Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:06, 3 June 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 02	June 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Firefly. (A7: Article about a singer, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Abo$$ (Artist)

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

Hamza Abo$$ (Artist)

This biography of a living person does not establish musical notability or general notability. Footnotes are required in a biography of a living person. This article has no footnotes, only 11 endnotes. After being Proposed for Deletion, the deletion proposal was removed by the author, which is permitted. The endnotes appear to be all press releases, many of them labeled as press releases, others recognizable by the exuberant tone that is not that of professional critics.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Secondary
1	bignewsnetwork.com	A newswire press release	No	Yes	No
2	benzinga.com/pressreleases	Reads like a paid puff piece	No	Yes	No
3	usnewswire.org	A Press Release	No	Yes	No
4	southeast.newschannelnebraska.com	Reads like another press release	No	Yes	No
5	news.yahoo.com	Another gushing press release	No	Yes	No
6	news.yahoo.com	Yet another gushing press release	No	Yes	No
7	news.yahoo.com	Still another gushing press release	No	Yes	No
8	apnews.com	A press release, labeled as such	No	Yes	No
9	news.yahoo.com	Reads like a press release	No	Yes	No
10	usnewswire.org	Another press release, labeled as such	No	Yes	No
11	apnews.com	Another press release, labeled as such	No	Yes	No

There isn't any significant secondary coverage, either in-line, whether it is supposed to be, or at the bottom. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This biography of a living person does establish musical notability or general notability. Two out of the ten endnotes are are published via the Associated Press. This is considered reliable regardless of if it was apart of a mass syndication or not. The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drackosiru (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment struck. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rule on whether Associated Press bestows notability on the subject refers to original articles written by their journalists, and not to pre-written press releases that they merely distribute, which is the case for this rapper. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck to dude as he gets started, but Wikipedia is not a promotional service. The nominator is correct on how all of the rapper's media coverage is reprinted press releases from himself or his management. Wikipedia requires professional and independent journalistic coverage, and such authors would not call him a genius all the time. He seems to have a knack for finding media companies that will reprint his own promotional statements, but he does not get an article here until the professionals notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, Mr. Aboss isn't notable at this point, based on the source analysis. Best of luck to him. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedily, per the above and this article's creation by a sockpuppet of a UPE account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjengul. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This will almost certainly be deleted, but if by some chance it is kept we should get rid of the misleading disambiguator from the title. There is no other article with the title "Hamza Abo$$" and he's a musician, not an artist. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmira Chakraborty

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

Autobiography rejected at AFC, repeatedly moved to mainspace and back to draft, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Music. Theroadislong (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no mainstream sources. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Fram (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source in Google found, and her article uses youtube as a source. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Blatant vanity piece, repeatedly recreated - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt per Oaktree, and Arjayay. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TigerShark (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Ming-Trent

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." No significant coverage presented, BEFORE shows nothing very much out there to add. One award ≠ notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ming-Trent was considered sufficiently well known on Broadway to have merited a cameo in Only Murders in the Building,^[1] and he is a current nominee for the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actor in a Play.^[2] In fairness to the editor proposing deletion, this is a thinner stub than I would normally let out of draft space. I decided to get something out sooner rather than later because Ming-Trent is getting a spike in recognition right now and a poorly targeted redirect was already in existence. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Levitt, Hayley (22 October 2021). "How Many More Broadway Faces Did You Spot in Only Murders in the Building?". Playbill. Retrieved 3 June 2022.
^ Russo, Gillian (16 May 2022). "2022 Drama Desk Award nominations announced". New York Theater Guide. Retrieved 3 June 2022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator. There are zero reliable secondary sources cited here. Fails WP:GNG. Rabbiweiner (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 11:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charisse Anne Hernandez

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

The subject does not appear to be notable. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National level politician as previously noted. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Street, Hobart

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

NN local street, no indication of notability. MB 06:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. MB 06:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the streets in the inner parts of Hobart, it is notable if the time and effort had been put into editing the article - as trove adequately shows there have been activities, locations and since 1884, that go well beyond the notion of not notable, but then there's no accounting for lack of interest and effort compared to what is offered... Being parallel to Liverpool Street, it wouldnt take much to have an article the same as liverpool, its just nobody has bothered... JarrahTree 10:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that two streets run parallel doesn't mean that they are equally notable. We have articles about Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, but not Camden Drive which runs parallel to it, and Wall Street in Manhattan, but not Pine Street which runs parallel to it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a possible misunderstanding - Hobart in Tasmania in Australia in the city centre has blocks of historically important buildings and addresses which are spread throughout the centre, where streets and blocks are in no way 'more notable' than others, I had not even considered liverpool as being more notable or less than this street when I put the comment up - as a current mainland Australian, I would agree with your assertion that sometime parallel streets in some central city areas in the mainland of Australia have exactly what you say, real drop off between blocks or streets of significant historic or notable structures - as a former resident of Hobart/Tasmania I believe the point made is possibly a misunderstanding the dynamic of historic city centre areas such as Hobart which due to its early city development which locates a spread of significant historic places. Due to the nature of the spread of significant items within the streetscapes of the city from the 1830s, the existence of the Catholic church buildings on the corner with the harrington street, and the mix of the notable prohibitionist group, as well as the congregational buuldings, I believe that brisbane street material that is easily available on trove (where most of the citations come from) show that it is a component of the Hobart city centre historical fabric that is neither greater or lesser than the parallel Liverpool street. JarrahTree 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked at this entire street on Google Maps Street View, and it doesn't appear to be a major thoroughfare of the kind that would merit an article here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Focus of significant colonial activity. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More significant colonial history can be added, eg, Convict penitentiary and chapel. Downsize43 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JarrahTree, The Drover's Wife an Downsize43. Deus et lex (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...And Give Us Our Daily Sex

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Italy, and Spain. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the content is secondary source content, and none of the sources contain secondary source content. It is all directory information. On google I can find no reviews, excluding user reviews that can’t be used for sourcing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via PROD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found a review by Gilbert Adair in The Monthly Film Bulletin (ProQuest 1305831871) and another by Marjorie Bilbow in Screen International (ProQuest 963295923)—both are on the shorter side, but I think they probably qualify as significant coverage. (These magazines don't seem to be available in the Wikipedia Library, so if you'd like to check them out for yourself, feel free to email me and I'll send the PDFs.) The article also cites what appears to be a review in Film-Dienst, although I'm not sure if it's sigcov because I can't access the full text. Usually I'd prefer a bit more than this when making a GNG-based argument, but this is a case where WP:NEXIST encourages us to be flexible, in my view. This is a forty-year-old foreign-language film, so it was most likely reviewed in contemporaneous Spanish or Italian film magazines or newspapers that aren't available online. Although "but there might be offline sources!" isn't always a winning argument, !voters should "consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any", and here I think that possibility is fairly high since we've already uncovered several English-language sources that get us most of the way to a GNG pass. I'd consider changing my !vote if someone with access to Spanish/Italian-language periodical archives wasn't able to find satisfactory sourcing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST and Extraordinary Writ's points. Searching the BNE's digital periodical archives for Perisopio and Laura Gemser mentions in 1979 and 1980,[1] there seem to be at least reviews of the film in El Correo de Zamora, La Nueva España, and El Periódico de Catalunya. The exact content isn't accessible by me, but the minimal preview text points to at least some of these being qualifying reviews. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maharathi Karna

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

PROD removed with "Take it to AfD, Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema is no mean thing."

However, even if that is taken as a notable source (which it is), that leaves only 1 good source. The others are database sites, a newspaper ad, and a passing mention in another book.

Need more than just the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema to be notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; goes on to fail WP:NFO. I feel it could be notable, but there is no evidence of notability here and English search doesn't (and wouldn't necessarily) throw anything up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, The Indian Express, another book by Ashok Raj, for a film from 1944 - definitely notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reliable book sources added to the article for a pre-internet film so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Japaneseism

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

This article is being nominated for deletion because I could not find any reliable sources that even mention the subject of this article. Also, none of the sources cited in this article are linked. So, this article might be a complete hoax that has been around for about 10 years straight. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (Talk) 3:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is a translation of a well-sourced article on ja.wiki that has been extensively edited by multiple editors since 2008. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mccapra is bang on the money here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sourcing on the Japanese version. As a comment, it is never a good sign when an editor has been involved in more AFDs (four) than the number of days they've been on Wikipedia (three). Editor may wish to review policies and conduct a thorough check WP:BEFORE nominating at AFD again, particularly given the error in this nomination. MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra and MaxnaCarter. This is a clear WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient Japanese language sources.Fulmard (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, let's make a source assessment table for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issue is whether the ideology is documented by reliable sources, and Mccapra and MaxnaCarter have confirmed that it is. More generally, the existence of a hateful ideology is never an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Reliable sources are required, and have been shown to exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bung Karno Seclusion House

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

Non-notable as per WP:SIGCOV. Article has been a stub for eight years Davidelit (Talk) 03:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose The place is notable with lots of coverage and historical significance

