Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 15	December 17 >

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 Wrong forum‎. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martyrs of the Chinese Revolution

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

Not even close to a NPOV name Amigao (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2024 (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!} 23:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tapani Uitos

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Google news yields is 3 darts related sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a soft delete, hopefully a relist will make consensus more clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching the Helsingin Sanomat archives returns a pair of short mentions, nothing substantial. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2024 (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!} 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of the Castro and Youngblood children

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

No lasting significance. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, United States of America, and Virginia. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely got any coverage at the time, based on the paltry sourcing. Tried and went to prison, there isn't much more to be said. I don't see criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see what happens after the new year. These stories sometimes come up again at the end of the year. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is not analytical in any respect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails to meet notability requirements. Buffs (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Madeleine (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Nicholls

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable producer, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Previous AFD in 2010 ended in Keep but editors there provided no proof of significant coverage either. Sources provided and found in Google are mere mentions of subject, while the series produced are certainly notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is not eligible for a Soft Deletion outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find any articles about this producer, the ones used in the article are more about programs this individual was involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beehunter, Indiana

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

This is plainly a rail point, formerly a crossover/junction and more recently a rather odd pair of junctions. The only road in the area actually swerves to avoid the spot, and the only building is in the middle of the junction; I would gather it was once the "tower" but it's impossible to tell. I did find some explicit reference to it as a rail station/junction but other references are to the marsh or to a potential archaeological site, or to local mining activity, npne of which are not in this immediate vicinity. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Suprisingly detailed article from 1970 talks about the history of this rail spot: [1], but states clearly that it "was never a city, nor a town, nor was it ever the home of more than one family." I will update the article accordingly. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you find a free pdf or transcript of this paper, since sources are always better when they're accessible. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try this: [2]. It continues on a second page, but this proves my point. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article isn't sufficient to elevate a rail point to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I’m not sure I agree with nominator’s reasoning, as it seems to be skirting the edges of WP:OR territory. That said, I am also struggling to see how a single article from 1970 qualifies the junction for notability, particularly after glancing at the criteria set-forth by WP:NTRAINSTATION. MWFwiki (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Comment- I Found This Article, That Says:

"The community of Beehunter was located two miles south of Bushrod in Washington Township.  Beehunter took its name from a local stream, Beehunter Creek.  Bees came to feed on the marsh flowers, which were abundant in the section of the county.  Businessmen came from great distances to reap the honey and the more valuable honeycomb.  The village consisted of a railroad depot, a store, a restaurant, a hotel, and a grain elevator."

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a location that wasn't exactly a town...above info seems to indicate it meets the minimums. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2024 (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. ✗plicit 03:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sayyaf (Islamic State leader)

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

I'm not seeing any indication that this meets WP:LASTING here. Routine death in long civil war. Cutlass ^Ciera 22:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure the oil and gas minister for the IS is notable, this many years later. Article is strictly around his death, without much before or after... I don't find any coverage other than about the capture. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a routine death in a long civil war. Was a key senior figure how "ISIS became the world's wealthiest terror group." Subject to a number of WP:SIGCOV in the form of multiple in-depth researched profiles testifying to his importance after his death, including in NBC, WSJ, meeting WP:GNG.

Longhornsg (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Was a key senior figure" is not going to cut it in terms of notability. The main concern of no lasting effect is in that coverage cuts off. Cutlass ^Ciera 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Was" because he's dead. The relevant policy here is WP:NBASIC, which the coverage suffices. WP:LASTING applies to events, not people, anyway. Longhornsg (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lasting does not apply to people. It is part of the event SNG, and as such does not apply to anything that is not an event. The only people-related guideline would be BIO1E, which does not apply here (many events). PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the article and the coverage, as stated by Oaktree b, is strictly about his death. There isn't any other evidence that he is notable besides his way of death. Cutlass ^Ciera 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is very clearly not true. The WSJ piece is about his entire life. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Longhornsg. There does seem to be sourcing attesting to his importance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Longhornsg Andre🚐 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per longhorn. WP:SIGCOV met. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also as per Longhornsg. Enough here for me to satisfy notability MaskedSinger (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable with plenty of reliable sources to support article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2024 (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 23:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re.press

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, sources are comprised of 4 personal blogs, 2 subpages from the subjects website, and 1 post from a defunct small publishers community which contained the subject. No other reliable sources can be found on the subject, and searches only turn up books printed by the subject. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Philosophy. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Poetry, Companies, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not difficult to find published reviews of their books. There's also some coverage of them (via an interview with their founder, but independently published) at [3]. Whether that and the existing bloggy sources amounts to GNG notability is another question. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing enough for GNG Andre🚐 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like the coverage is limited to blogs and trade press; fails WP:NORG (and WP:GNG for that matter if editors decided to apply that guideline). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 6 primary sources, 1 questionable source. Evidently does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:NORG. Madeleine (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2024 (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 23:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beyoncé pop culture references

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

Taking this to AFD since a PROD was contested. The page appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE when bloated with lots of trivia and minor mentions of Beyoncé. We're not supposed to be a repository of whenever someone simply alludes to a celebrity or explicitly brings up their name, so I recommend deletion. That simply is a collection of fancruft. It also doesn't help that the list is full of inappropriate POV and tone. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary collection of trivia. Not everything should be listed in this encyclopedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Its notable entries, if any, could be merged to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thoroughly enjoyed researching to make this page (and I have to give thanks to the countless others who contributed and made tweaks), but the opposition (instead of constructive advice or actual editing) at every turn got annoying and you guys simply cannot make up your minds. This page actually began as part of the page Cultural impact of Beyoncé, but was recommended to be spun off in another discussion. Here we are again. I know I will see a similar "repository" in a few months' time for some other artist with none of the opposition, and the same users commenting here will be willing to work or provide advice to improve POV and tone there instead of merely complaining about it. C'est la vie. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the effort of page's creator to collect info and sort it. However, I also agree this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A category would be useful. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, Television, Advertising, Popular culture, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Strong oppose to outright deletion, per WP:ATD-R. There is no need to nuke this, some content might be useful for the target. Ping Apoxyomenus - you may want to reconsider delete vs redirect here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsskyscrapers @Bluesatellite I actually meant to ping only Train... but why not, everyone, this does not need to be TNTed out of history. Redirecting is exactly what is needed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any point in that when few if any of the listings are even worth mentioning there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list was created by User:Trainsskyscrapers who voted to delete above, and was responding in apparent good faith to a suggestion at Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Unfortunately that suggestion was not a good one, due to WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:FANCRUFT. The existing cultural impact article can indeed be improved, but with less non-notable trivia. Meanwhile, the redirect suggestion is okay but we don't really need the namespace title that is unlikely to be a search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons outlined above (mainly that it is trivial). As noted above by Doomsdayer520, a redirect is unnecessary as the search topic is unlikely to be used (plus the page history doesn't particularly need to be kept since the list entries are too trivial to be worth mentioning in related articles). RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A redirect or merge could be helpful but I cannot find a proper alternative. Orientls (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2024 (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. Once we discard the WP:ILIKEIT-type Keep from the inexperienced user, I see a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheoTown

