there is a really solid idea about how to include this coverage in a list or broader article I'm willing to entertain as well, but without a solid idea, keep seems like a good choice. —siroχo 06:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. In my opinion it makes more sense to improve articles where possible, instead of deleting them. In this case I think the article can definitely grow. Keep 31.55.146.75 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[29] Lasar, Le Monde Yes Yes Yes 400+ words ✔ Yes
Managing A Network Vulnerability Assessment Yes Yes ~ Solid paragraph+ of coverage ~ Partial
Hack Proofing Your Network Yes Yes ~ Solid paragraph of coverage ~ Partial
Steal This Computer Book 4.0 Yes Yes ~ Solid paragraph of coverage ~ Partial
Electronic Safety and Soundness: Securing Finance in a New Age (not yet in article) Yes Yes ~ Nontrivial coverage in 3 spots, roughly equivalent to above books in depth ~ Partial
Motori di ricerca: come cercare e farsi trovare sul web Yes Yes ~ Some background and explanation ~ Partial
Поиск в Интернете non-English source not yet in article (one example) Yes ? ~ seems to be roughly comparable to above ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep from me. I remember using Astalavista.box.sk in the nineties, but I forgot what for (then I peeked in the article). I think this may be considered an important component of Internet lore. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, I see no support for Deletion aside from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP KEEP KEEP - I agree that this is an extremely important article as it relates to the history of the early consumer internet. While the purpose of Astalavista.box.sk may have been for less than moral purposes, e.g., there is no doubt that it was a cracked and exploited software site, in violation of a number of Copyright and other IP protections, it is still valid as many a "whitehat" made their name using the site. It is also a historical site, I would say to the level of /. in respect to the nature and community of the internet in the early 90s to early 2000s. It is important to remember the seemingly long-gone days of true geekdom, when surfing the internet was actually a term of endearment, and most people in the community understood that most things on the internet were not to be believed, a far cry for the global social anxiety that exists today because that one simple truism was lost when the internet connecting device form factor went from PC to mobile phone.
    The reason that I bring up this seemingly unrelated aspect of the internet community's history is because it does relate to astalavista.box.sk, in that the purpose of that site was "sticking it to "the Man"" and independent thinking that prevailed on the web until mass markets, mass media, and global billionaires took the core of the web, making it the commercial sewer that it was. Astalavista.box.sk was the Bonnie and Clyde, the Dillinger, the true Willie Sutton (of "I rob banks because that is where the money is" fame.) of the web, long before WWW2 and the commercialization of everything, and the bastardization of the web through mindless social media platforms. Elgato99wiki (talk) 23:54, 15 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 Newport Television. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Variety Television Network

[edit]
Variety Television Network (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)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines as a defunct television network. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any sourceable content to Newport Television — and that's if any sourceable material exists; all I'm finding so far is passing mentions in the sale of Clear Channel's television stations to the private equity firm that went on to form Newport (this digital subchannel "network" — if even that, it may have just been a common branding for a set of similarly-programmed subchannels — was originally created by Clear Channel); if not, I am not opposed to outright deletion. In any event, I cannot see any possible independent notability from its parent station group (it never aired on any non-Clear Channel/Newport station), and the lack of significant coverage makes that clear. (Even the types of junk PR sourcing that can inflate the importance of non-notable entities isn't turning up anywhere.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 8 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 06:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Cattle

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

The subject is a women's Australian rules footballer who has played one career game. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. Might be WP:TOOSOON at the moment. JTtheOG (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely too soon, especially as their professional career is cited to have begun only last year. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 03:54, 8 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Crawford (character)