1. https://www.kompas.com/sains/read/2022/06/01/160200523/jokowi-kunjungi-rumah-pengasingan-bung-karno-di-ende-ini-sejarahnya?page=all

See Google translated version in English.--Doncram (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. https://www.liputan6.com/regional/read/3545434/semarak-parade-pancasila-mengenang-kedatangan-bung-karno-di-ende

See Google-translated version. "Bung Karno"="Sukarno". There's an annual boat parade. The site is all about conception of 5 principles (pancasila). --Doncram (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. https://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2022/06/01/jokowi-dan-iriana-sempatkan-waktu-singgah-di-rumah-pengasingan-bung-karno-di-kabupaten-ende-

Translated. Site is in recent news, with current president Jokowi visiting June 1, 2022. It's a political pilgrimage photo op destination, perhaps to invoke spirit of pancasila (politics) when cross ethnic reconciliation is needed ( my speculation). In Tribune News(?), perhaps Tribune Content Agency, associated with Chicago Tribune? --Doncram (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Tribunnews is the online news site of Tribun Network. IMO a RS, 100% Indonesian-owned, no relation to similar sounding US media (such as the Los Angeles Tribune). –Austronesier (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4. https://travel.kompas.com/read/2020/06/06/170100927/7-tempat-wisata-yang-rekam-napak-tilas-soekarno?page=all

7 tourist sites following Sukarno's footsteps, translated. The 2 exile houses, and the devotional park with breadfruit tree in Ende are 3 of the 7. By the way i now think "Sukarno Exile Houses" would be better article name. --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---Nyanardsan (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBUILD "Buildings, including private residences, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." (my bold). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sukarno#Exile. As it stands now, the page is effectively a dab to two topics (= two places where Sukarno stayed in exile), but without targets. Instead, it has one (!) sentence for each place. Unless we can't say more than is already found in the main article about Sukarno, we don't need this ill-composed stub. –Austronesier (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to say. The article should be developed and/or tagged to call for development. E.g. from this source and other travel/museum sources give details that the house was rented and is east-facing (towards Mecca i think is the importance), there is an associated breadfruit tree, the museum includes furnishings, etc., detail that is not appropriate for the Sukarno article. Also place-type categories needed, not appropriate for a bio article.--Doncram (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Indonesian government propaganda article does not make WP:SIGCOV. Davidelit (Talk) 03:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About what more there is to say about both places, see Indonesian language wikipedia article webpage put through Google Translate (hope this link works). Besides details about both places and a photo that can be used, both sites are apparently listed buildings on Indonesia's register of historic/cultural properties. So like US sites on National Register of Historic Places, there will exist more documentation. Slam. --Doncram (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a case where a single title for two locations seems to be missed somehow... (there was a tradition for some rulers of three hundred years earlier, that each place where the ruler slept was considered sacred or special...) - the information tendered could be re-allocated at a more suitable location perhaps. JarrahTree 12:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site in Ende is a museum; see wp:ITSAMUSEUM (to which i contributed). This account of a visitor in Indonesia Expat gives background on significance: it is in a remote area of Indonesia where Sukarno, who became Indonesia's first president and who led it to independence from the Dutch, was exiled for four years. It was a formative, creative period. And, as a preserved place, it seems highly significant to Indonesian history. Like, say, Monticello where an American writer involved in the American Revolution lived (but that was his chosen home). I think there are other places of exile important in other nations' history: how about the prison island where Nelson Mandela was held, where he wrote and developed as a great leader?

The Indonesia Expat source states alternative name for the home/museum as "Situs Pengasingan Soekarno", which should also be searched upon.

Of course Americans like me know little about history of Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation by population. Hardly any Americans would guess the population rank of Indonesia among countries (4th largest!). About 0.000% could distinguish Sukarno vs. military dictator Suharto; i certainly haven't been always been clear myself. Deletion here would amount to bias. --Doncram (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the page is actually about the one place in Ende? This is what I gather from the keep/oppose !votes so far. But the article in one breath talks about the much less known site in Bengkulu too. So what's notable then? The museum in Ende? It certainly is. Or the overarching topic of two houses that served as places for Bung Karno's exile? That's a dab or a category, but not an article. –User:Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree there is notability. My impression is that they were both places of exile, or at least homes of Sukarno, and they certainly could both be covered in one article. If there's plenty to say about the other one, too, like if it is clearly separately Wikipedia-notable then it can be split out. Otherwise the article can just have short mention of it, which would be fine. Leave it to editors actually developing the topic to make sensible decisions. --Doncram (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also some/more !voters oughta translate the references provided by first commenter; i have not done so.--Doncram (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This provides more info. Certainly the article can mention the breadfruit tree nearby, under which Sukarno contemplated pancasila (politics), the 5 principles. --Doncram (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~None of delete !voters above~~I suspect neither of the two delete !voters above after the nominator had read translated versions of the four sources named by "strong oppose" first commenter [because i found it difficult to get translations myself, and they don't say they did]. Frankly i think this is ready to be closed "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what people read. I read the original articles - except for the one that is a deadlink. Two report the same story, while one has a few sentences with almost no content. Still doesn't meet [[WP:SIGCOV. Davidelit (Talk) 06:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i modified my assertion. You're the deletion nominator. What source is a deadlink? Perhaps u mean the Floretourism one, second source in the article (i'm not sure it's dead)? None of the 4 sources cited by strong opposer above are deadlinks. You probably didn't find all four and read them before your nomination, did you?; have you now read them? -Doncram (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first source is a press release. The second doesn't mention the house. The third source is from the same press release. The fourth source is a mention in a listicle. To reiterate my delete vote above, which was clearly unread, "Fails WP:NBUILD "Buildings, including private residences, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clearly notable place. It is listed to Indonesia's equivalent to American National Register of Historic Places. It can be seen in this site. In depth coverage by reliable sources can be seen here, here and here. Indonesian government sources (in this case, their Cabinet Secretary) has called the place to be the birthplace of Indonesian Pancasila. Per WP:NBUILDING as the building is clearly a national heritage buildings for Indonesia, notability is assumed. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because a translation of the government page states "Bung Karno's House of Exile, the Beginning of the Birth of Pancasila." This cite posted by SunDawn convinces me this site is a notable place. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and CNN Indonesia states Pancasila (politics) is the "basis of the Indonesian state". Bung Karno Seclusion House, was the "birthplace" of Pancasila. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Sukarno, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Keep. Passes WP:NBUILDING per the cogent argument made by SunDawn.4meter4 (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John-Paul Lavoisier

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

Subject lacks notability; one major role on One Life to Live and one brief stint on Days of our Lives. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as specified above and is clear from the article, there are no big or significant roles that would help realise WP:NACTORS policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Nwhyte (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers & United States. Pahiy (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a specific article. Fade258 (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The discussion has drawn minimal participation without decisive arguments in favor of either proposed outcome. (non-admin closure) — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhar Azzam

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

Non-notable Islamist cleric Mooonswimmer 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mooonswimmer 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Mooonswimmer. There are very few hits in Google news, outside of small blogs. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems clearly notable, just search his name in google books and there are plenty of hits. Or google news. Here's one:

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/abu-zar-al-burmi-jihadi-cleric-and-anti-china-firebrand Not likeable and notable are not synonymous. CT55555 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. P. Eddy

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

Fails GNG. Eddy is quoted every so often in media, but very little is written about him elsewhere. The blatantly promotional article as is stands relies heavily on his LinkedIn or tangential mentions. There may be a case for an article about Warnings: Finding Cassandras To Stop Catastrophes, a book he wrote, but that also seems unlikely. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, Companies, and United States of America. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CEO notability = F500/FTSE which these are not. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NBUSINESSPERSON which is a guideline, but there we have it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
R.P. Eddy is a Publishers Weekly Bestselling author for his book, Warnings, which was also included in President Bill Clinton's recommended reading list.