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

The page was deleted multiple times for A7 and G11 reasons, so I figure having a full deletion discussion might be worth it. The only sources given are primary: the game's website, and the Steam/App Store/Google Play pages and ratings. The only sources I could find were a self-published blog explicitly including affiliate links, and this review, whose website appears to have an editorial team but for which I'm not sure how reliable it is, as only one of the members is an accredited journalist. Still, assuming this counts as a RS, a single source isn't enough for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with what's explained above, there isn't much in the way of product reviews for this app. I don't find much else either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom
Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 11:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is much more borderline - a search on my end found two RS reviews: one from TouchArcade [4] another from 148Apps [5] and a non-RS listicle from GamingEsports [6] and brief mention in Wireframe [7]. I would consider this to be notable if one more RS or solid review could be located. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Just curious, where did you do your WP:BEFORE? I only did a cursory search (first pages of Google and Google News), but I'm curious if there are better places to look for video game-related sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mix of Google search, Internet Archive, and WP:VG/SE. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That last link is great to have, thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little information I have found that can demonstrate notability.--Bexaendos (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article will be deleted since there will be no information about the game, I propose to publish more information. 2800:810:544:AF:8DC6:DFBF:DB1A:7522 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You can ask sources to publish more information, although it might take longer than the time this AfD runs, but we can't add more information that sources haven't published. Although the sources provided above can definitely be added in the article, and are a good first step. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will suggest moving it to the draft space, allowing the JJP to improve its sourcing and content as article seems not to be ready for mainspace. Nxcrypto Message 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is a decent sized game with a decent audience. I play the game a lot and the discord server had over 10,000 members. BooCooE ^(talk) 17:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT λ NegativeMP1 20:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There's a print review from Gameplay magazine: [8], when combined with TouchArcade's review: [9], that's 2 reliable reviews. And there's reviews from 148Apps and Softonic: [10]], [11], according to WP:VG/S, there are inconclusive discussions of their reliability, so until they are determined to be unreliable, I'm leaning keep on this one. --Mika1h (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these sources! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is great work finding more sources! Caution that the Softonic review is nonattributed and its evaluative aspects are a pretty meaningless single word salad paragraph: "rich and engaging gameplay experience...challenging and rewarding experience...engaging and immersive." Comes off a bit WP:PROMO or gAI. If the Gameplay review is WP:SIGCOV this probably does enter the territory of keep, but it's WP:OFFLINE. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not speaking positively or negatively on the source's quality or usability, but I feel that a site using affiliate links is noncontroversial, especially since they advertise very clearly that they do. Sites such as Polygon also use affiliate links. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability and reception is low and the inspiration from SimCity 2000, see fan wiki, that I am not sympathetic to keep. Dewiki has some sources that I could see a mention related to city building games. IgelRM (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2024 (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!} 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Sehgal

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

I removed the PROD tag from this article since it was already PRODed once. Page was also speedy deleted under WP:G11 twice before, and subject appears to be non-notable.

The editor who added the PROD tag provided the following rationale:

Clearly fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Quick run-down of the five existing refs: Ref 1 is openly sponsored content, ref 2 is a Q&A/interview with the subject, ref 3 is a post by the subject, ref 4 is is a Q&A/interview with the subject (accompanied by a short bio/introduction), and ref 5 is a press release, presumably by the subject or one of their companies (although it's not transparently indicated that it's a PR on the website, the text, which can be found on a few other "news" websites, follows a PR template for this kind of "news", see, e.g., basically the same release for another person and another one). All other sources I see are also either primary (interviews etc.) or non-independent. The subject seems to have received some awards/honors but none of them are notable afaics (like the kind of award/honor mentioned in ref 2) (proposed by Felida97).

CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: Thank you for fixing my mistake! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted elsewhere, unreliable press releases and infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India just verifies existence, but does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's about a businessman who both exists and does his job, with no indication of this meeting notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's also an existing draft for this subject, Draft:Sanjay Sehgal, which has been declined a few times by now. While there's more text (the text/sentences currently in the article is/are a subset of the text/sentences in the draft) and a few other refs in the draft, it doesn't contain anything that changes my assessment. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO or WP:GNG. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2024 (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!} 23:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iamdikeh

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

Simply fails WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Also fails the explanatory essay at WP:NYOUTUBER. Pieces from the sources are either WP:INDEPENDENT or unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not meet the general notability criteria nor the SNG for creative. The sources are not a) independent (they’re mostly sponsored or interviews) b) reliable (example is the famousnaija blog). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:38, 16 December 2024 (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 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZIP Code prefixes

AfDs for this article:

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

Two years on, and every issue from the first round is still here. Again, the information from here does not agree with the list in Sectional center facility, and the latter information is correct, and this is not. Last time I pointed out that 207 was wrong, and yes, it's different, but it's still wrong: 207 has nothing to do with Silver Spring, and the actual name of the SCF is "Southern Maryland". It still doesn't step up to the issue that many SCFs serve zip codes in multiple states. If someone wants to make the listing in the SCF article into a table, I'd be fine with that, and this could be redirected there. But as it is, this is a magnet for misinformation and needs to cease to exist as it stands, and it should not be merged into the other article, because it is mostly wrong. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I can't exactly verify the misinformation, not that that's truly a reason for deletion, but I'll just say that WP:NLIST is not met for the prefixes specifically. The rock solid source from last time is a primary source and doesn't count towards independence. However, I am willing to change my !vote if there are sources that say otherwise, or if there is a case that shows how a list of zip codes would be easier in this format than showing all 41,704 zip codes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orientls (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, deletion looks likely, but given that this is the 2nd nomination, even a little more discussion would help make sure this is settled.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You can fix if you want. 176.104.104.194 (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to fix it, I'd redirect this to the list in the SCF article and maybe table-ize it. We don't need to contradictory copies of the information. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 19:07, 20 December 2024 (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 Keamari Town. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbian

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

Unnotable neighbourhood in Pakistan. I couldn't find any information about it on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a redirect to Keamari Town, should that be restored? Though its not mentioned there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Keamari Town. If there were any information about Arbian it could go in a section of that article, but there is literally no info on eikipedia about this place. It could be that the main motivation for the article's existence is to make Google Maps searches have something to say about it. This article feeds directly into the "Quick Facts" part of Google Maps for Arbian. Davemc0 (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as has been done with at least a dozen other similarly unimportant neighborhoods and villages, to the appropriate district. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can participants provide a link to the suggested redirect target article? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keamari Town. Best, 125.62.88.19 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2024 (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. I will provide a draftspace copy upon request, but I am not going to draftify without someone expressing an interest in working on this. There is clear consensus against the continued existence of this article at present: nobody has provided evidence of SIGCOV that survived scrutiny. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Brahmanbaria

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

The article is mess, WP:NOTPROMO. It fails both WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE resulted in only few press release, appointment announcement, and navigational maps. The sources mentioned within the article do not pass WP:RS, 1 being press release statement, source 2 leads to a blank website (at least for me), source 3 is an announcement and source 4 is University's official website. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have removed unsourced sourced content and added more references.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daily Star 1 – Trivial / WP:ROUTINE, fails WP:SIGCOV
- Dhaka Tribune – Trivial / Focuses on an incident happened at Brahmanbaria district, fails SigCov
- Daily Star 2 – Same as Dhaka Tribune, fails WP:SIGCOV
- Business Post – Trivial / Focuses on broader issues affecting private universities in the country, likely mentioning the subject as one example, fails SigCov
- Daily Star 3 – This is one good source to count, discusses a local environmental issues with the subject in non-trivial mention, passes SigCov
- NewAge BD – Trivial / Announcement / WP:ROUTINE, fails SigCov
- Daily Sun – Trivial / Announcement / Press-release WP:ROUTINE, fails SigCov
With the newly added sources, none appear to meet the GNG nor WP:NSCHOOL to keep this article. Most of the sources seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE or

WP:ORGTRIV with only one providing WP:SIGCOV but fails WP:ORGDEPTH for this subject to be a stand-alone article. Also, the subject is a for-profit private institution, WP:NORG must be met. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above analysis of the new sources and MimsMENTOR is also correct that as a new startup private and for-profit university, this certainly needs to meet WP:NORG. We are looking for multiple independent reliable secondary sources that have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Even the dailystar article therefore falls short of WP:SIRS] being a news report about the courts finding the plan to lease lands in favour of the university to be illegal. This is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. We are clearly WP:TOOSOON for this new venture and the page is essentially promotional. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not !voting keep unless the sources found are added to the article and the incomprehensible lead is re-written. Ping me when you get this done. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft until improved; there's no reason to get rid of information that might later become more useful & notable. Allow some time for improvements. Buffs (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: This university was founded in 2019, and it's now almost 2025 with no signs of notability. There's no justification to keep it under Allow some time for improvements. It can always be recreated if it gains notability in the future, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I would want it moved to draft space. That would allow what is present to be retained and improved upon as sources become available (should it ever be attained. If necessary, please place it in my draft space). Buffs (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per Buffs. Mehedi Abedin 20:58, 22 December 2024 (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 Yom River. There appears to be agreement that even if the river ought to be notable, what material exists may be sufficiently covered at the parent article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Suat