[edit]
Jack Crawford (character) (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 either primary or do not prove the character's notability, 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 Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would agree with the current sources being somewhat questionable, but a quick search shows the character has reliable sources available. (There is also Vox, etc.) I see significant coverage, the character appears to be noteworthy. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the FBI source would prove the character's notability, it's an artifact for the film. The Vox source is more about the show and the part that mentions Crawford is pretty much a plot summary. Spinixster (chat!) 07:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should reread the GNG, because there have been many articles written entirely with one source. The only scenario I agree with an article needing to be heavily sourced is BLP. Otherwise, the topic only needs to have proven notability from reliable sources, which this article most certainly has. UNLIKE BLP, every single detail does not have to be proven for it to be a noteworthy/reliable article. From the other PRODs @Siroxo mentions, it appears you have it out for character articles, so I would suggest avoiding them in general. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources are brief mentions. Per WP:SIGCOV, sources need to addresses the topic directly and in detail. You should also read WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. Spinixster (chat!) 07:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will note the policy is not specific, and is not discussing fictional character notability, but a very loosely-defined set of rules aimed at the property at large, and having read those specific rulesets essentially redirects to the GNG. I believe the sources are significant coverage enough, and if not already there, they are available to use. Especially for the plot sections, one allowed sneaky trick I would use would be to bring about author quotes from the novel to verify the statements. Thanks for reading, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 11:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So according to your logic, all characters that are mentioned in plot summaries are notable, which as I said, according to SIGCOV, is not true. The sources need to address the topic directly and in detail, and brief mentions are not that. Spinixster (chat!) 11:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the sources for a third time, I still stand with my original statement: the sources on the article do not, as you said, prove notability. If you insist on these issues being fixed, I pledge to bring the article to a noteworthy state. You can keep the deletion tag if you must, but this article does not need WP:TNT atm. Respectfully, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 12:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is always an option until notability is proven with sources. Spinixster (chat!) 13:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to you if I am able to rewrite the article. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources have been shown to NEXIST. There's plenty more if you search "Jack Crawford" hannibal in proquest and limit to scholarly journals or whatever you prefer, eg [30]. While I don't doubt the nominator is acting in good faith, I also see 8 nominations with similar reasoning in a 7-minute time span. I am concerned about this, especially considering other recent nominations like 1, 3, 2, 4, and likely others that I didn't see or am forgetting. —siroχo 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the source only briefly mentions the character and there's not much analysis for the character going on. Other sources can be considered. Spinixster (chat!) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Jack Crawford is notable, the character has been analyzed. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article has no reception/analysis. I've reviewed the two sources above. Vox seems mostly a plot summary. FBI makes a claim of significance but otherwise fails SIGCOV. If this is the best we can find, I fear this is not enough. Ping me if more sources are found so I can revise my vote if needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus:
    Yvonne Tasker's The Silence of the Lambs has SIGCOV [31]
    Barry Forshaw's The Silence of The Lambs: Devil's Advocates has SIGCOV [32],
    The Silence of the Lambs: Critical Essays on a Cannibal, Clarice, and a Nice Chianti, edited by Cynthia J. Miller has SIGCOV [33]
    —siroχo 01:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo Perhaps it is the new vs old Google Books interface, but I am getting just snippet views from your link. What I see in the first source is just a plot summary. Two is similar, also page 29 might have something useful? Third, again, plot summary. If you want me to look into this more, please provide specific page numbers that contain analysis, preferably with links directly to them that provide full view, or quote such material here. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The full views I have of some of these books doesn't include page numbers so here's some quotes:
    • Here's a couple examples from Tasker
      • Chapter 3

        In both Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs ,Harris has recourse to a rather different version of the FBI, one centred on the Behavioral Science Unit and the figure of the profiler. Harris’s sources for Crawford, Robert Ressler and John Douglas (the latter would act as a consultant on the film), have both published accounts of their work. Thus, as Seltzer notes, the image of the profiler has a popular currency in true crime literature as much as crime fiction.
        ...
        As a cinematic and literary phenomenon the profiler is a great success (setting aside the ‘real’ world for now). Though not a profiler as such, Seven’s Detective Somerset (Morgan Freeman) also exemplifies the type.
        ...
        As a cinematic and literary phenomenon the profiler is a great success (setting aside the ‘real’ world for now). Though not a profiler as such, Seven’s Detective Somerset (Morgan Freeman) also exemplifies the type.