His government experience is vast:

• NSC, Director, Global Issues and Multilateral Affairs (under President Clinton)

• Senior Advisor to the Secretary (Department of Energy)

• SES — Chief of Staff to US Amb. to UN, Richard Holbrooke (State Department)

• Senior advisor to Secretary General Kofi Annan (United Nations) where he served as an architect of The Global Fund to Prevent AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. R.P. was a group recipient of the Nobel Prize award to SG Annan and the UN for “commitment to the struggle to contain the spreading of the HIV virus in Africa.”
R.P. is now a member of the National Security Leaders for Biden. Foreign Policy Magazine described him as one of the U.S.'s "most esteemed terrorism and national security experts." The World Economic Forum at Davos named him a “Global Leader for Tomorrow.” R.P. is also a founder of the Center for Policing Terrorism (LAPD, NYPD). S124k (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several leaders, major organizations, and real decision makers rely on R.P. Eddy.
Gov. Ned Lamont (CT): https://www.nga.org/news/commentary/governors-look-at-preparing-for-and-responding-to-a-cyber-crisis/
"R.P. Eddy... Wrote a book, some years ago, that was somewhat predictive of the type of attacks we should anticipate in the future... he did have pandemics and cyberattacks in there."
Jen Easterly: Head of CISA "Brilliant articulation"
Big think says, "He is the man that, if we had a functional government, would be helping lead us through this mess right now." https://bigthink.com/the-present/pandemic-warnings-rp-eddy/
In 2018 a Fox Business news commentator described him as, "the best intelligence expert in the world today"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnOL1zGj0A
ESPN, Sarah Spain: https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/1076962094/thats-what-she-said-with-sarah-spain/rp-eddy
Sarah talks to businessman and author R.P. Eddy about the work he's done in public service- he created the first White House pandemic response, was a UN diplomat, and was the architect of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Eddy also discusses how the pandemic was predictable (he wrote as much in 2017), how to discern the glut of information out there to find the most accurate stuff, and how to become aware of the ways that our minds trick us.
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-cyberattack-sanctioned-cyber-expert-warns
A top cybersecurity official [R.P. Eddy] Saturday warned that the U.S. is "already in a warfare state" with Russia and said it should prepare for cyberattacks coming out of Moscow. Mar8493 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that both of the above accounts are single-purpose accounts re: the subject of the article. Mar8493 is an approximately 24-hour-old account. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need article about Mr. Eddy, not interviews with him. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources given by the sock(?) are interviews or brief descriptions of the book he wrote. He's been mentioned in the New York Times, but as part of a year end reading list, only having a few lines in the article. Similarly I find an interview he did with PBS, but none of these help establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anugerah Industri Muzik Malaysian-Indian

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

Non-notable music award, no sourcing found. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Malaysia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When a website makes the immortal point, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.", you know you're in trouble. 98% of online coverage is WP-derived. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIMT University

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

Non notable school, COI edited by the (now blocked) 'Digital Team' with zero encyclopedic information in the article - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is recognized by the University Grants Commission (India) and is a official degree issuing private university.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep University does have news coverage, just not in English. Sizeable and notable university in a non-English speaking country. The article needs to be expanded and improved, not deleted. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 06:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Autonomous sizable degree-granting university, recognized by UGC and other required institutes. From a quick google news search I suspect enough coverage for a short article can be found, maybe not in English. The rational given, "COI edited by Digital team", is good for WP:RPP, not for WP:AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rivers Jr.

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

Non-notable boxer. Success in junior events doesn't show notability. Had no significant wins as a pro and failed to qualify for the Olympics as an amateur. The coverage is just routine reporting of boxing results and interviews. Sandals2 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Martial arts. Sandals2 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable. IrishOsita (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no notable accomplishments inside boxing, and has not fought any notable boxers. Couldn't find much of anything in terms of coverage, so WP:GNG also failed. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gastón Reyno

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. One top tier MMA fight and highest world rank of 351. Being a sparring partner of "top fighters" doesn't make him notable. He's not in the list of nearly 50,000 competitors at taekwondodata.com, so it appears he's never competed at a major tkd tournament. Much of the coverage is interviews and typical fight reporting. Sandals2 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Sandals2 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As NSPORTS participation critera was effectively butchered (not that it matters anyway bellator wasn't a top tier promotion from 2015-2021), he fails WP:NMMA. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As page creator, I believe he meets GNG, which I haven't seen addressed. JTtheOG (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was addressed in the last sentence of the nomination. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) or mixed martial arts fighters (WP:NMMA). I agree that most of the coverage is fight reporting, databases, and interviews--but there is some other coverage. I just don't think there's enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Singh Thind

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

This is an unsourced article. We need reliable secondary sources giving indepth coverage to justify an article. I could find none in my search. Being a farmer and being a soldier at his level are not default signs of notability, and even though the article claims his farming endevors were broadly impactful we have no sources to support this claim. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isnt he notable as a winner of the Padma Shri? Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We would need sourcing first off. Since that is the 4th highest civilian medal in the country, I have doubts that its winners are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches indicated no notability. No sources cited. CT55555 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Netherzone (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, nothing online. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fanafel

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable footballer Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerosene (2022 film)

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. Yet-unreleased film with no indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG ; nothing particularly indicate likely future notability, but that can be seen when the time comes. Coverage in sources is only of the release date and release of a n advertising poster. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Kpg jhp jm 06:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFF / GNG. Unlikely to be notable even after release considering it's [mostly] non-notable cast/crew, may be recreated if and when it meets WP:NFILM -- Ab207 (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this was the upcoming movie, releasing on June 17th. I will add more references to this article.-- Pranayraj Vangari ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 07:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd personally have sent it to draft, but failing that, Delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tawerilibeg

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so ineligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: can only find this in my supplementary checks; not significant coverage. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 02:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sesario Sigam

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so ineligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial sources, can't find any sigs on my own. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Koncel

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

Article is an orphan. Also it has needed additional citations for 11 years. Ellipsis22 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Poetry, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Additionally uncited or orphaned don't count towards WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC (if we're going that route based on her visiting poet post at Smith or her fellowship from Massachusetts Cultural Council), neither do they count towards WP:POET. Sadly, nothing else I can find does, either, so here we are. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep Two of Koncel's books have been reviewed by the newspapers, though I have only found papers in New England that discuss her work. I have added these citations to her article (and removed the tag regarding the lack of citations). DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep, the additional coverage of her work with the American Wild Horse Campaign is just enough to make her notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is surprisingly difficult to find published reviews of poetry books. Two newspaper reviews each of two books could be enough for WP:AUTHOR. We also have a local newspaper interview making clear that (although our article doesn't say so) she is the same person as the Mary Koncel associated with the American Wild Horse Campaign, another local newspaper story covering her work with the campaign, and a nonlocal newspaper story with some more in-passing mentions. I'm not sure the wild horse aspect of her story would be enough for WP:GNG on its own, but together with the poetry reviews I think there's enough here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Koncel appears to have been covered by the January-February 2005 issue of the American Book Review (see here) if anyone has access to confirm. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reviews found seem to show meets WP:NAUTHOR. Neither of the reason's put forward by the nom seem valid reasons to delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly the justification to delete is not aligned with policy. Also, I've introduced a link, so the article is not an orphan anymore. Also it is now well cited. Also with multiple reviews of her work, she passes criterion # of WP:CREATIVE. There really isn't much doubt to me that we need to keep this article. CT55555 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constantino Wilson

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no online sources. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynard White

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian Nobel laureates

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

Category-masquerading-as-an-article. Lacks any encyclopedic prose which is not just generic information about the Nobel Prizes or unsourced commentary, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is redundant to the existing category structure; and on top of that seems to include some amount of WP:V-failing material (which might as well be WP:OR) with the "also included sometimes" and "some Hungarian background" sections RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And jointly nominating all of the below too, for the same reasons:

(a few others have been nominated separately for different even more persuasive reasons) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All – All are qualified for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to their respective categories: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." These articles also serve as functional navigational aids as per WP:LISTPURP. For example, over the last 30 days, the List of Hungarian Nobel laureates page received a daily average of 21 page views per day, while the Category:Hungarian Nobel laureates page only received a daily average of 1 page view per day. Articles that would benefit from more sources for verification purposes can have maintenance templates requesting this work added to them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS is a much stronger argument than some guideline about that. Lists are in article space and therefore subject to the standards of article space: articles should provide encyclopedic prose and context beyond mere trivialities. data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Page views are not convincing arguments for notability, much less for failing WP:NOT. If the articles were deleted, the exact same information would be available to the readers via categories (which would likely get a boost), which are the more appropriate way to organise this than some OR/NOT lists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CLN, Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. Beccaynr (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explained below (articles which are in effect duplicative of categories and which have no additional content whatsoever don't belong per WP:NOT); but I'll note that even if that were not the case, as pointed out below, a list by country already exists, so these sub-lists are really useless duplication, not just of the categories but of the existing list as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is concerning "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but fact is, these articles are not statistical in nature. They do not present averages of sample values, regression analysis, sample sizes, statistical assumptions, statistical inferences, probability distributions, margins of error, etc. Sure, some of these would be improved by the addition of more background information regarding the various subjects, but the content in them simply provides basic information, as many list articles typically do. For an example of what actually comprises statistical content, see Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election § Two-way race. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete All - Unnecessary content forks of List of Nobel laureates by country. A list article for seperate nationalities is not useful as users can easily navigate to the respective section on List of Nobel laureates by country and continue from there. Golem08 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Geography is a notable group or set per WP:LISTN and e.g., How the Nobel Prize has favoured white western men for more than 100 years (The Telegraph, 2014, includes "Geographical analysis by the Telegraph has also revealed that western countries have received a disproportionately high number of awards throughout the Nobel's history."), What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity (Nature, 2018, includes a general focus on geography), Nobel Prize winners: How many women have won awards? (Telegraph, 2015, includes a list of "Representation among countries with more than five Nobel Prize winners"), Nobel Prize winners: Which country has the most Nobel laureates? (Telegraph, 2015). Geography as it relates to Nobel Prize winners is a notable group or set per the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you give have little to do with specific countries (being behind a paywall doesn't help, but even from the titles, they might be useful for a List of Nobel laureates by country, but not for a List of Nobel laureates from foo country); and one which lists "which country has the most Nobel laureates" is in no way an indicator that a listing by-individual-country provides anything encyclopedically pertinent. Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If the only thing that can be said about Nobel winners from foo country is "Here is a list of Nobel winners from foo country", then the list is not an appropriate encyclopedic entry, because it has no encyclopedic content, as it is a bare listing, not in anyway an insightful "summary of knowledge" as an encyclopedia ought to be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the List of Asian Nobel laureates AfD, there is also The amazing history of the Nobel Prize, told in maps and charts (Washington Post, 2013, "We've added up every Nobel awarded since 1901 and separated them out by country. The results are fascinating – and revealing."), and as noted in the List of female Nobel laureates AfD, there is The Nobel Prize (1901-2000) Handbook of Landmark Records, which includes geographic and nationality data (e.g. 32-44), with context related to nationality changes (pp. 40-41). Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source manages to name not a single Nobel laureate. That source ([2]) is in fact mostly not about any single country. It might be pertinent for List of Nobel laureates by country; but I don't see how any of the content in that source would be useful for any of the article above, except maybe as some very generic context - in fact, except for appearing in some of the charts, only very few countries are even directly mentioned - and those that are are mostly what would in any other context clearly be a trivial mention (i.e. he top 10 countries with the most Nobel laureates, in order. Pay attention to how top-heavy this list is; the numbers drop precipitously: [followed by a straight top-ten listing] is not sufficient depth of coverage to write an encyclopedic article on any one of those countries) and not significant coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTN, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. These are lists of individuals who form the notable group, because the grouping of Nobel winners by geography and nationality is a notable topic. These shorter lists by country are WP:SPINOFFs that allow more detail, images, and information to be added as compared to the brief summary style at List of Nobel laureates by country. Beccaynr (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the reference to WP:NOTDUP to be very relevant and convincing rebuttal for the deletion justification. CT55555 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep all List articles are real articles. We can have a category and a list too. One of several good reasons is that the list can provide more information than the category, which is really just links. Strong arguments above to keep. These lists are extraordinarily WP:DISCRIMINATE and many would say even "elite" -- there is nothing "indiscriminate" about them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How disappointingly incorrect. One could even think they're on Reddit and say "r/confidentlyincorrect". WP:INDISCRIMINATE says quite unambiguously that To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. None of these lists do any of that - they are raw listings which duplicate categories and provide no "summary of knowledge" to readers. And notability (or suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia) is not inherited. The Nobels might be notable, but every single sub-division or possible intersection of the group with another is not instantaneously acceptable. As for the list-vs-category argument, there is already a more global list, List of Nobel laureates by country, one which isn't unnecessarily split and with often OR inclusion criteria (for example, is Emilio Segrè really an "Italian" Nobel laureate? Not only was he a citizen of the USA when the award was given to him, but the work he undertook which resulted in him getting the Nobel also happened in the USA. Same with Riccardo Giacconi). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um... "reddit" ?? that's just WP:STRAWMAN ("This list is not notable and I'm wrong because--Reddit") - as to the content of the list (such as is Emilio Segrè really an "Italian" Nobel laureate?) those would be editing issues and not deletion issues. At most, discuss them on the article talk page. Even if one or several of those on the list are incorrectly on the list (and I'm not saying that they are or are not), that would not mean to delete the entire article. AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that every single one of these articles has the same WP:OR issues and the same WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues (one which you clumsily try to dismiss by implying that this being an "elite" grouping does not make this indiscriminate) means this clearly falls under both WP:DELREASON no. 14 (due to failing WP:NOT) and no. 6 (due to failing WP:OR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WABBITSEASON just saying the same argument over and over again does nothing for either of us. I leave it to whoever closes this discussion to decide if the topic does or does not pass WP:OR, WP:LISTN, and all the other arguments brought forth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the nominator's arguments are fundamentally flawed. Category-masquerading-as-an-article: it's fine to have a category and a list on the same topic per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, so this argument has no value. Lacks any encyclopedic prose which is not just generic information about the Nobel Prizes: this isn't an article, it's a list, and we don't expect lists to have substantial prose. This standard, if adopted, would lead to the deletion of most featured lists on Wikipedia, and so it's well outside community expectations. seems to include some amount of WP:V-failing material: the idea that the lists are unverifiable is clearly wrong as it's entirely possible to verify someone's nationality and the fact they won a Nobel prize. If there are problems with individual entries in individual lists, then that is a very poor reason to delete and contradicts the deletion policy. Nor is it an unencyclopedic topic, as Nobel laureates are clearly encyclopedic and nationality is an obvious cross-categorisation.
The idea that this is redundant to List of Nobel laureates by country is a more sensible argument, but that list is long enough that we should be considering splitting into sublists anyway, the sortable tables in each of these lists are more useful than the unformatted list presented there, and it would have to be a redirect rather than deletion because these are plausible search terms. Hut 8.5 07:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, actually, we don't expect lists to have substantial prose is just false. WP:FLCR clearly says that lists should have high-quality prose; a substantial lead; and that this should be comprehensive. A list which only has "Here's a list of foo from country bar" does not meet any of that. Simply because foo happens to be "Nobel prize winners" does not make this issue disappear: it makes it in fact more obvious how, indeed, most intersections of A and B (heck, if we can't say anything substantial about Nobel winners, figure what we can say about other, less significant awards) are not suitable groupings for an encyclopedic article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be confusing Wikipedia:Featured list criteria with Wikipedia:Notability (specifically WP:LISTN). "Featured List Criteria" is a wonderful project page outlining what that project wants lists to eventually look like and qualify for a featured list. However, 1) it's not a deletion criteria of any sort; and 2) the word "substantial" or any similar reference describing the detail of prose just isn't there. Failing WP:FLCR is not grounds for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? You think that this list should be deleted because it doesn't meet featured content standards? That's beyond ridiculous and I hoped you knew better than than to argue that. It's true that at the FL level lists usually have a paragraph or two to introduce the topic, often duplicating the relevant article, but the absence of something like that doesn't mean the list should be deleted and even FLs don't usually have significant prose outside the lead. Hut 8.5 16:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You can't bring up an incorrect statement and then double down with a strawman. You brought up the idea "we don't expect lists to have substantial prose". As my comments prove, we actually do, and if they don't, and the prose is so lacking in substance as to be merely "Here's a list of [List titlte]", then it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as data lacking context or encyclopedic value. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's time to call in a third party of some kind. We clearly are having serious disconnection on the matter at hand and any policies, guidelines, and rules that come into affect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not a neutral observer here, I !voted keep. But as a non-neutral observer, I suggest people pause. We can see the points of disagreement and you might not all reach consensus, and maybe that's OK. Who ever closes can see the differing perspectives. CT55555 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – More information can be put into those articles than there is in one section of the List of Nobel laureates by country. They may include, for example, the image and lifespan of a Nobel laureate and the reasons for receiving the Nobel Prize in more detail. Other important or interesting information, such as information about career of a Nobel laureate, can also be added to those articles. While those articles aren’t as comprehensive as they could be, they contain enough information to keep them. Luurankosoturi (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with what Hut 8.5 has written, which seems straightforward. I have no idea why List of Pakistani Nobel laureates appears here (with four entries) and yet the featured list List of Indian Nobel laureates does not. Perhaps it's because a few lines have been added to the lead. Splitting the list by countries as Hut 8.5 suggests seems like a good idea, particularly when the number of entries is small, so that the use of the word "statistics" has no meaning (all entries are exceptional). The image and caption connected for List of Israeli Nobel laureates is informative. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beyond the usual stalking by Mathsci (evidence detailed elsewhere) and some claims about how geography is inherently a notable grouping, none of the keep comments addresses the lack of reliable sources discussing about each of these intersections or the often very obviously OR content of a fair few of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can !vote here, per standard wikipedia policy. As edit histories/diffs show, lists of Israeli, Russian and Hungarian Nobel laureates were first mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion (several being Jewish emigrées, like Eugene Wigner). Knowledge of the use of statistics and its significance requires training, usually at university in a scientific environment: selecting exceptional scientists, writers or humanitarians in physics, chemistry, medicine, economics, literature and peace is not a random process. That is true in particular when applied to a small number from India or Pakistan. Is it so hard to create four sentences for a lead paragraph involving Pakistan (or similar countries)? The multiple edits attempting to delete the featured list — List of female Nobel laureates — were unhelpful; the "initiative" Draft:Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes has apparently been abandoned. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I haven't edited something in a few days doesn't mean it's been abandoned, it just means other things have gotten in the way. Now stop following me around and spare me the fancy explanations how you got involved in a topic you never edited before. The long sentence about Knowledge of the use of statistics seems like an obtuse attempt at saying I don't have a clue, which is either just impolite, or a deliberately thinly veiled personal attack, or both. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My editing history and diffs shows that I mentioned the three lists in the AfD above and only after that were they listed for AfD. I agree with the statements of Hut 8.5 and others, which I now reaffirm with the previous !vote. The mathematical physics statements concerning Eugene Wigner (and von Neumann) were mentioned a month ago in an article talk page. As long ago as 2006, I mentioned Physics laureate Gerard 't Hooft in a now deleted BLP; it was later kept as a pseudoscience article Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory — a cautionary tale about delusions of grandeur. Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