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

Unnotable watercourse in Thailand. It has no sources for 8 years. I could not find anything about it on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per the research below. ~~Couldn't find anything about the subject with a search other than this article. Fails WP:GNG.~~ Madeleine961 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Madeleine (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Thailand. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not found in the Royal Society's Gazetteer,[12] which is expected to include most geographical features. The river does exist, though, and gives its name to the forest along its basin as ป่าน้ำสวด "Nam Suat Forest" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), which is part of Tham Sakoen National Park and Mae Yom National Park. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this announcement [13] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for "น้ำสวด" "แม่น้ำยม", the Thai forms of "Nam Suat" "Yom River", shows plenty of sources. It is a sizeable stream, flows through an important teak forest, floods badly, is threatened by a dam and so on. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For results that are actually about the river, I'm only seeing data points form hydrological databases, and a single Facebook post. Nothing that could be considered in-depth. Everything else is about the forest named after the river, but not the river itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth2; a river of this size is going to pass WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Yom River, and remove the circular link, which was probably why the article was created in the first place. There are simply no sources to base an article on. If there are only mentions of the name in regard to the forest, that might be the better topic to cover, but there's already a more suitable place for that, in the national park articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are handicapped by not understanding the Thai language. The search for "น้ำสวด" "แม่น้ำยม" gives sources that use those exact forms of the river and parent names. It may well miss other sources that discuss the river in more depth. Some sources mention a proposed dam and a later proposal for two smaller dams, both presumably affecting the river. The teak forest covers the river's watershed, and is special. The fact that there is a hydrological station on the river indicates some importance. The flow of 5.28 cubic metres per second (186 cu ft/s) at Ban Wang Yao is rather more than that of the River Lea at Feildes Weir, Hoddesdon. It is reasonable to assume that other sources must exist for a river of this size. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a native Thai speaker, as indicated on my user page. I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage about the river at all. The reports about the dam that I'm seeing only say that its location will be in "Pa Nam Yao and Pa Nam Suat Reserved Forest", while the watercourse being dammed is Nam Ki, a different stream/river. That sources should exist might be a reasonable assumption, but if actual efforts to identify them aren't turning up anything usable, then the assumption is proven invalid. If you're seeing results that you think should be usable, Why don't you share specific links so that I can help take a look? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searching is quite difficult because the results are heavily polluted by the word สวด in the meaning of chant/prayer. However, it does appear that the river is also commonly refferred to as "ลำน้ำสวด" and "ลำน้ำห้วยสวด", which reveal hits such as a brief mention, among other rivers, of flooding in this 2014 news report[14], and mentions here and there among local government websites saying that the river flows through their village[15]. There is one result that's likely in-depth, a research paper presented at Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University's annual conference in 2018 titled ปัญหาการพังทลายของตลิ่งลำน้ำสวดและแนวทางการป้องกันอย่างยั่งยืน (The problem of bank erosion of Lam Nam Suat and methods for sustainable prevention)[16]. It's very likely to contain a description of the river, but the full text is not available online anywhere (the conference proceedings were hosted on Google Drive, and are all down). That's one potential source that might contribute to notability, but without anything that could be used to write something more than a completely uninformative substub (Where is the river? What is its course? What is its significance?), redirecting (without prejudice) would still seem to be best option for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Possibly [17] could be used to locate the river (coordinate PA 527815, wherever that is). If we could see it on a map that might suggest search terms. And [18] may give enough information to justify a stand-alone article, if we could see it. Geographical items do not need to meet the same rigorous criteria as people, and it seems that a river this size should be notable. But if we cannot find proof, a redirect is second best. I would prefer to redirect to a section in the parent, e,g, #redirect Yom River#Nam Suat, and give all available information in that section. I can take a shot at that based on the sources found so far. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's partially mapped on Openstreetmap as ลำน้ำสวด, but as a user-generated primary source we can't use it for much. It does show that it flows into the Nam Pi น้ำปี้, which agrees with the hydrographical diagram at [19]. I couldn't find anything relevant searching the two together, but while Nam Pi is also an unreferenced stub, it does have an entry in the Royal Society Gazetteer (which doesn't mention the Nam Suat though).[20] Maybe that should be the redirect target, as the next-order tributary. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article for Nam Pi + Nam Suat would be very short. I would be inclined to make sections in the Yom River article for each direct or indirect tributary, with perhaps one paragraph each - whatever shows up on a search. Of course, some of the tributaries might warrant stand alone articles, with a summary and {{main}} link in Yom River. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the major river or national park. It's actually sourced but the article is a TNT worthy mess. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (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!} 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Falisiewicz

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

Semi-professional footballer without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only secondary source I found is Dziennik Wschodni, a brief mention in transfer announcement. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 16 December 2024 (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. I do not see a policy-based rationale to keep either page that was not convincingly rebutted. Nobody seriously advanced the claim that these individuals meet GNG. The award to Demeter was suggested as an indicator of notability, but there was not consensus on whether that was sufficient for ANYBIO. Constantin's career as an author was suggested to confer notability, but authors do not get an automatic pass, and if his literary career was of significance, evidence of that was not provided. If, as the creator says, Constantin's plays received coverage in reliable media, that would indeed be evidence of notability, but such coverage would need to be shown at AfD. Violations of COI are out of scope for AfD, but several users noted concerns with COI and promotional editing, which reasonably decreases the weight given to the creator's arguments. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski

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

I’m sending these two articles to AfD upon the suggestion of another user who requested assistance in doing so. For the moment, I have no particular opinion on the matter, though I may vote as the discussion progresses. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete. Article on a minor local official, clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Created by a relative as part of a family history project and including much WP:OR. See for example (at the foot of the article): Demeter von Tuschinski's great-grandson Alexander Tuschinski (*1988 in Stuttgart) is a film director and historian. As of 2024, he is researching Demeter von Tuschinski's life and plans to publish a scholarly biography of him. In November 2023, he gave his first public lecture on his research at Bukowina-Institut an der Universität Augsburg, in which he presented the first comprehensive biographical overview of his great-grandfather to date.[citation needed]. Axad12 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, I object the deletion, as I am certain notability is firmly established in both cases:

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski was the highest-ranking Romanian civil servant (edited: English terminology corrected), in interwar Romanian Cernauti, and he was constantly present in public sources until 1940. The Wikipedia article names only some of the approx. 2000 press articles that exist. If he is not considered notable, then, by that logic, no state officials and public figures of equal or lower ranks from interwar Cernauti/Bukovina or other major Romanian cities/regions would be notable enough for Wikipedia. By extension, most people named here would have to be deleted: [Category:20th-century_Romanian_judges] - which cannot be the goal of Wikipedia.

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski, for example, in the 1960s-80s published in both of the two most major, widely circulated and heavily curated German-language Romanian cultural magazines of the era, Volk und Kultur and Neue Literatur. Romanian press wrote about his plays. If none of that is "notable" it would mean that suddenly, many authors who published there and shaped the German-language Romanian 1960s-80s cultural scene would be stripped of their notability, which would (seemingly at random) suddenly exclude a huge part of majorly published Romanian German-language culture from Wikipedia. I plan at some point to create pages for those magazines and other authors who published there - and I am convinced of their notability, particularly given the strict regulations for publishing in Socialist Romania. I'm currently researching the magazine "Volk und Kultur" and its archive for the second volume of Constantin's collected works.

I am Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's great-grandson, which I always openly stated when creating the articles. Both Demeter and Constantin passed away before I was born. I created and researched both articles over several months, and I am currently getting my PhD in history at University Innsbruck about Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's biography. I wrote the articles in a neutral and academic way, careful to not write a subjective view, but only to quote from sources, much like I write my PhD dissertation. I intend to expand both in the future. Except for Axad12 (who recently added a COI tag and told me he would nominate my account to be blocked if I ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again), I heard no objections to the articles, and the objections he voiced on his talk page refer to me being related, not on the content of the article. I believe articles shall be judged independently of who the author is. Every part in the articles is supported by a footnote - the one part Axad12 quotes with [citation needed] originally had a reference to an academic presentation I had held, that another editor removed, and which I plan to replace with a link to a current press article after the deletion discussion. ATuschinski (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the editor above. I did not tell him that I would nominate [his] account to be blocked if [he] ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again. What I have said to him, several times now, is that editors with a COI should use the COI edit request process rather than editing the relevant articles directly, and that if he continues to edit such articles directly (including articles about himself and his film projects) after being advised not to do so on multiple occasions then I shall report the matter to either WP:COIN or WP:ANI, in which case it would be reasonable to assume that his account may be blocked.