      • Chapter 5:

        Clarice’s relationship with Lecter and Crawford has been widely read as paternalistic – they are seen as representing bad and good fathers respectively. For Martha Gever, Starling’s ‘heroic trajectory is plotted by a pantheon of fathers’.71 It is true that Hollywood, when it has time for adventurous young women at all, tends to emphasise their relationship to their fathers: think of Jodie Foster as Ellie in Contact (US, Robert Zemeckis, 1997) ... or Helen Hunt as Jo in Twister (US, Jan de Bont, 1996).... Yet, although Lecter and Crawford are both figures of authority, there is no reason to assume that they are father figures.

    • Here's some from Forshaw

      • Certain elements in the original novel pertaining to the Jack Crawford character are wisely removed in the film adaptation, such as his anguished visits to the bedside of his dying wife. Although in the source material this is an important element, in the context of the filleting that is necessary when creating a screenplay from a novel, such peripheral elements not only become inessential, but their removal can forge a certain opaqueness which is actually helpful to a particular film (as when Clint Eastwood persuaded Sergio Leone to abandon acres of dialogue when the two worked together in Italy on the ‘spaghetti Westerns’). Here, the streamlining obliges us to regard Crawford (to some degree) from the outside – in precisely the way, in fact, that Starling perceives him. We know no more about him than she does, and this mystique makes the character, and his motives regarding Starling, more intriguing.

      • Again, Crawford gently tests Starling’s ability to analyse what she knows of the killer they are both pursuing – a reminder that the whole narrative might be seen as something of an educational primer detailing the development/upskilling of Clarice Starling.

      • At this point, we once again we find ourselves surprised by the legerdemain that Demme extrapolates so successfully from the Harris novel. Lecter abruptly changes the conversation to a discussion of Jack Crawford and his interest in Clarice Starling. If audiences really examined Lecter’s insights (of which this is a classic example), they might be bemused by (or sceptical of) the fact that this incarcerated prisoner can have access to so much privileged information. But the conjuring trick played by director and screenwriter in such instances is to maintain the level of focused intensity that simply steers us away from such inconvenient questions. Lecter attempts to embarrass Starling again with sexually explicit questions: ‘Do think Jack Crawford wants you, sexually? True, he is much older, but do you think he visualises scenarios, exchanges, fucking you?’

    —siroχo 03:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, thanks. If this is the best we can do, I think we are still in the borderline territory. That said, feel free to treat my current vote with the qualifier weak. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have looked at a some reviews of the media cited in the articles, for example this review of the Hannibal TV series, which discusses Crawford (and notes that "a sudden detour into Crawford's marriage is mostly dull and takes us away from far more fruitful storylines" — a negative reception is still a reception). BD2412 T 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 What make this source reliable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: What makes it unreliable? For a TV series review from a reviewer (Paul Doro) well-established enough in their field to have reviews published in other publications (e.g., here). Really you should ask User:SchrutedIt08, who added the source to Hannibal (TV series) over ten years ago, where it has since gone unremarked upon. BD2412 T 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the sources provided by the editors above show notability. I really think this mass deletion is really disfavour to editors – it makes improving the articles much harder as they have to improve 7+ in a few days (and then explain their improvements). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:01, 12 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Graham (character)

[edit]
Will Graham (character) (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 either primary or do not prove the character's notability, 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 Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, this is a bad nomination. There is, to begin with, a full-length article, Gould, J.J. (April 3, 2013). "Who Is Will Graham?". The Atlantic. Boston, Massachusetts: Emerson Collective. Retrieved May 15, 2018., solely on the character, who is the primary character in books, films, and a television series. BD2412 T 04:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is good, but one source is not enough to prove notability to an entire character. Just because he has appeared in multiple books and its adaptations does not make him notable. Spinixster (chat!) 07:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) —siroχo 07:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my Clarice Starling searches, I found an article in Project Muse (Elliott, Jaquelin. This is my Becoming:Transformation, Hybridity, and the Monstrous in NBC's Hannibal. University of Toronto Quarterly Volume 87, Number 1, Winter 2018. [34]) which has mainly about Will Graham. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely usable, it's more about Hannibal and Graham's romance, but it has valuable analysis. Spinixster (chat!) 07:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP JosephWC (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JosephWC See WP:JV. Spinixster (chat!) 07:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is borderline disruptive. A reliable source covering character in-depth is demonstrated. The comment is "Just because he has appeared in multiple books and its adaptations does not make him notable".
We can write article based on one source, and there are more. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm all for clean-up, but I'd encourage the nominator to spread AFD nominations across time and subject matter. Nominating many articles makes it hard to review, especially focused on a single topic area. Either way, I'm finding time to review this one article, and I can say it meets WP:SIGCOV, based on scholarly sources and books. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:09, 13 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Starling