The sources presented show there is independent and reliable support for the lists - another is Infographic: Nobel Prize winners 1901-2021 (Al Jazeera, 2021), which includes specific countries, and the New York Times includes secondary context related to geographic origin in 2021 Nobel Prize Winners: Full List, and National Geographic also finds these distinctions 'worthy of notice': Who Are the Nobel Prize Winners? We've Crunched the Numbers. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these provide in-depth (i.e. "significant" as required by the guidelines) coverage of specific countries. An entry in a stats table or an infographic is not significant coverage. Coverage of "Nobel prizes by country" is not necessarily coverage of "Nobel prizes in country X", and even if "country X" happens to be mentioned somewhere, there is no guarantee such a mention (the first of the sources you list is an obvious example of this) is substantial enough to write an encyclopedic article (as opposed to a directory cross-categorisation) on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTN, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been, and the grouping of geographic origin is documented by multiple independent and reliable sources. Also, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability and this discussion has also included the benefits of these lists and how they can present more information and be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice to the sources already mention, the following book provides significant coverage:

Hargittai, István. The road to Stockholm: Nobel Prizes, science, and scientists. Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2002. CT55555 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a title like that, the book could be about literally anything related to Nobels. Does that book specifically cover the intersections/groups of "Nobel laureates from country X", in a more encyclopedic fashion than merely a listing in a stats table? If so, on which pages exactly? @Becca: A trivial mention in a stats table, consisting of a country's name and the number of Nobels it won, is not a justification for an article as articles are not stats tables. I do not see how the list fulfills any "recognized informational, navigation or development purpose". All the articles about Nobel laureates already exists, and the lists do not provide any additional information, except some WP:OR about "also included sometimes" people or the like. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it dos cover the intersection of nobel laureates by country. That is why I mentioned it in the context of telling you it's a book that provides significant coverage of the topic we are discussing at AfD.

It cover the topic on so many pages that it would be overwhelming to list them. It's a key theme in the book.

I get the impression that you doubt the accuracy of my statement, and are struggling to assume good faith here, so to help you with that, I'll just pick one example, Hungary, the one that you've used as the pilot/example. The book talks about Hungary 26 times in the context of Nobel prizes, with the clearest examples of what would be needed on pages 30, 36, 38, 47, 120. CT55555 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the accuracy of your statement, because previous examples (like the Al Jazeera infographics; or the other news articles which cover [to the level required by SIGCOV] the broad topic of Nobels and geography, but not the specific and more narrow intersections of "Nobel winners" and "country X") were unambiguously not significant coverage. P. 30 is a trivial mention of Hungary in a listing along with half a dozen other countries (The emerging pattern is that Germany, Austria, Canada, Hungary, Italy, and Poland, in decreasing order, have exported the largest number of Nobel laureates. is not SIGCOV of "Nobel laureates from Hungary"; nor of any of the others) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book, as a whole thing, provides significant coverage. Any one sentence taken in isolation and quoted without the rest of it, is obviously going to seem less significant. It seems disingenuous to quote only one line of a book in this context.

Would you quote one line from a book about IBM computers and then say it was trivial because the line only mentioned IBMs once?

Your approach to this debate suggests that no amount of new information will cause you to update your analysis here. I find it quite strange that even in the context of me pointing out a book that is very much about the topic in hand, and telling you the multiple pages where this topic is discussed, that you're still debating this. CT55555 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What can be significant coverage of "Nobel prizes by country" or "Geographic distribution of Nobel prizes" is not necessarily significant coverage of "Nobel prizes in country X" for all X. Coverage of "Sexism" or "Sexism across the world" is not necessarily coverage of "Sexism in country X"; coverage of "[Insert random sport here]" is not necessarily coverage of "[Insert random sport here] in country X". Same difference. The sources you show all have significant coverage of the broad topic, but not of individual, narrower intersections. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to discuss the individual merits of every article, nominating 14 articles into one AFD discussion page seems like a suboptimal way to do that. It implies to me that you see them as all notable, or all not. So I've chosen Hungary as the one to refute, which seems like a logical way to proceed, based on the choices you've made. If you wanted 14 different discussions, you probably should have started 14 AfDs. CT55555 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section titled "Citizens of the World", at pp. 30 - 34, appears to be an example of significant coverage of geographic groups and sets in that book, with further discussion of geographic origin at p. 38. Beccaynr (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also The Nobel Scientists and the Origins of Scientific Achievement (The British Journal of Sociology , 1981), which states that it includes national origin in its analysis. And beginning at p. 88, in a section titled "Nobel Identities: Language and Nation", through at least p. 109, The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige offers additional significant coverage of the geographic groups. Beccaynr (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With the exception of one weak delete, it's a bit WP:SNOWBALL keep here, with seven editors !voting keep, and several of us making long, detailed, repeated explanations why and only the nominator appearing to disagree with any of the keep arguments. I suggest this be withdrawn, rather than taking up more time discussing this, when the outcome seems clear. CT55555 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant to self-maintaining categories. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NOTDUP where it states, "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article-space stuff stills needs to meet article-space requirements (and I'll point at WP:NOT, which is actually policy). Pointing at NOTDUP as though it were some magic wand is as unconvincing as it is a tired argument. One should also see WP:SALAT. If the only thing a list does is duplicate a category, without any evidence that the specific intersection it covers is notable (even if some people shout at the top of their lungs that it is inherently notable because "Nobels" or something); and without any informative stuff to say to our readers, then, emphatically, no, it is not a good way to present this (non-)information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the categories could be considered as being redundant to these list articles. Content in Main namespace articles is verifiable per the use of inline citations and references, whereas category content is not verified or sourced. If anything, the categories are inferior, rather than the articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article-space stuff stills needs to meet article-space requirements. You can't have a "List of Nobel laureates by [insert random characteristic here]" for every such random characteristic even if the information about [insert random characteristic here] is verifiable. If there is no source which has written specifically about the intersection of "Nobel laureates" and "random characteristic", then it doesn't belong in article space. No source has been presented here which does more than cover the broad topic of "geographic distribution/bias/ of Nobel laureates", or maybe trivially say "X country has Y Nobel laureates" without going into any further detail (thus clearly not being the necessary WP:SIGCOV). There are plenty of categories which are split along nationality or other criteria - for usually valid reasons - without those being proper subjects for lists or articles in article-space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Valid navigational and informational list. Dream Focus 23:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Korean Nobel laureates to Kim Dae-jung as only one Korean has actually won a Nobel prize. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of DC Comics characters: V. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vext

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

Vext was the name of both a very short-lived comic and its titular hero, neither of which appear to pass the WP:GNG. Despite being made by a pretty impressive creative team, the series does not seem to have garnered any attention at all, as I was unable to find any sources that consisted of more than brief mentions. The only source included in the article that is not just an issue of the comics themselves is not actually on the character. This could possibly be used as a Redirect to Keith Giffen, but as there is no sourced content here that is outside of the plot summary, there is nothing that should actually be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Best thing I’ve found so far is a blog entry on how forgotten it is, which is not exactly encouraging. It’s bizarrely under covered for a big name in comics at the start of the internet age. Will probably delve around a bit more but it isn’t looking good. Artw (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not find any reliable third party coverage to establish notability. If someone finds a valid redirect target that can't hurt. Jontesta (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: V (could even merge a few sentences, I guess). Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the first sentence in the publication history is true, there was probably coverage of it in Wizard or Comic Buyer's Guide. I thought Sovereign Seven was the only comic to fit that description. If a source for that can be found and the article refactored to cover the series instead of the character, I'd support keeping. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen Effect