However, I do thank the editor above for confirming that much of the work on both of his two family history articles are based on his own original research (i.e. WP:OR).

I would also note that notability, from Wikipedia's standpoint, is based on specific criteria and not on a family member's subjective opinion on whether his family members were 'notable'. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, perhaps it's a misunderstanding, since I am confident you use the WP:OR argument incorrectly here: The extend of my original research can be seen in the footnotes of the articles - mostly links to digitized newspapers, and many weeks of browsing through them online, in addition to newspapers and books available at libraries. I link to the online sources wherever possible. If that were not allowed on Wikipedia, nobody could add or edit anything that requires research in sources that are available online or at libraries. Only at very few spots, I refer to archival files, including their signature (if available) for people curious to check them out. By now, if prefered by the community, I could even replace all of the few archival footnotes with ones to a book I recently published, which is currently added to major libraries. Constantin's bibliography that I made you aware of, which you likely have in mind saying "based on his original research", I was able to put together after months of research in Cluj library's public holdings and by browsing Romanian pre-1984 journals. Anyone can read them at respective libraries; I identified and mention each one in a footnote. Again, if that were against Wikipedia's standards, nobody could add anything gathered from browsing books or journals to this encyclopedia. ATuschinski (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Material in archival files is not published material.

Generally speaking it would be better here if you were to make an argument for the subjects fulfilling the notability criteria.

The purpose of these articles is clearly hagiographical and to promote your family history project (just as all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other). Axad12 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per previous promotional attempts by an account who was presumably your paid publicist, as noted in detail here [21]. Axad12 (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, I argued for the notability in my response, and I believe I never use "a family menber's subjective opinion", but argue with notability criteria within a framework of Romanian history and society. By now, it is for other wikipedia editors to decide about notability and quality of the articles in this discussion. This discussion is about the two articles, their content and notability - not about the author and his presumed motives as you now start speculating about. We both made our points, now others can decide.

Since you now made a wrong presumption and a false claim about me personally, I have to respond to those, but then I will drop the topic: I never employed a publicist on Wikipedia, I find your presumption offensive, and I ask you to stay on topic of notability and quality of the articles you asked to be deleted - about which you already made statments. Your claim "all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other" is false and offensive to the work I have put into Wikipedia for many years in several languages: I have made many accurate edits to topics close to my interests, in various languages, never "promotional" in tone and nature, and I feel strongly the term does not apply: I don't see how, e.g., neutrally worded thorough academic research on my great-grandfather, a civil servant in pre-WW2 Romania, promotes me, a German film director born in 1988. Or me digitizing and adding a photo of Servais Le Roy and Talma I found in a publication? Or adding museums in Vienna that display artifacts of Maximilian I of Mexico? Or expanding and correcting the site of the Order of the Crown of Romania greatly with accurate details? In the latter case, I got initially interested as I had a very clear 1930s photo of Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski wearing the medal that I felt could expand the page well - then, I discovered the page on Wikipedia being very incomplete and partially incorrect, and then I started expanding it with true historical information for a while, so now, it is much more complete and accurate - nothing "promotional" could come from that work for me. Or even edits to the page about me, which I carefully expanded with facts and sources in a neutral, non-promotional tone to make it more accurate, always disclosing my identity, etc.

On your talk page, there is a long discussion you had about me and my presumed motives where you, e.g., argued for deletion of my full, true legal name, date of birth etc. from the Wikipedia site about me which you then deleted - anyone interested in discussing or learning backgrounds could continue there. This discussion here, I believe, shall discuss quality and notability of the two articles you proposed for deletion, which is independent of presumptions about the author, and both you and I already made our points.

For the sake of making this discussion not overlong, I hereby respectfully withdraw from our conversation here, thank you for making your points on notability and quality, I made my points, now others can discuss and I will respond where appropriate. ATuschinski (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: WP:BLUDGEON. Axad12 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter was, perhaps, the highest-ranked civil servant in Cernauti. He was not the highest-ranked state official: after all, the city had a mayor, representatives in parliament, a prefect, and so on. Let’s be precise. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for the correction, please excuse my mixup in terminology - I did mean to say "civil servant", of course. I guess even though I am careful, that little slip in wording reveals I am not an English native speaker: I translated the German term "Staatsbeamter", that was named in the German-language source, which literally translates to "state official", but the correct translation is "civil servant" :-) I just did correct that terminology in the intro of the article, as well - in the body, I already wrote the correct term "civil servant". Thanks for bringing it to attention. ATuschinski (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure what the details are of the court he served as the president of are, but generally appellate court judges would be considering notable under WP:JUDGE as state/province wide officials (appellate courts are usually at a state/province level). There may be an argument Demeter meets WP:NPOL depending on how the court functioned. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a strict reading of the guideline, I don’t think that’s the case: “international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office”. Romania has never been a federal state, its provinces are symbolic/historical with no administrative powers, and its only national court at the time was the High Court of Cassation and Justice. There are 15 appeals courts (12 in the interwar period), but their judges are generally anonymous figures. He could still be notable per ANYBIO, but I don’t see a JUDGE argument here. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I'm not familiar with Romanian courts, but will note that in the U.S. any federal judge meets WP:JUDGE (including any judge on our 13 appellate courts or 94 district courts). If the appellate courts in Romania at this time weren't national courts (and by that its not national in jurisdiction, its created and appointed by the national government instead of a province or local government), then you are right that he doesn't meet WP:JUDGE. But from what you said about Romania not being a federal state, it seems to me that most of the judges would be appointed by the national government and would probably be national judges. You seem to know more about Romania's courts and Judiciary of Romania is not really helpful so if I'm totally wrong please let me know. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 5000 judges in Romania. Each of them is an employee of the national Justice Ministry. Each is named by a national institution and has his appointment signed off by the President of Romania. I really don’t think the guideline is meant to apply to all of them. We are talking about, in many cases, judges in small towns dealing strictly with divorces, inheritances or petty crimes. Anyway, to return to the present issue: I’m not sure exactly how the system worked in the 1920s, but Romania has always been a centralized state on the French model, so it was probably similar.

What concerns me about Demeter is not the exact nature of his office, but the fact that he appears to have fallen totally into oblivion for about 80 years, until being brought back into the limelight by his (aggressively self-promoting) descendant. Interwar Bukovina is actually of some interest to Romanian historians, it’s not exactly an obscure area, and yet there seems to be nothing on him. Just one example: the Encyclopedia of Bukovina, in three thick volumes with hundreds upon hundreds of entries, does not mention him. — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul,

thank you for your input. While I cannot comment on other regions / other Courts of Appeal in Romania, I respectfully challenge your assessment of the importance of Region / Court of Appeal when it comes to Bukovina / Cernăuți Court of Appeal, as this is my field of academic research. As explained by Mircea Duțu in 2018 (referenced in the article), in Bukovina, there were after 1918 three legal systems in place: The Austrian one, the Russian one and the Romanian one, depending on geographical area. The Cernăuți Court of Appeal therefore had the particular task of dealing with this on a daily basis until the legal system was unified with the remainder of Romania in 1938, as is also explained in many articles of that era. Its decisions and interpretations were widely discussed, and many Romanian legal scholars as well as state officials were particularly involved and in touch with the court. Reading the publications of the era, it is a fascinating field - the journal Pagini Juridice, for example, offers a myrad of sources.

It is clear that the Cernăuți Court of Appeal held a very important function in interwar Romania at least until 1938, a "link" between the legal system in Bukovina and the rest of Romania (to put it in very colloquial terms), and it was perceived that way in many publications of the era. There were direct meetings with the president of the court with the minister of justice to discuss topics related to Bukovina, and hundreds of press articles show the particular importance the court and its function held for the population of the region as the legal system of Bukovina was gradually incorporated in Romania's.