[edit]
Clarice Starling (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 either primary or do not prove the character's notability, 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 Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebscosearch has 1,698 hits for the quoted name and there are 7,827 on Proquest; top hits include Due, Tananarive. "DR. LECTER, MY NAME IS CLARICE STARLING". Vanity Fair. 2021 Hollywood, Vol. 63 Issue 3, p118-143 and Fuller, Stephen M., Deposing an American Cultural Totem: Clarice Starling and Postmodern Heroism in Thomas Harris's Red Dragon, The Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal. Journal of Popular Culture Aug2005, Vol. 38 Issue 5, p819. ETA: There's also a whole chapter in Linda Mizejewski. Hardboiled & High Heeled: The Woman Detective in Popular Culture. Routledge, 2004. (chapter 7). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not necessarily mean that that character would be notable, even if the character has a spinoff. I'll review the sources:
  • First source is an interview, which is arguably primary.
  • Second source seems okay for use.
  • Third source is definitely okay, there's a lot of coverage on the aspects of the character, comparing the book version to the film's.
I think more sources would be needed other than the two. Spinixster (chat!) 07:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was by no means the only material in those searches, just what a few mins of looking came up with. The character is extremely well covered as even a cursory look would show. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source review would have to be done for each of the sources to see if it has significant coverage / analysis or just a brief mention. I don't feel like looking at over 8000 articles, though. Spinixster (chat!) 07:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't feel like looking at over 8000 articles, though." Then you should not propose an article with >8k potential sources for deletion! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated it for deletion as a vote to see if they are notable or not. Even if a character has a lot of sources, that does not mean all of them are usable. Spinixster (chat!) 07:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Starling ever existed, so I doubt we can talk about primary sources here. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There are books written about making of film, the character is explored and included in different lists of best characters.
Is there really a doubt that the character has significant coverage?
Even when one considers other nominations, it is hard to think how they are useful to encyclopedia. But this nomination is just wrong. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[35]
[36] Kirill C1 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://ew.com/tv/clarice-silence-of-the-lambs-interview/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/arts/television/clarice-starling-cbs-history.html
Just some of the sources. I hope the sources on this deletion page will be enough for keeping article soon. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is dead, and the third source is an interview (which does not prove notability). Screen Rant is listed as marginally reliable per WP:VG/S and WP:RSP, but that rounds up to just two usable sources. Note that the significant coverage needs to be for the character, not anything else. Spinixster (chat!) 02:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that this isn't an interview with Clarice Starling, so this can't be primary source? Kirill C1 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Interviews. Spinixster (chat!) 08:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE shows that there are lots of scholarly essays about Clarice (maybe not with her full name). For example, there's a 200 page book literally called "The Silence of the Lambs: Critical Essays on a Cannibal, Clarice, and a Nice Chianti". There's a fair bit of analysis of her role and importance there. There are certainly more books if anyone wants me to pull them up. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I've noted thm in other discussion, I'll note them here's as well, here's two more books that provide SIGCOV of all the major film/book characters:
    1. The Silence of the Lambs: Devil's Advocates by Barry Forshaw [37]
    2. The Silence of the Lambs by Yvonne Tasker [38]
    —siroχo 02:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above. Scholarly essays show clear notability. Also worth noting that several sources may be from newspapers or magazines as she is from the 1990s, where the internet was not used much (and any online sources may now be archived). Also, I disagree that an interview about a fictional character is primary, as the character itself is not giving the interview: the actor(s) or producers are. If a character was not notable, they would not schedule and publish an interview about the character. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do agree that the character is notable, I do not think that an interview would prove the character's notability. WP:Interviews says so. Spinixster (chat!) 08:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would set as a rule that when an actor wins an Academy Award for a lead role performance as a character, the character is presumably notable. I understand that some will object that the award is about the actor and not the character, but it is not as though such awards are given in a vacuum, with the Academy not knowing what role the nominated actor is playing. I would add that this can only be multiplied by additional appearances, particularly where 1) the character is adapted to film from a literary source; 2) the character appears in multiple films or multiple media; and/or 3) the character is portrayed by different actors across the media. In those cases, comparisons of performances become almost inevitable. BD2412 T 04:23, 15 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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 12:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Chilton