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was deleted via PROD, then contested at WP:RFUD. It was soft deleted at AfD due to a lack of quorum and has been reinstated at RFUD again. This article is promotional enough that one could have made a WP:CSD#G11 nomination (the article's creator likely has a WP:COI). The sourcing is not compliant, and this is after I have done WP:BEFORE and another user tried to improve the article prior to the soft deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Dance, Radio, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly been a colourful time, but the article is indeed promotional and its subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:SINGER, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb no more promotional than any other artist on Wikipedia. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The musician has been around for a long time and seems to have made a living as a jack-of-all-media-trades under many different names. But the reliable media seems not to have noticed, as I can only find passing mentions of this person in the background of articles about other people, and their own press releases and streaming service entries. The article serves as an advertisement and personal biography, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia. No matter how much someone argues about the musician's lengthy career and self-promotional endeavors, the necessary sources just aren't out there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 Every living singer with a Wikipedia article could be classified as an advertisement or personal biography then if thats the case. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, but you must realize that people here are familiar with this site's policies and have been for a long time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and people/things must qualify for inclusion. Many of us voting to delete Chosen Effect's article have cited longstanding policies on who qualifies for a Wikipedia article and why. Please consider the opportunity for a learning experience, and read those policies carefully. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 Interesting that you mention this sites policies because one of the biggest is to make every effort to improve an article rather than deleting it. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have made those efforts. They have not led the article to a place where it should be saved. Deletion is an important part of the encyclopedia as well. I recommend that you put your efforts to use on other pages and not continue to sink it in here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The changes made to the article since I originally PRODded it do not satisfy my concerns. Chosen Effect seems like an interesting person, and perhaps someday some reliable sources will take note of her story and write about it, but until then, we should not have an article on her. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin artist discography is full of published works with verifiable barcodes and other record label associated codes. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been doing much research on this artist and they had huge success in Japan in the 1990's in particular. I have been able to find multiple verifiable music releases which citations have been created for. This artist has multiple music releases that were released under major record labels in Japan which are all verifiable as barcodes and other record Label associated codes exist and are part of the publishing process of musical works. If this is article is considered promotional and or an advertisement then the same could be said just about every other article on Wikipedia depending on how one chooses to perceive such things. The moment any persons name is mentioned, their accomplishments and or occupations past or present can all be seen as a form of promotion or advertising which is particularly true when it comes to entertainers. If you feel this article sounds promotional then why not help to improve it so that it does not. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu You have stated that the articles creator likely has a conflict of interest which is your opinion not based on any actual facts which in all due respect only serves to facilitate negative bias towards this articles existence. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by a single-purpose account called Icecoldrecords. A potential COI of the article creator wanting to promote one of their artists is obvious and not at all biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu that is your assumption. There is proof that this artist has released music with Sony Music, Pony Canyon, Vircenia Records, Trycle Records & Avex Trax but no where do I see any proof of this artist ever releasing or being an artist under the name icecoldrecords. So again your claim is mere speculation. All of the above are verifiable yours is not. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LiterateFactChecker: You're conflating verifiability with notability. When I first found the Chosen Effect article, I had trouble verifying her existence at first, but did eventually find sources I found satisfactory to that limited end. But that isn't enough. In 2022, most people's existence is verifiable just by finding their social media. In many cases, people's existence is even verifiable through independent reliable sources. Mine is: I've been mentioned briefly in a few news articles over the years—but I'm no one notable. Notability is a harder bar to pass than verifiability, or even verifiability through independent reliable sources. The important distinction is that the coverage has to be significant. That's something of a term of art here, because yeah, showing up in a lot of track listings or press releases—if Chosen Effect has—is significant in the sense of "voluminous". But what we mean is things like profiles of the artist, or at least reviews by reputable sources—generally, a sense that independent reliable sources think that this is someone worth knowing about, rather than coming up in passing in routine coverage. The reason we set the car isn't just to gatekeep: It's not really possible to write a quality article when you don't have that kind of coverage to work with.
As someone who cares a lot about improving our coverage of nonbinary people, and showing the diversity of that community, like I said, I think she's an interesting person and it's a shame that no one's picked up this interesting story. But until someone does, we can't write an article on her that says anything meaningful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that SPA doesn't have a COI with the subject of the article, the article still fails our notability requirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin@Muboshgu I personally feel our duty is to also be willing to take the time to actually dig deep and improve articles of all sorts especially ones of this nature of an accomplished artist. I too care which is why I have been passionately putting the time into doing the research and working to improve this article. I have already managed to discover many things and even now just updated another piece of information with supporting citation. I am confident in time that this article will continue to be improved on. We all are here wanting to do our part on Wikipedia and I feel exactly the same. Of the 6,506,930 articles on Wikipedia i feel that since this one is actively being improved upon that there does not need to be a sense of urgency to delete this one particularly. The burning desire that you seem to have to delete an article of an 90's artist that has literally been on Wikipedia for almost a decade baffles me. I could understand if there was not a single Wiki editor wanting to put in the work to continue improving the article but clearly that is not the case as besides myself I have seen there has been others that have also contributed. Improving articles should be our first line of action deletion should only reluctantly be a last resort. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu I noticed you have now decided to also go after this artists groups Wikipedia page now. It really does seem that you have some sort of issue with this person. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make this personal. It's a reasonable debate about content, not ad hominem abuse. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with Wikipedia articles about non-notable subjects, yes. This will be my last reply to you here, as your WP:BLUDGEONING of this discussion is not productive in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu not Bludgeoning whatsoever merely sharing my point of view in discussion. That is the point of a discussion page. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging - Could this article potentially be Merged with the artists groups Wikipedia could that be a possible solution? LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb@Doomsdayer520@Muboshgu@Spiderone@Tamzin I have a fair comments/questions I would like you all to consider. Wikipedia policies says to consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting. I am personally doing so as you all know and over the many years this article has existed the history shows that other editors have contributed as well. If an article is constantly being improved upon why the sudden rush to delete it especially after existing for 15 years?

Merging - I've asked the question if perhaps doing so with the artists groups Wikipedia article could be a solution?

@Alexandermcnabb says don't make it personal which I agree with which is why has @Muboshgu now decided to also go after the artists groups 10 year old Wikipedia article for deletion after I improved upon the article which the act of doing so according to Wikipedia policy meant the article proposed deletion was null in void after removing the tag within the 7 day time period. The very moment I did the mentioned immediately nominated the article for deletion?

A 15 and 10 year old article that has multiple admins and editors looking over the articles for all these years is suddenly being pushed to be deleted seems odd in my opinion and again unnecessary in accordance of Wikipedias policy of improving upon an article as opposed to deleting it. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering how I found the article, it's because I monitor nonbinary people's articles for potential misgendering. When you corrected Chosen Effect's pronouns, that tripped the filter (which has no way to distinguish between misgendering and a valid correction). When I went to see if your edit had been correct or incorrect, I found it exceptionally hard to even find out what her pronouns are; to me, difficulty in verifying basic facts is often a good proxy for whether someone is notable, and my subsequent research bore that out. So, that's how this landed on my radar. To be clear, there's lots of old articles that get deleted. Age doesn't count for that much. I've found articles as old as 2007 that failed even our most basic "credible claim of significance" test (a test that this article passes). Heck, I found an article a while ago that was 90% unsourced statements added in 2004, which I had to cut down to "stub" size. Furthermore, notability standards change in time. I found another article from the early '00s on an obscure Indian businessman, which was unanimously deleted at AfD... But which had been kept in a previous AfD some 15 years ago because "he passes the Google test" (meaning he gets a nonzero number of Google hits); needless to say, that's no longer seen as a reason to keep an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TamzinThanks for clarifying and the additional insight. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Citation added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citation Added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Of words everyday: KEEP... I am not an academic, I am a person who has followed Faith for many years... I personally do not understand why anyone would even think of wanting to delete Faith's Wikipedia Article. This is a record of her life's achievements, her legacy, one that will be continued for many years to come. I do not see this Article as promotional at all, but rather full of interesting information and Facts about this artists life, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, keeping the people informed about people's achievements!

When I 1st discovered "Chosen Effect/Faith Chase" I found alot of information on her and in time I came to Wikipedia and found out so much more information, I didn't realize that people could edit these pages until now... Never thought that people could request for Wikipedia Articles to be deleted, I find this to be extremely unsettling, to think that someone might have a grudge against someone and they feel that it is their right to have the Wikipedia Articles deleted, you can come up with any reason that you like, but in the end I feel that this is nothing more than someone being Nasty for whatever reason! I personally have just purchased some of Faith's earlier Albums.. "Subsonic Factor and Terry T" just last week, before I read this deletion request. I would like to thank all the people in the know, than understands how Wikipedia works, for taking the time to continue to update and improve on Faith's Article, I for one, Greatly Appreciated it! Please KEEP this Beautiful Artists Information available for all to see and learn about... It would be a shame and a great loss to lose Chosen Effect's Wikipedia Page defining her Achievements/her legacy. Kind Regards, "Love of words everyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love of words everyday (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note to reviewer the account posting the above screed was created today (June 6). Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI was closed as likely canvassed/fans. So going to be whack a mole. Star Mississippi 22:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I admire the effort, but this is a purely promotional vanity page, and the weak sourcing reflects that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate efforts to improve articles, but the additions are just more content drawn from YouTube, Discogs, blogs and the like. Bottom line: no evidence has yet been presented that this subject has ever received independent reliable source coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, fails WP:NBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chroma (character)