Re: Your argument that he appears to have fallen totally into oblivion for about 80 years, and your unfriendly assessment of me as aggressively self-promoting (I do not believe I have ever written "promotional" content, and I believe it is better etiquette to assume people act in good faith): In your assessment, you overlooked several academic publications mentioning Demeter R. v. Tuschinski / Dimitrie Tusinschi, like Albumul Mare al Societăților Academice „Arboroasa” și Junimea din Cernăuți, 2015, the first publication of a (due to the 1947-89 time) almost lost work, edited by Marian Olaru and others in Radauti. In their foreword, you can learn more about the difficulty in preserving that history, and how it was almost lost. Duțu also mentions Dimitrie Tusinschi (Demeter R. v. Tuschinski) in his 2018 article, and there are more. The importance Bukovina society put upon Demeter before WW2 is firmly established by many sources, he was not only known as a president of the court of appeal, but also for many charitative actions he participated in or initiated - sometimes, even articles and speeches he wrote and held were printed over multiple newspaper pages of major Bukovina pre-WW2 press, about legal and social issues, many articles were published about him, and so on, the Wikipedia article I wrote offers a small glimpse in its footnotes. Everything I quote in the article is a direct quote from those.

When I started work on my PhD in history about Demeter's biography recently, it was met with enthusiasm in relevant academic circles, and I received feedback that this research is important, bringing a notable and fascinating figure of interwar years back to attention. I am in contact with several academics who work on Bukovina, and I know that in the next years, more articles will be published addressing Demeter and Constantin, not only by me, but by several others. The more I research Bukovina history of the interwar years, the more I see important members of society whose existence was basically "forgotten" due to Socialist Romania's policies post-WW2, and who are still not well researched today. There is a number of unrelated, notable people I plan to write Wikipedia articles about with the same level of detail and research as about Constantin and Demeter, as this is my style of writing encyclopedic articles.

Notability cannot be established or not by mentions in research of the past 80 years - but, in this instance in particular, by the importance society put upon the person when he was active. Otherwise, people notable during their lifetime who are no longer much discussed would have to be deleted from Wikipedia - which would go against a lot of encyclopedic ideals. I stand by my assessment that notability is firmly established by all sources in the articles, and that rather the articles shall be judged by their contents than by their author (again, I do not think your assessment about me is particularly accurate or fair, and I object to the term "promotion").

I find it puzzling how this deletion proposal combines Demeter with his son Constantin, whose notability lies in his publications pre- and post-WW2, not in the office he held - two very different, independent articles are combined into a deletion discussion, their only connecting link is their relation to me, not their contents. As a recent example about Constantin (that is independent of his general notability for Wikipedia), his collected 1929-1942 works, which I republished this year, will receive additional coverage in Romanian and international academic publications in the next months, and the volume is presently added to several international academic libraries who deemed it notable for inclusion, four of which you can already find online on worldcat.

Biruitorul, it appears you are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about Romanian history, which I appreciate a lot. I always assume the best intentions, and I feel instead of trying to find reasons to delete two notable historical figures from Bukovina because you appear to have doubts/misunderstandings about my motifs (?), it might be more productive to collaborate in the future to add additional articles involving the era and region. I assure you I work out of idealism. Work on my ancestors' pages is not "promotional" at all; I spend a lot of time to complete gaps about Northern Bukovina history that were often overlooked and that I now unearth with my research. I would be delighted to send you several notable names and sources if you were interested to write new articles whom I have found during my research - there are many gaps in articles on Bukovina that could be filled, and maybe you would like to participate :) ATuschinski (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note once again WP:BLUDGEON. The purpose of this discussion is for non-conflicted users to express their opinions - not for a relative of the subject to relentlessly argue for the article to be kept. You are blatantly and consistently involved in self-promotionalism, even the post above is promotional. You just can't stop talking about yourself. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Demeter's post and his honours, most notably Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown of Romania, a very high honour, would suggest that he is indeed notable. "Minor local officials" do not generally receive such high honours or so many of them. Constantin's literary career would also seem to make him notable. I would argue that both meet WP:GNG in any case given the level of sourcing. I can see no good reasons for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the level of detail and length of the article? Axad12 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

300 living people could hold that award. It’s the type of medal that can be mentioned in the biography of someone already found to be notable, but doesn’t confer notability on its own. As for his position, one need only look up current presidents of Romanian tribunals to find they’re not really notable. Example: Alina Marcela Curelaru, who heads the tribunal in Piatra Neamț. Zero in-depth coverage, from what I can see. Finally, the sourcing is pretty weak, a mishmash of newspaper clippings and unverifiable archival material. The fact that no contemporary historian of Bukovina (who isn’t a family member) bothers to mention these characters speaks volumes. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
300 living people could hold that award. That's not actually very many! It doesn't confer notability. It acknowledges that the individual was notable enough to receive it! There's a big difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not confuse “notable within the bureaucratic and military structures of the Romanian state in the 1930s, in the narrow sense of being civil servants rewarded for long years of uncontroversial employment” with “notable by current Wikipedia standards”.

So I went back to the official gazette for the day when Demeter got his medal. You know who else got the very same medal on the very same day? Stavri Cunescu and Emil Cerchez, managers at the Health and Labor Ministry; and Ion Fianu, manager at the Agriculture Ministry. I.e., nobodies. I rest my case. — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to judge who is a "nobody"? It generally simply means "someone I've never heard of". So what? This is an encyclopaedia. It imparts imformation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I suggest we lower the temperature on this discussion a bit. Second, these people were “nobodies” in the sense that a) they never attained any significant state rank (minister, member of parliament, mayor, and so on). They were simply cogs in a machine, heads of ministerial departments, the sort of people this encyclopedia never notices; and b) no multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject exist regarding these individuals. None. This is what makes them nobodies for our purposes. Incidentally, this is largely true of the articles I’ve nominated for deletion: it’s quite conspicuous that no historian has ever bothered mentioning them. In decades upon decades of modern Romanian historiography (let’s say since 1965), they are completely absent from the record. Biruitorul ^Talk 12:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I don’t really see a convincing case for notability here. Moreover, the behavior of the articles’ creator during this discussion has been less than ideal. On the slight chance either subject may be notable, the articles should be restarted from scratch. The present versions simply are too compromised by original research. (Note to closing administrator: I originally nominated without a position, but only now decided on a stance.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this AfD, and was on the fence at first, however after a BEFORE search, it is clear to me now that the article should not be retained in the encyclopedia. The article is part of an effort to promote the Tuschinski family. No disrespect to the family is intended by this statement, however the encyclopedia is not the place for promoting one’s relatives or oneself. That is precisely what personal websites and social media are for. WP:PROMO and WP:COI apply in this case. This individual is not notable per Wikipedia criteria. He was simply doing his job well, which is run-of-the-mill for millions upon millions of individuals in the world. WP:MILL. The award is not significant enough to meet biographic benchmarks nor basic notability. The article seems to have original research and non-objective content which raises WP:OR and neutral point of view concerns. The bludgeoning of the discussion and long walls of text is not helping the situation, which has been twice suggested and I concur, that the article creator, who is a direct relative of the subject, and is also writing his PhD dissertation on this relative, permit the discussion to unfold naturally without bucking against opposing opinions -please let others speak. The article, while crafted/formatted nicely as a family memorial, fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ATuschinski does actually have a third COI in relation to this subject. As well as being a relation of the subject and doing his phd on the subject (as pointed out by Netherzone), the user has also very recently published a book on the subject. The following self-citation confirming this was recently removed from the Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski article: Further reading: Tuschinski, Constantin Ritter von / Tușinschi, Constantin D.: European Union, State Parties and Political Transformations. Collected Works 1929-1942. With an English language biography of the author by Alexander Tuschinski. Norderstedt 2024, ISBN. The following promotional self-citation was recently removed from the article for Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski: Tuschinski, Alexander: Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski - Biography, in: Tuschinski, Constantin Ritter von / Tușinschi, Constantin D.: European Union, State Parties and Political Transformations, Collected Works 1929-1942, Norderstedt 2024. Numerous sources and information are printed in the work, as well as memories of conversations with Constantin von Tuschinski. Setting up Wikipedia articles to coincide with the publication of a book you have published on the same subjects is a particularly flagrant breach of COI/PROMO guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, thanks for pointing that out. There might also be a financial interest in promoting the book in relation to this article and perhaps the article on the other relative.