[edit]
Frederick Chilton (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 either primary or do not prove the character's notability, 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 Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. SIGCOV in The Silence of the Lambs: Critical Essays on a Cannibal, Clarice, and a Nice Chianti [39]
  2. SIGCOV in The Silence of the Lambs: Devil's Advocates by Barry Forshaw [40]
  3. SIGCOV in The Silence of the Lambs by Yvonne Tasker [41]
(See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes)
—siroχo 08:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access these sources because they don't have previews available for the pages that mention the character, but I will AGF and say that they do talk about the character extensively. If someone else can access and give me a thumbs up, that'd be great. Spinixster (chat!) 08:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to paste too much, but here's a bit from Forshaw and Tasker which I am able to read in full:
  • Here's one juicy quite from Forshaw:

    "Few works of popular genre cinema have the time (or the interest) to explore the nuances of human behaviour and prefer to delineate such things in bright poster colours (film-makers generally subscribe to HL Mencken’s dictum that nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste – or intelligence – of the public). But this is most certainly not the case with Jonathan Demme and Ted Tally, as evinced by their treatment of the unpleasant attempts at seduction of Clarice by Dr Chilton. Without ever over-stressing the change of attitude in the character when he realises that he will not get very far with his attractive visitor, we witness a sudden froideur in his dealings with her, and his true feelings (which are, it is suggested, of a misogynistic nature) become more apparent. This ties in with the perception of the film as having a progressive feminist agenda (which links it thematically with Demme’s oeuvre), i.e. the suggestion that Starling’s only interest for Chilton is in a libidinous sense; his apparent acknowledgement of her gifts is purely cosmetic – a means to a sexually self-interested end."

  • Tasker:

    1. "Taken to extremes, almost any male figure can be read as paternal. David Sundelson finds failing, dangerous or would-be fathers everywhere in the film from Dr Chilton to Mr Bimmel"

    2. "....The response – ‘Oh, he’s a monster, pure psychopath’ – comes from Chilton. Starling stands uncomfortably in front of him – perhaps the twittering of birds that underlies his first words is a sign of her trepidation? To Chilton, Lecter is a specimen: ‘I keep him in here,’ he tells Starling with a flourish. Yet the smarmy Chilton is clearly something of a fool – a self-interested showman rather than the voice of authority that his title or his position might suggest: labels, we may feel, fail to tell us a great deal.

    3. "Just as Lecter’s command of culture sets off Gumb’s more lumpen characterisation, his intelligence and vision serve to underscore Chilton’s fatally limited insight. Moreover Lecter’s insistence on courtesy – appealing at a distance, whatever his proclivities – contrasts with Chilton’s clumsy attempts to hit on Starling at their first meeting....
      "Lecter’s appeal lies in his elaborate courtesy towards Starling and his contemptuous rejection of the very authority that, as a supposedly learned man, he represents. Ultimately audiences can enthusiastically endorse Lecter’s contempt for Chilton, enjoying the joke of the film’s closing moments.