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

A non-notable fictional character that fails the WP:GNG. Searching for sources turns up some fan sites, but nothing in reliable, secondary sources. According to the DC wiki, the character only had a small handful of appearances. The article was WP:PRODed by User:TTN back in 2019 with the rationale that it failed the WP:GNG, but the prod was removed by a now-banned user with the suggestion of a Merge discussion that never happened, and would not make sense given the lack of notability for the character. The single source that was added to the article since then is simply a brief plot summary of their first appearance. The character does not even have an entry in the officially published "DC Comics Encyclopedia", just to demonstrate how minor of a character it is. Rorshacma (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the detailed nom ( which is greatly appreciated). The previously proposed merge target does not mention this character, and there is no sourced material to merge. -2pou (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of valid sources. Jontesta (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing GNG and being entirely plot summary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: C. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Decisions regarding renames or reorienting the article to another subject can be handled through editing decisions and discussions on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damage control

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

Best left as the disambiguation page, as people searching this term are rarely doing so for ship emergency repairs. Article is also almost entirely unsourced giving no indication on why the term itself is notable under the article's definition. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a redirect to Wiktionary maybe work? Most people are likely to be looking for the definition of the term.★Trekker (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep IMO emergency ship repairs is a subject that should have an article, although I don't have a strong opinion as to whether it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I did a search on navy.mil and found the following sources, which may or may not be useful: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I don't think a redirect to Wiktionary would work well (at least, it would be awkward without changing the main page to the disambiguation page, and then the Wiktionary link would be a bit weirdly placed). --Pokechu22 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out the universality of the term for naval, maritime (civilian sea-going), and sailing (civilian commercial and pastime) purposes. It applies as much to a canal narrowband springing a leak as to the Russian ship Moskva sunk from missile attack during the 2022 Ukraine war. The term may not be well known outside marine circles, but that probably means it deserves to be searchable in the 'pedia.- Peter Ellis - Talk 06:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pokechu22 and Peter Ellis the thing is that the term is not by any means exclusive to or primarily known for its use in ships emergencies. Ships are not the only places where damage needs to be controlled (public relations is a major example that comes to mind, for example, and definitely more notable/prominent than the maritime use of the term). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 06:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it gets a 'suffix', say "(maritime)". Then, let others do articles for those other uses.- Peter Ellis - Talk 15:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename & disambiguate, I agree with the other comments that damage control in a maritime context is notable, but that there is no primary topic. This content should be moved to Damage control (maritime), and this page should become the disambiguation page. Damage control as an action limiting the impact of a hazard, is a term that is widely applied in many different contexts. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change the focus to damage control in the general sense of the term, with maritime as an example. SWinxy (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyank Sharma

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

Non-notable. Same reasons at the last time. Coverage is very poor. Its csd's, page protected, G5, G13'd, redirected. Looking for another redirect. scope_creep^Talk 00:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not fulfill notability requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt His appearance as a contestant in several notable reality show seasons precludes the possibility of a redirect. It was repeatedly restored as a redirect,and nobody has provided signs of meeting GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Leighton

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

The subject has had some impressive patrons, but her work does not appear to have won significant critical attention, nor represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Likely fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a BBC news television piece about her in 1975 (don't let "Twitter" in the url fool you). While some is primary interview, there is also secondary conent. https://archive.org/details/twitter-674991413969326080 She was famous in a time when sources were offline, which makes verification of the current offline sources impossible, but I assume good faith for offline sources in this context. Especially having found the BBC footage, which is a first in this kind of situation for me, suggesting she is more notable than normal. CT55555 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, she is the subject of a painting that is in a museum. Details from a primary source, but seems like an unlikely lie https://www.aahorsham.co.uk/content/saraleighton

Someone selling pictures of her in 2014 https://twitter.com/davidharpertv/status/455986892102971392

1971 Daily Telegraph mentions her only briefly, but says she has paintings on display all over the world: https://archive.org/stream/TheDailyTelegraph1971UKEnglish/Jul%2019%201971%2C%20The%20Daily%20Telegraph%2C%20%2336140%2C%20UK%20%28en%29_djvu.txt CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find any independent secondary sources? I'm not sure her being the subject of a painting that (she believes) is in a museum, or one that was once offered for sale, is sufficient to meet the notability guidelines for an artist. It sounds like she may in fact meet WP:GNG, I have so far been unable to find the newspaper articles cited, so I'm not sure if the coverage in them is significant. –Ploni (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being the subject of art surely does not pass WP:ARTIST but I think (am not certain) it's relevant for WP:GNG. We tend to consider words about someone, I'm not used to assessing images about people. At risk of getting philosophical, painting pictures does require a lot more effort than writing.

I contend that the BBC piece includes secondary elements in the introductory section. I found an old book that wrote about her being mentored, but Google Books didn't let me see enough to mention here. So I don't have much to add beyond what I said above. CT55555 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's one of those cases where even if no individual secondary source has written about her in depth, so many, very many, sources have quoted her or written about her in extremely notable situations that she must qualify as notable. The queen mother portrait is probably sufficient on its own: this is sourced, and frankly it requires a phenomenal level of naivete to believe that even pre-internet an unimportant artist could just rock up at the gates of Buckingham palace waving a pencil around and expect to be allowed to sketch a key royal; getting a painting into Buckingham palace is just about as hard as getting one into the national gallery (which would instantly qualify her for notability). But even if we consider her artistic career to be only marginally-notable, we also have some authorship going on, and some impact as an actress, and the sum of all these nearly-notable activities, all of which are recorded in non-primary sources, must add up to overall notability. Besides which, our readers are quite likely to come across her and wonder who she is, and what else she has done with her life. We should tell them. Elemimele (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Lord, chaps, but she only played Anne in the 1952 TV series Anne of Green Gables! Not the best of sources, mind. But wasn't she beautiful? Her stage name was Shirley Lorimer, although she was born Shirley M. I. Loraine - a woman of many parts. Here's her at Getty Images as a schoolgirl and here at Alamy when she was 18 years old. Here's one of her pieces, listed at Nicholson's right here! So we have a bona-fide artist and actress who is notably notable, I'd say. And quite a fun bit of BEFORE, too! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elementals (DC Comics)

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

Completely non-notable group of fictional characters that, according to this very article, made a single appearance in an issue of a Super Friends spin off comic. There is not a single reliable source being used in the article, and searching for sources basically turns up nothing on these characters. Any sources actually discussing the concept of "elementals" in DC comics are basically all talking about Swamp Thing and the concepts created in that book, not this non-notable group. Rorshacma (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Of the few incoming links, there doesnt seem to be a good redirect target option that provides any information on them beyond the name. -2pou (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as there is not a single reliable source to meet our policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That the only source currently used is a blog-type page called "Obscure Characters, E" was an indication that quality sources covering the subject in depth might be difficult to find. I found none. If some source content is found, perhaps merge it to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as comic-cruft that fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Single ref is to a dead fanpage, section "Obscure Characters, E". Riiiight. Major fail of WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Brahms

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

I found no significant coverage. While the original Japanese voice roles might show notability for those people, I'm not seeing how the English dubs are significant without proof of those being significant. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Anime and manga, and United Kingdom. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the specific article as the alternative to delete. Fade258 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fade258 What do you mean? It can only be redirected to one article. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, I have updated my comment. Fade258 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fade258 There is no specific article. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No significant coverage in current sourcing. Searching found nothing helpful. Lacks the coverage needed for notability. Gab4gab (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are good arguments for retaining (and improving) or deleting the article, and they both pretty much cancel each other out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional antiheroes

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

The antihero is obviously a notable topic, but I'm not convinced that a list of them is notable in the academic sense. The contents are mostly rolling up listicles and similar non-RS, or sources that label specific characters in passing as antiheroes.