I did notice the creator had used WP to promote themself and their own films, and that both his autobiography and the films were deleted on the German Wikipedia, if I am not mistaken. Netherzone (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One further point: his book was published by Books on Demand. In other words, it’s self-published, with no peer review. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:47, 23 December 2024 (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. It is WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Mangione

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

Delete per nom. E_F⁵ 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting will let those in power silence us. 2600:1700:5192:4930:8451:D5CE:E12B:AC93 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree D'angelo-Barksdale (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't be silly. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is wholly unnecessary, and it has duplicate scope with Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect. guninvalid (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~As with the MfD, this is probably going to WP:SNOWBALL Delete. Leave it as redirect, if even that.~~ guninvalid (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to Keep. Yes, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR should apply, but I feel that even if this guy were found innocent, the insane outpouring of coverage around this guy puts him well within WP:GNG and WP:BIO. And WP:N states that notability is transitive, and even if he gets exonerated, the outpouring of support and hatred alike against him will still be notable. It is up to the closer to decide whether the arguments in favor of WP:BLPCRIME are more favorable or in favor of WP:GNG. guninvalid (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Both WP:PERP and WP:GNG are guidelines, and both speak to "presumptions" whether it is presumption of innocence or presumption of notability. I just interpreted WP:GNG as being a general guideline and WP:PERP as being the specific guideline and it made more sense to me to follow the specific guideline. I actually am one of the most active contributors to the Luigi Mangione wiki article by edit count and am not too concerned with the AfD outcome as there is precedent for creating and publishing BLP articles of those accused of crime before any court conviction has been made, such as Dylann Roof. I chose to vote how I best interpreted the wiki guidelines. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:SNG seems to suggest that notability can be established by either WP:GNG or a subject specific SNG such as WP:PERP. Being able to pass either GNG or SNG isn't a guarantee that an article won't be merged or redirected, but it's not that one is somehow more relevant or weighted. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, WP:BLP1E clearly states as the third requirement for omitting someone on that basis 3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. and then proceeds to provide examples. We have significant reliable sources, the content in the article is verifiable and the subject of the article, even in these early days, receives consistent ongoing coverage. Little reason to believe this article won't simply continue to expand. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
second this argument to keep. 62.240.135.5 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and keep working on the Killing of Brian Thompson article. Reason 1 According to WP:PERPETRATOR, a separate article of someone only known in connection with a crime or trial should not normally be a separate article but may be created "only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." Killing of Brian Thompson currently is 4,107 words, whereas article split criteria is >8,000 words for "May need to be divided or split" per WP:SIZERULE.
Reason 2: WP:PERPETRATOR also does say "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I do think the subject meets contemporaneous notability, but based on the article size criteria not being met and there being no conviction yet, I do not think there should be an article on this topic yet.
Reason 3: I am also not sure if the historical significance criteria in WP:PERP has been met yet as “Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.” All the reporting on the subject is currently contemporaneous. Maybe the Killing of Brian Thompson article scope could be expanded, or are we not supposed to be putting suspect biographical info there? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very clearly notable with the amount of media coverage and large online fanbase- if this were merged into Killing of Brian Thompson then the latter would rapidly become a WP:COAT article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
second this. Links should be littered throughout the two different articles for bias and fact checking instead. The presentation of accurate, fact checked, and unbiased information would be better served if this article was kept and meticulously cross referenced instead of deleted. 62.240.135.5 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
third this. Meticulously cross reference. Content is significant, subject is now a notable public figure with consistent ongoing coverage. The motivation for the crime is unusual, noteworthy, well-documented, and historic, with sustained coverage around his role. 172.91.132.21 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E Andre🚐 23:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Wikipedia's longstanding consensus is not to have a standalone article on a person accused of a crime who has not yet been found guilty. For now, we have not seen either condition met for a standalone article on a perpetrator per WP:CRIM: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Thompson was not a "renowned national or international figure" prior to his killing, and we are not yet at the point of weighing the "historic significance" of the event. Furthermore, creating this page treads on WP:CRIM's guidance that Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. If/when Mangione is found guilty, this page can come right back. For now, the redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect should be restored and protected to enforce this consensus pending a verdict. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dclemens1971 You've quoted quite a bit of WP:CRIME here, but you've missed important parts sadly that make your claim of consensus troubling. In particular, the first passage you quoted (the bit about renowned national or international figures, etc) is only relevant if this is true: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:. We do, of course, have an "appropriate existing article" (Killing of Brian Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), so that whole bit (and your arguments based on it) is moot. That also includes the "alleged perpetrator" quotation, which is really just a rehash of WP:BLPCRIME.
  If we turn to WP:BLPCRIME then, it states For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. The argument for exclusion falls apart when you consider that Luigi Mangione is definitely a "public figure" and WP:WELLKNOWN with the amount of scrutiny they have received since they were arrested and charged for the killing. Turning our attention back to WP:CRIME, we're left with article size being a potential reason to WP:SPINOUT to a separate article. Killing of Brian Thompson has certainly grown in size in just the past two weeks since the killing took place, and size concerns will only become more significant as more sources and information about Luigi is released in reliable sources. But I'd argue keeping the biography in the event article are WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP concerns: certainly some discussion of the alleged killer is relevant in the event article, but there will be concerns if his biography expands to things beyond those relevant to the event itself (and certainly if things aren't proportional to the overall event). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, that's completely incorrect. Look at the articles of assassins of political leaders, like John Wilkes Booth or even attempted assassins like Thomas Matthew Crooks. Brian Thompson was an extremely important individual and his death should result in the same, as in an article on Thompson, an article on his death, and an article on Mangione EarthDude (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Without taking a position on article deletion, citing those people is not that helpful because WP:BLPCRIME is about living people being accused of crime. Neither Booth nor Crooks is alive. HorseDonkey (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Living people accused of assassination attempts of major figures also have Wikipedia articles. For example, the second assassination attempt of Trump in 2024 during his golf game, has an article and so does Ryan Wesley Routh, the assailant, who's very much still alive. This article on Mangione also checks out with WP:GNG and WP:BLPPUBLIC. EarthDude (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreating at a later date if Killing of Brian Thompson gets too long or something changes to justify a separate article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - absolute given. notable given the coverage around him. More coverage is focused on him than the target. 97.115.189.88 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guy is famous enough by now. Then again, Dclemens1971 makes a valid point. The thing is that it is only sometimes that we get really picky about our guidelines and it's especially so in the case of crime/criminal, and I don't really see the point of that pickiness. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the impulse to go WP:IAR here, but the redirect both meets informational needs and upholds the consensus guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My main reason is because of WP:BLPCT. BLPs are contentious topics per arbitration enforcement committee. With contentious topics, you must “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines”. Having come from over a year of editing in another CT area on Wikipedia, I definitely know that Ignore All Rules does not apply to contentious topics. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except WP:BLPCT applies to the deceased, not the alleged perpetrator. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you may have linked the wrong thing. WP:BLPCT is talking about BLPs being contentious topics. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.-🐦DrWho42👻 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Dclemens1971. There is no need yet for an article about the suspect. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to add every detail about him that the media reports. The Killing of Brian Thompson limits narrowly what we can say about the suspect, because we are only including things related to the crime and his alleged involvement. And that's how it should be. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chessrat's reasoning. Kyleroo (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Locke_Cole's response above. The article is already long as it is. It's inevitable that more information will continue to flow in especially in the coming weeks. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Hawaii, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chessrat's reasoning. [[Comfr (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep He is clearly notable and is receiving plenty of media coverage. Here's a couple of articles that are primarily focused on him and not the killing [22][23][24][25][26][27] There's currently content in the Killing of Brian Thompson article (i.e. the last paragraph of the #Possible motives and views section) regarding his views/political views, etc. that are more appropriate for a biography than for the event article. Some1 (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Just because newspapers are reporting things does not mean they are encyclopedic. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - We’re in luck, in this case what they’re reporting is encyclopedic. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:CRIME articles on perpetrators are deemed notable if motivation for the crime is unusual - Mangione has had extensive media coverage about his motives allegedly being a revenge killing. The execution of the crime has also been covered as being meticulously planned. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies to this page as the event is significant and the individual's role is substantial - there seems to be more coverage on him than the actual victim. jolielover♥talk 05:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dclemons. Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect already has all the content, because it is all relevant to the event. The sources above are still within the sphere of the killing and its background and response. A WP:DUPLICATE WP:REDUNDANT page or is not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 05:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that is what i am leaning toward.--In 2011, this killer had an article (and is still in isolation, even though a model prisoner). Wiki's guidelines have not changed significantly since then, regarding suspects. The killer had an article two days after the crime - and a year before the first conviction. 2001:2020:32F:E6A2:E8A1:CBF8:BC0:B10E (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Responsibly written and very well sourced. The subject is receiving new reliable coverage from quality sources every day. There is intense interest, and this responsibly written article is a strong example of the excellence of Wikipedia in providing reliable and current information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be allowed to continue, collecting the best sources as they arrive. Should coverage not continue long term, only then should it possibly be redirected as a flash in the pan lacking ongoing interest. Given the current ongoing coverage, it is not reasonable to assume that there will not be long term interest. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect. A person who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Wikipedia should not have a separate article about a suspect who is only notable for the crime he is accused of, before conviction. see WP:CRIME in addition to WP:SUSPECT. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fixed subsection indicator, which appears to have been signed by Comfr—that is, by writing four tildes. Kyleroo (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously very notable.CallumPaxton (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is clear to me is that he is not only notable but will only become more notable over time in the event of his trial and any ensuing protests.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmaster (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson per WP:BLP and connected. Sjö (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson for the time being, per Wafflefrites, Reywas92, abd Cameron Dewe. I agree that WP:BLPCT, WP:CRIME, WP:DUP, are WP:REDUNDANT all apply here. Of course, the full article can be restored to the mainspace if and when future events/circumstances warrant it, but there's no need to be hasty. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Changing !vote based on increased media coverage. WP:GNG is clearly met, and the page has expanded to the point where a separate article is justified. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Idek mann (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You could make an article about the impact that Luigi has had alone. AdrianHObradors (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has received a lot of attention for his suspected role in killing that CEO. However, even outside of that event, he has also received much attention that focuses on him solely as an individual. Articles on Mangione's political views, his background, and also how the populace has responded to his actions. Although one could argue that recentism comes into play, I don't think the interest surrounding him will necessarily die out; especially with a documentary on the way. I guess we could wait until mid-January and see whether he's still relevant or not.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have an article on Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Derek Chauvin, who are about as BLP1E as you can get. Mangione has received international media attention, and has become the subject of a notable antiestablishment political movement: [28]. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This event is not remotely comparable to the murder of George Floyd, nor the Boston Marathon bombing. Also worth nothing both of those individuals were found guilty in highly publicised, discussed and protested trials. MB 2437 22:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect (at this time) to Killing of Brian Thompson as this is all he is notable for, he does not have independent notability, note as well, he has not yet been found guilty, so he may not even be notable for thisSlatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of attention in the media. We have articles for even obscure topics, this as an internet meme is notable, let alone the crime side of it. Bedivere (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is helpful in knowing Luigi's life up to the incident and to help understand why he killed the CEO. Rager7 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that justification is that we do not know if he killed the CEO. He has not been found guilty. Moreover, we do not know his motivations. This page simply allows people to assume those things and make implications. Clear violation of policy. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful with your wording. Wikipedia cannot say he killed anyone until a court of law says so. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Eadweard Muybridge “shot and killed Major Harry Larkyns” and was never convicted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sheer amount of media attention he's received is enough to justify this in my opinion. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mangione was something of a folk hero even before he was identified, with look-alike contests. Despite the fact that he hasn't been convicted, his life apart from the (alleged) killing has been subject to considerable coverage in reliable sources. He meets the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has generated this news coverage, look alike contests, "folk hero" status as you say, etc. solely because of his status as a suspect/accused in the killing. That's the definition of WP:BLP1E. I have no doubt there will be a future article on Mangione, but as long as he's not pled guilty or been convicted, he should be covered as part of the alleged crime. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not though.
Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event - as Chicdat mentioned, we have articles on Derek Chauvin and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That's because sources discuss Chauvin's and Tsarnaev's lives more broadly - just as they have discussed Mangione's life more broadly.