—siroχo 08:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant coverage, the character has been analysed. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:37, 10 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. Complex/Rational 21:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Lounds

[edit]
Freddy Lounds (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 either primary or do not prove the character's notability, 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 Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noir tropes appear again concerning the character of Freddy Lounds, a sleazy journalist that's too good for the trashy job he's doing, Lounds is burned by ambition and by desire for vindication in front of those colleagues that look down upon his tabloid-related work. Everything in the character of Lounds, from his disregard for truth masquerading as desire to serve the public, down to his stripper girl-friend, comes straight from the rain-soaked and neon-lighted alleys of a generic 1950s noir downtown, and Freddy Lounds is certainly the most traditional noir character in the novel.[1]

Keep. There shouldn't be so many nominations for deletion at the same time. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Mana, Davide (2008). "This Is the Blind Leading the Blind". In Szumskyj, Benjamin (ed.). Dissecting Hannibal Lecter: Essays on the Novels of Thomas Harris. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 95. ISBN 978-0786432752.
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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedelia Du Maurier

[edit]
Bedelia Du Maurier (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 either primary or do not prove the character's notability (awards for the actress does not equal to notability for the person the actress played), 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 Hannibal (TV series)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Here's a few sources from ProQuest, non-exhaustive search. [42][43][44] There seem to be some decent sources in the article as well. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) —siroχo 07:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second source only briefly mentions the character, as with the third source. The first one has a brief analysis of the character in the final scene of season 3. I think more sources would be needed. Spinixster (chat!) 07:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The fact that I'm the original creator of this article however many years ago at this stage bears no merit (I'm sure that those kinds of ill-minded people who would think that for even a second are on here). These blatant series of nominations in SUCH SHORT PERIOD with no real meaty reason is not only highly suspect, it's at its least highly insulting, at worst some sort of ill-gotten agenda. Cartoon Boy talk 21:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The age of the article does not equal to notability (WP:ARTICLEAGE). I do take your word for the series of nominations, that is my mistake, but you are wrong with "no real meaty reason". The reason is notability, and that's why I sent it to AfD in the first place. If you can prove the character is notable with sources, please do so. Spinixster (chat!) 07:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge. The current reception is about the actress, not the character. I am AGFing the source critique above to conclude this fails WP:SIGCOV. Ping me if more sources are found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus I mentioned above it was not an exhaustive search, please take my comments as good faith here, as well. For your edification, here's a few more sources [45][46][47][48]. —siroχo 00:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo Thanks, let me review them... First source I get only snippet views, not seeing SIGCOV analysis there. Second, ditto although one or two snippets suggest there may be something good there. Third source is not in English so I am not qualified to comment on it (machine translation of such snippets is cumbersome). For now I'll stick with my vote, although if someone writes up an analysis or such based on sources found (which at minimum would be good for merging), ping me and I'll review things again (ditto for more sources, but please, ensure they can be read, or better, quote relevant parts here - TIA). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, @Piotrus I think the spirit of WP:NEXIST is important here. We can't really expect to keep up with the pace of AfDs to rewrite articles. Keep in mind, the nominator opened 8 AfDs, and they're not the only ones going (remember the recent work that went into Yoyodyne). I really don't have time within the scope of AfD to add the reception/analysis you're asking for, despite my 100% confidence that this subject meets GNG (as do all 8 of these related subjects). —siroχo 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo Hence my view of redirect/merge (soft deletion preserving history). Such articles that do not meet our criteria right now but show potential can be easily restored later. Now, to be clear, if I saw sufficient source I'd say keep and tag with {{sources exist}} but right now I dont see them (due to verification difficulties). Other that that I think this is right now the case of WP:SEXIST more than WP:NEXIST, since I was not able to verify that good sources exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident the sources I've presented are sufficient for an article, and I hope you can assume good faith on that. From what I can tell, even the general preview and snippet views demonstrates that in some of these (for example the first source has an entire chapter/essay dedicated to this character), though with GBooks we may be seeing different views. Note, however, that there are a various ways to see a bit more. For example, you can do a fresh search for the character name in google books (sometimes you need to be logged out or an a new browser, etc), scroll to the appropriate book, click the result, and be presented with a fuller view.
    I hope you'll note from past discussions that when I am doubtful of this fact, I often suggest a merge or redirect. In such cases I always look for a solid bit of SIGCOV involving secondary synthesis/analysis beyond the primary text and if I don't find them I don't recommend keeping.
    However, in these cases when the sources are clear, redirecting makes it a lot harder to develop the article over a period of time, as undoing the redirect with only a small addition is often treated as controversial. Another editor might even come along and start the article fresh without realizing sources have been found, and spend time digging up sources when we've already done that.
    While I hope you can trust my evaluation a bit more in the future, in the meantime here's some examples from above:
    • From Kara French's essay in Becoming:

      • The arc of Bedelia’s story evokes the femme fatale of film noir in a way that goes beyond her Veronica Lake hairstyle and chilly deliv-ery. She is the quintessence of the mysterious woman who presents as a victim and is later revealed to be anything but. The character of Bedelia also represents Fuller’s take on familiar horror motifs, such as Carol Clover’s trope of the “Final Girl.” Bedelia is Hannibal ’s Final Girl in a very literal sense—the last image in the show’s finale, “The Wrath of the Lamb” (3.13), is the postcredits sequence where she is seated alone to feast on her own leg, poised to attack her mys-terious host armed with nothing but a fork.
        Bedelia both embodies and subverts these familiar female arche-types. As a camp figure, Bedelia disrupts the male gaze associated with the femme fatale as well as the male-centeredness of a series focused on Hannibal Lecter and Will Graham. In the postcredits sequence, Bedelia’s status as Final Girl and audience surrogate comes together. The ambiguity of that final image invites the audience to engage in meaning making with the text, thus blurring the line between passive observers and active participants in the blood opera Hannibal

    • From Hannibal for Dinner
      • Fowler

        In "The Number of the Beast is 666.., the penultimate episode of the series, Will asks his psychiatrist Bedelia du Maurier, Hannibal's former lover, about the nature of Hannibal's feelings for him. "Is Hannibal ... in love with me?" the FBI consultant asks hesitantly, to which Bedelia replies, "Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you, and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you ache for him?" Will's use of the phrase "in love" dispels any notion that the dynamic is purely platonic rather than romantic. This moment not only confirms the nature of Hannibal's feelings for Will, but Bedelia's question and Will's silence in response creates an ellipses that opens up the possibility of this queer longing as reciprocal. Thus, the series appropriates dialogue and moments from Clarice and Hannibal's relationship and reworks them in the show to not only allude to but confirm the romantic nature of Will and Hannibal's relationship.

      • Gledhill

        ... in Hannibal this self-reflexive exploration takes the form of psychotherapy on screen; a running commentary on ideas of audiences, consumption, and unreliable per-spective, as psychiatrist Bedelia Du Maurier (Gillian Andersen) and Will Graham debate their roles as victims of, spectators for, or participants in Lecter's murder spree. The "implication" of the audience in the events on screen is heightened by the intertextual references to fan practices off screen. There is complexity in Fuller's active engagement with his fans, with the media that report on cultural trends and review his productions, and with the text itself, though this can be overstated in fan and critical discussions surrounding the show.

    —siroχo 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. Certainly the bestowal of awards for the performance of the character is sufficient evidence of a reception consistent with the notability of the character. BD2412 T 04:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable character. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 16 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 Google Chrome. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Tone

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

This is mostly a procedural nomination; see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 15#Google Tone and the page's own history for more info. (Basically, this article used to be a draft, one AFC reviewer thought the topic was notable while another one did not, the article got into mainspace, got BLARed to Google Chrome, and now I'm restoring it and sending it here.) That said, even though the reflist isn't impressive, the Google News search results on this topic have a somewhat better showing, so I don't really know whether this article should be kept or deleted/merged/redirected actually. Duckmather (talk) 02:34, 24 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! 03:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Google Chrome, ideally to a section on accessibility, but somewhere like the extensions sections might work since the accessibility section does not currently exist. This subject does not have enough independent notability for its own article in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 8 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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Ramirez

[edit]
Raven Ramirez (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 does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 8 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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. It was recommended but I see no issues with Merging some of the content as long as there is proper attribution. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Ryan