Aside from that, this 2008 CfD, along with prior CfDs under different titles, established that the label of an antihero is too broad and subjective for a category, so it is probably also too subjective for a list (WP:SALAT). In light of this, the quality of the references, the tendency to attract unsourced entries, and the removal of sourced entries that editors disagree with, are unsurprising. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 284 references in the article. Plenty of blue links in the columns, makes it a valid navigational list for those who want to find articles for antiheroes, and provides information about what notable series they were from and what author created them and what year they were published. Dream Focus 01:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with much pruning. There are a few (not 284) references consisting of lists of antiheroes, so WP:NLIST is satisfied. However, due to the serious disagreements as to who is or isn't one, as alluded to in the intro, entries should be restricted to those that have multiple sterling sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would then suggest adopting WP:LISTCRITERIA analogous to those used at List of military disasters: only include entries where multiple (i.e. at least two) sources specifically dealing with the subject of antiheroes refer to the character in question as an antihero. Further refinement may be necessary. For instance, perhaps only characters with stand-alone Wikipedia articles should be included? And there is of course the issue of which sources to consider—an article in Review of General Psychology and a listicle by Screen Rant are not the same in terms of quality, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Information in any article only needs one reference to prove it if its in doubt. No reason to require more. Dream Focus 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not actually true across the board, since there are some circumstances in which we do indeed require multiple references. The clearest example is probably WP:Exceptional claims, where policy explicitly says Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. For something like this list, where it's not a matter of facts but rather subjective assessments, requiring multiple sources may simply be a reasonable application of WP:WEIGHT so as not to unduly include the views of tiny minorities. That being said, I do agree with Reywas92 below that including a handful of examples that are discussed/examined in-depth by WP:RELIABLE sources in the main Antihero article is probably a preferable alternative (I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that pass the Bechdel test, where I made a similar point). TompaDompa (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OLIST - the scope of the list is too large to reasonably maintain. A great deal of the characters in fiction can conceivably be called antiheroes. This is an example of a list that does not truly benefit people due to its vagueness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's by no means special or remarkable that not every main character is flawless. Antihero is a fairly short article and would be improved with expanded discussion and even further listing (in prose) of the most significant antiheroes who have been widely analyzed, but a list spanning all forms of media with several hundred entries (but still obviously wildly incomplete) and no useful commentary is not a quality or appropriate list. Too many sources are low-quality listicles or passing mentions of the word "antihero", without encyclopedic usefulness. An example of how poor this is is Indiana Jones, whose first citiation is the above Screen Rant listicle that doesn't even mention him...and the second is this unreliable blog post that gives a mere passing mention after writing "The list of phenomenal Anti-Heroes is practically endless." I want to compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th nomination), as here we also see inclusion criteria that are so overly broad the list becomes useless, being those that fall under a very generic term that is easily thrown around to describe something that is hardly uncommon and not consistently defined. This page does have some higher-quality sources, but they would be better introduced to the main article with more explained examples there rather than pretending that a sea of blue links in a list that is both incomplete and overly inclusive (Donald Duck?) is actually good for navigation. Like seriously, when the lead has to say "Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an antihero, although the classification remains fairly subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of antihero", it's inherently not a good list. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reywas92 explained the issues with this list very well. Having a list with potentially hundreds of entries just because some click-bait "Pop Culture Top Ten" style list somewhere on the internet happened to throw around the term "anti-hero" once when referring to them does not help navigation in any way. This list currently contains things ranging from heroic characters who may have a few flaws to outright irredeemable villains, all because somewhere, someone happened to use the word "anti-hero" when discussing them. Per Reywas92's suggestion, some of the actual prominent examples that have multiple sources that go beyond top-ten lists or simply dropping in the word "anti-hero" when describing them without any actual discussion can and should be mentioned on the main article on the topic. This massive list of poorly cited blue links, however, does not help supplement the information on the main article in any way, nor does it serve a useful purpose as a navigational list, per the discussion above. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's awfully weird to have James Bond, a hero who can be a selfish womanizer, grouped with Hannibal Lecter, a serial killer. And then this time looking at it I see Sheldon Cooper, a comedic character with his ups and downs and I'd say neither a hero or antihero or whatever, but somehow sourced to this listicle, which doesn't even mention him.... This list is worthless junk and having it on the project is embarassing. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak delete. Classic list OR. Who calls them antiheroes (some are referenced, fine, so at minimum a pruning is needed)? But worse, which reliable work attempts to list "all antiheroes"? Failure of WP:LISTN is a major problem. Note, however, that some content here might be warranted merging into antihero. For example, IF [9] is a RS, the claim that Lazarillo de Tormes is the first antihero (rather dubious, IMHO) would be worth preserving. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a list to be suitable for Wikipedia, in contrast to what the nomination posits, it is not that secondary sources have to treat such lists. Rather it is sufficient that the group or set is notable. This is clearly the case for the concept of antihero, as the nomination itself admits. In contrast to other lists we have on Wikipedia, this is mostly sourced, so I can't see any poblem with subjectivity. Lastly, as has been stated before, with it's large number of blue links this list serves a navigational purpose. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge of relevant examples to expand the quite short antihero article to deletion, which would be the way supported by WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG due to a lack of third party sources. The list is almost all WP:OR. To some other editors' comments, Antihero is a notable topic and already has an article. This does not support the creation of endless non-notable WP:CONTENTFORKS. Jontesta (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: Why should this fail WP:LISTN and therefore WP:GNG, when antihero is a notable topic? Antihero is the corresponding "group or set" to List of fictional antiheroes, the discussion of which WP:LISTN uses as its main critereon. How is it "almost all WP:OR", when most of the content is referenced? And a list of notable instances of a topic, for navigational purposes, cannot be a case disallowed by WP:CONTENTFORK - otherwise every list which were to fullfill the WP:LISTN critereon would be a content fork of that topic! It's also explicitely not one of the cases listed as unacceptable by WP:CONTENTFORK. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't think a list this arbitrary is really a group or set in the first place. If you someone asked what Bugs Bunny, Hannibal Lecter, Lester Burnham, Jason Bourne, Mike Zuckerberg, and Oscar the Grouch had in common, they'd be hard pressed to tell you. Having been called a subjective, broadly defined term that needs a disclaimer "Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of antihero" is not a well-defined group or set. A list this broad and subjective is not a useful way to navigate. The main article could and should have a lengthier list of the best examples with reasons why they typify this character role, but this isn't the way to do it. If "having blue links" is inherently navigational, what isn't going to pass that? Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: If this list is arbitrary, then why is antihero a stock character as recognized by secondary sources? I am totally fine with requiring secondary sources for each instance in this case to avoid making arbitrary judgements. Daranios (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what your question is supposed to mean. Just because it's a real recognized concept doesn't mean it's our place to catalogue any time a critic or listicle compiler applies a term that has enormous breadth of application. Nothing else in List of stock characters is so broad, and most are able to have appropriate contextual recognition of significant examples – which actually provides better information to understand the idea than a sea of times a word has been used – like Valley_girl#In_popular_culture, White_hunter#Representations_in_literature_and_film, Reluctant_hero#Examples, without going unencyclopedially overboard. Many of the sources are arbitrary as well and lack depth and meaning. Just someone throwing around a broad term doesn't mean we need to compile that. [10] just says in a game review (used for both the game and literature) "I'm a sucker for the anti-hero, and the star of this game, Geralt, seems like he runs with the best (worst?) of them." But so what? [11] describes a protagonist who uses heroin, [12] comments on a giant gorilla that develops a soft spot, and [13] applies it to a hypocritical boss. It doesn't take hundreds of disparate examples to inform that this recognized stock character is a broad concept with poor definition, and there's no legitimate navigation between these. And [14] is just citogenesis that plagiarized Rooster Cogburn (character)... Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is too broad to be useful or not is something that can be debated. But I still can't see that this should fail WP:LISTN because it should not be discussed as a group or set, when there are various secondary sources about them, some in book-length like this or this. Quality issues in specific instances would be solvable by editing. Daranios (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So use these books for antihero! A book subtitled "Figures and themes in modern European literature 1830–1980" and a collection of essays specifically on Alias, Supernatural, and The Vampire Diaries do not actually discuss this group of 500 vaguely defined characters across all media types. Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of heroes. As the nom noted, this didn't qualify as a category either because the entries are inherently impossible to WP:VERIFY in a way that is WP:RELIABLE and consistent. At best, redirect to the notable topic, antihero. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, LISTN is met, and many of the above deletion rationales (e.g., the one immediately above this) don't cogently cite relevant policies--they name policies, but not accurately or appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jclemens. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consolidate substantially. There are four separate entries on the list for Catwoman alone. Is the focus on the character, or the depiction? There should be a single line for the earliest use of any given character in this vein, with all information on that character in that one place. BD2412 T 20:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wyner

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. While he is a veteran actor, we can improve on his page. Do references from the Behind the Voice Actors page on him help in supporting his known roles? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Hyke, Behind the Voice Actors is generated by user submissions and not considered a reliable source. –Ploni (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not true; per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational "This can be used to shortcut verify the roles as long as the credit itself has a green check-mark that leads to an on-screen capture of the closing credit that confirms the role". So if a role is marked with a green check mark and accompanying screenshot, using BTVA is a perfectly fine alternative to just citing the credits. Link20XX (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify, I meant that it's not sufficient for establishing notability. –Ploni (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wyner simply hasn't attracted much notice. There are lots of veteran, unnotable actors. That's what IMDb is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is seriously weak and needs much improvement, but the individual has notable experience. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not show that WP:NACTOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a long list of titles where he voiced a character, but none that appear to be significant roles, nor can I find additional sourcing with a Google search. Fails WP:GNG TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has proven that the subject had a significant role in any of the listed names where they have voiced a character. TolWol56 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Levitt, Hayley (22 October 2021). "How Many More Broadway Faces Did You Spot in Only Murders in the Building?". Playbill. Retrieved 3 June 2022.

[2] Russo, Gillian (16 May 2022). "2022 Drama Desk Award nominations announced". New York Theater Guide. Retrieved 3 June 2022.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Abo$$ (Artist)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Abo$ (Artist)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashmira Chakraborty}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Ming-Trent}}