[edit]
Avery Ryan (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 does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 8 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. ✗plicit 00:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get There (Bôa album)

[edit]
Get There (Bôa album) (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)

Contested BLAR: fails NALBUM. Search showed no sources. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 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. Certainly no consensus to delete. Valid concerns about the depth of the coverage remain. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getter Saar (footballer)

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

Redirect to List of Estonia women's international footballers. The subject has earned 16 caps for the Estonia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is what came up in searches. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 17 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! 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Between Delete, Keep and Redirect, there isn't a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I was pinged here for my analysis so I won't formally !vote. The soccernet.ee pieces constitute one single source. Of those, we have passing mentions in a list (not SIGCOV); a republished press release announcing Saar was chosen as best women's player of the month (not independent, not SIGCOV); and two interviews with no independent coverage. From Err.ee we have a sentence of info accompanied by a quote from her (not SIGCOV) and two routine match reports mentioning her (primary, not SIGCOV). I would recommend redirecting.
JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is a "recommendation" different from a "!vote"? -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding how can different sources about different things be counted as 1 source. 1 + 1 +... ≠ 1. It would be the same as when the deletion starter JTtheOG asked for your help deleting this article, you both count as 1. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are pulling from WP:GNG, which says: "Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." GNG requires multiple pieces of in-depth coverage from more than one reliable source. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 15 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! 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar Crețu

[edit]
Cezar Crețu (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 in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV FatCat96 (talk) 13:23, 17 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! 21:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 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! 00:47, 8 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. ✗plicit 00:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Guhuan Island

[edit]
East Guhuan Island (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)

Challenged for inline citations and more sources since 2020. Other sources that I found in GBooks only proves that it exists but that's it. Alternatively, redirect to List_of_islands_of_the_Philippines#Palawan. Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 8 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. If any non-sockpuppet would like this article userfied, please let me know or ask at WP:REFUND. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heydar Latifiyan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Heydar Latifiyan (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 is no evidence that the article meets WP:GNG. The sources are not verifiable. Furthermore, the article is created in several languages over a short period of time possibly using machine translation. Pirehelo (talk) 19:57, 23 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! 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete or userfy to one of the three blocked sockpuppets that created it. Struck following comment below from User:Liz 05:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC). I was able to check source #6, The Cambridge History of Iran, which is available in English original as well as Farsi translation. The two sentences cited to it, in the "Childhood" section, refer to page 186 in chapter 5 by Keddie and Amanat. This page does indeed verify that Iran suffered a famine in 1870–71, and that Mizra Hussein Khan was a person who existed (there's rather a lot about his prime ministry, actually). Nowhere is Latifayan mentioned, nor his family, nor Vahan Abad.[reply]
    Not being able to read Farsi, I can't verify that all of the rest of the sources are like this, but the wording and placement of the citations imply it. "Heydar tried to support [actually notable person who did something that can be cited]", "Heydar, along with the rest of the democrats [did a thing, not even cited]", "Heydar Latifian, together with a group of people...", "Heydar Latifiyan was also killed like the rest of his comrades", According to local tradition Heydar's was the only identifiable corpse.
    The whole thing reads like an article tailored around the life and death of a subject it hardly discusses. General statements are carefully sourced in a way that can be verified (including the distance to the airport!), but none of the sources may mention the subject, who appears to have played an extremely minor role, and meets no notability threshold. However, I can't prove any of this. Given that the subject's great-grandson's article was created by the same set of blocked socks, theories suggest themselves. Folly Mox (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking another look at the article, I am convinced by Folly Mox's assessment, weak delete or userfy. —siroχo 09:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't userfying an article to the User space of a blocked sockpuppet just a way of putting it into cold storage, never to be seen again? Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, basically. I think I made a few mistakes with that. I was a little concerned that the Farsi sources might be genuine, but by the time I finished typing I had talked myself out of it and neglected to edit the bolded verbs accordingly. I'll strike for easier processing. Folly Mox (talk) 04:59, 10 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_October_8&oldid=1180531214"