The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual - Mangione has become a folk hero. Even if they were acquitted, they're unlikely to fade into obscurity.

The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented - Thompson's murder has become significant in way many other murders are not. NY is planning to create a special line for CEOs who feel unsafe. And Mangione has been charged with the murder now, so his role appears to be substantial.
Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a trout to the nom for completely skipping over the part of BLP1E that requires "3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Obviously, BLP1E does not apply to this person, who had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Even if he's not convicted, he is notable as a suspect. Passes WP:GNG by a mile with sustained international news coverage. Shouldn't be merged with the article about the murder itself, as the biography of the suspect would overwhelm the article about the murder. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have an article for the two would-be Trump assassins. Luigi is such an infamous guy at this point, he definetally deserves his own article. KILLGOESE (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (1) as noted above by several other experienced editors, there is now significant coverage about the subject beyond the crime itself, and (2) ignore all rules if the deletion would be so controversial as to harm the project. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all rules does not apply to BLP or BLPCRIM. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the twelve words at WP:IAR and didn’t see any that exempted BLP. Regardless, there’s not really any valid BLP concerns so far worth considering. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No need for a separate page. Reflecktor (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been massive media coverage worldwide, and it shows no sign of abating. Edwardx (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No sign of abating" is hyperbole. His name has seen a significant drop in trending. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may probably go up/down due to court developments. His indictment charge recently went up to first degree murder, so I expect that to be breaking news. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So many different reliable sources talking about this mans life, job, schooling, beliefs, etc. Definitely notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Luigi is an individual outside of the assassination, and there are individual wikipedia pages for many criminals/terrorists/assassins separate from the page about the crime specifically. Iristhescorpio (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of the rationales cited for deletion no longer apply to Luigi Mangione. As noted by others. WP:BLP1E allows for the article per criterion #3 (the event is significant and his role in it is central and well-documented). He has become too famous/notorious for WP:BLPCRIME to apply, whether found guilty or not, he is already a notable person. Sources are, for example, discussing his celebrity/folk hero status - [29][30][31][32][33][34]. This article [35] for example says that his popularity has already far eclipsed any of the would-be Trump assassins who are not household names (and those two persons have their own articles). WP:PERPETRATOR also permits this article through perpetrator criterion #2 - the presumed motivation is unusual and notable and has sparked wider discussion about the health care system in the US. I see no reason to delete or redirect it. Hzh (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this point in time Mangioni and the killing have both become far more than even the normal suspects/crimes that are notable for Wikipedia. The second and third prongs of BLP1E would seem to no longer bar creation. We still have to be very careful to not presume guilt per WP:BLPCRIME, but a standalone article, given the overwhelming amount of sources, including many which delve into information that would not be suitable on the killing page, is probably warranted. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also as per guidelines at WP:CRIME which state: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." In my view this article has been created too soon. Mangione has not yet been convicted in court. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if he is found not guilty, the arrest, trial, and information around him would likely be notable enough to have an article. MatthewNewHouse (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. He will definitely have long term significance. Current coverage is massive. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dclemens1971 Pdubs.94 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikiuser3315 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue is... WP:BLP1E doesn't apply anymore as Luigi has been declared a "hero" online. He has an ample amount of coverage both in context of the event and as an individual. [36], [37], [38]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This. 2A02:3038:20A:5C1E:569F:1175:F170:9544 (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As many others have said above me, this massive coverage makes him notable enough to qualify for an article. Though I do think the article doesn't currently have much to offer that isn't already, or couldn't be placed in in the article on the murder itself FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is keep or delete your suggestion? Eg224 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While innocent until proven guilty, the historical charges and media coverage of this person justify encyclopedic history keeping. Onikaburgers (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Motivation for the crime and the public discussion surrounding it is unique Yung Doohickey (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially right now while more and more information comes out about him specifically not related to the event. If we get 6 months down the line and all the information on here is the same as the article of the event then sure, a merge could be considered. But while the background of this is expanding and growing we need a place for information on him specifically. MatthewNewHouse (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't need a separate article at the moment, and the length is such that it isn't adding much new information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonus suggestion!: Redirect and move back to Drafts. The article itself is indeed very well written, but even if WP:BLPCRIME applies, if this guy is found guilty, this article could come back to the mainspace. If deleting and redirecting are deemed necessary, at least we can preserve the draft as is in case it becomes worthy. guninvalid (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EarthDude (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold keep Eg224 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the man is very clearly notable. IncompA 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's a very notable man now. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have an article on Ryan Wesley Routh, that survived an AfD. Ryan Routh has not been convicted yet of the crime (for which he is notable for). Yet that article remains. IMO, Luigi Mangione is far, far, far more notable that Ryan Wesley Routh, to the point where there is more coverage on him than his actual crime or the CEO now. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This guy is super notable. OsageOrange (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin. That AfD debate took place long before Chauvin was convicted. If anything, there is much greater coverage of Mangione's life by reliable sources than Chauvin's. We have many biographies of high profile people accused of but not convicted of crimes. Other factors are that the apparent motivation for the killing is highly unusual, and the sociological phenomenon of widespread support for an accused assassin is almost unprecedented in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy. Eg224 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the event that this AFD is somehow successful and the result is this article gets deleted, I would suggest moving it to draft space so that it can be continued to be worked on, where more and more notability will be demonstrated over a long period of time (therefore this article passes the WP:10Y test with flying colors). I personally think this article should be kept, though not for the same reasons as (some of) the other people that have also voted keep (simply because they all completely forgot about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS somehow) but I don't know. Time will tell eventually. 92.19.129.131 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy has received a lot of attention, arguably a lot more than Thomson, and many sources have a heavy focus on Mangione himself, not just the killing. Cortador (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR caution against but do not outright prohibit creating articles/content on living people whose main claim to fame is being accused but not convicted of a crime. It's fair to say that notability requirements for such an article are much higher than run-of-the-mill GNG. Even with these heightened requirements, I think notability has been met. Magnione has continued to receive intense coverage for weeks and there is not sign of this coverage stopping any time soon. Further, this coverage has gone far beyond the usual biographical coverage of people accused of violent crimes; you have reliable sources like the New Yorker, AP News, and The Atlantic (just to name a few) providing in-depth coverage of how he has become a "folk hero." The coverage has gone far beyond Mangione's alleged role in the death of Brian Thompson. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E nothwithstanding, I believe that the separate article should be kept for two reasons: First, because of the unusual amount and depth of sources dealing with the subject in the context of his prominence as a "folk hero" of sorts, even before he was identified; second, because of the unique context of the crime this person has been accused of, which has painted him as a sort of "character" in media such as memes, TV and news (this has been documented and I believe it meets notability guidelines). CVDX (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this point, WP:GNG is satisfied to a degree that outweighs the other guidelines mentioned. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E *not* applying: a significant event with large coverage and cultural impact. WP:1E also makes it clear that the policy really just aims to prevent stubs being made for every single news article. There is a massive, massive outpouring of interest into this subject from a massive array of reliable sources. Reading over the article, I think it’s spotless and is a remarkable example of WP:NPOV in action: an article that gives equal time to statements of fact from verifiable, reliable sources. The only real issue I see is some weasel words in the “views” section but I think that can easily be reworded. Please keep this gem! 50.39.97.171 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For single-event issues like this, I almost never vote this way, but this is an exception. His meteoric rise to fame is astounding, with him already being comparable to Donald Trump & Kamala Harris for the degree of attention. BOTTO_(T•C) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this point I think this is a WP:SNOW KEEP. While claims of WP:BLP1E brought in a lot of early votes, the overwhelming amount of coverage this subject and this story has gotten makes it something it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to ignore. Trackinfo (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's a difference between Wikipedia ignoring the subject and merging the article scope into Killing of Brian Thompson. A lot of the topics about Mangione can still be discussed on that article as well; having an article specifically for Mangione may be unnecessary. guninvalid (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - A full biography of the alleged killer would be inappropriate in an article about the event itself, see WP:SCOPE. As a policy concern, there's WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. If the event article were to have a full biography it would likely be at the expense of the event itself. There's also the WP:COAT concern expressed above by @Chessrat. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR concerns are valid, but at this point in time this subject has recived far, far more coverage than the actual event, and as such it seems WP:GNG has been safely met. If anything a reverse merge could be suggested in the future. Yet as this is a current news event, it might be to soon to tell. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quintessential WP:BLP1E Udder1882 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a case of WP:BLP1E, Suspect getting heavy coverage in the news,likely the most talked about person in news right now. Why not give him an article? Justcgi (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I acknowledge the WP:BLP1E guideline, but the rule explains in itself on bullet point 3 that a subject can be deemed worthy of a separate article because of documentation and intense significance. The effect Mangione has had on modern American politics will be felt and is already palpably influencing public interest. Case in point, a person was arrested for repeating Mangione's bullet casing messages. Luigi Mangione himself has also been discussed by the president elect, the public, and the media more than the event at this point. There is a real encyclopedic value to chronicling information about Mangione. Echoing other user's comments here, Luigi has sufficiently passed WP:GNG, but the worthiness of this article may be more apparent long after the buzz passes over. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a political !vote as what I really recommend is turning this back into a redirect. I do not agree with most arguments of the keep advocates. Both the coverage in the sources and the content we have created thus far are still such that there is literally nothing due for inclusion in this article that would not be okay in the parent article, and WP:PERPETRATOR suggests not having the article before a potential conviction (or unless particular considerations of content organization make it genuinely necessary—not currently the case). This is a premature half-done split: This article was created by wholesale copying of content from the parent article as the source article. Some of this content was then indeed removed from the source article so as to enact moving content, but these changes at the source article are not especially good for that article (I would have !voted oppose in a split discussion for this reason) and the level of summarization there is low. As a result, there is too much duplication and scope overlap. Some content has since been added here which really should have gone there. Also, some silly content had been added here about Pokemon-related fringe beliefs, which is exactly the type of additions this article invites. But there is no point resisting. One more time it has been proven that notability means guaranteed inclusion and that the Wikipedia:Notability provision that [existence of notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page is essentially dead letter. I am not going to !vote delete/redirect, knowing that this outcome is obviously a fantasy, and the situation is not terrible, it just isn't optimal. And that's fine.—Alalch E. 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't believe WP:BLP1E is being interpreted correctly here. And if Haliey Welch has an article of her own, then surely this shows the flexibility of WP:BLP1E MaskedSinger (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a nice essay at WP:BLP1ENOT. —Alalch E. 17:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know @Alalch E. . I read it :) MaskedSinger (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's absolutely no reason to delete that article. Equalness1 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely necessary article with the amount of media attention and specific focus on the perpetrator, as well as the support he has gotten. Plectiscus (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information? On my Wikipedia? Tasteless. 24.144.188.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned, BLP1E 3 criteria for deletion is not met. This is a Lee Harvey Oswald level of single-event notability, plus his notable family is another factor. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Manginoe meets GNG criteria and is Lee Harvey Oswald-level notable. cookie monster 755 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Mr. Mangione has widespread and continuing coverage in worldwide media. His case is relevant to both the issues of crime, as well as the insurance industry. And he shares a secondary but not insubstantial interest to those interested in fugitives. He is very notable. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article has been getting a huge amount of media coverage, and not all of it is even about his alleged role in the assassination. There's no way this can be even remotely qualified for deletion at this point. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is trending now and it is a very high profile killing with a lot behind it, deleting is censoring history. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I am in agreement with arguments presented by @GoatLordServant. In addition, my personal editing goal will be to find and contribute material to the Luigi Mangione article that will provide further evidence of the historical, political and public interest significance of this event, which I think is proving to be substantial.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The event was the Killing of Brian Thompson. The wiki article for discussion is a biography. When you say “significance of this event”, do you think maybe we should create a Trial of Luigi Mangione? Like Trial of Derek Chauvin? Wafflefrites (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I say event, I am referring more to a rising social movement about corporations and insurance companies that has arisen from the killing. This could include increased public debate about the issue, responses by insurance companies, bills submitted at the state or local level to make changes in health care policy. Further, it could include analysis of the terrorism charge in the killing of a corporate figure. Of course, a Trial of Luigi Mangione page would certainly serve as an important public record.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Luigi Mangione is now notable enough. He has been mentioned multiple times in news and other media all over the world, for a long time. He clearly meets the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article. --Engineering Guy (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has met several criteria of high-profile individual set forth in Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, and he has reached celebrity status by some measure. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a shame how idolized he became, but it certainly made him relevant enough. Lucafrehley (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as, at this point, he is considerably notable as an individual. —theMainLogan (t•c) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep can see argument for WP:BLP1E but it has a carveout for significant attention. Might be a case of WP:RECENTISM but the media circus around Luigi might justify this article at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- article needs significant work, it looks like an indiscriminate mess of random details of his life. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PERP makes it clear that if the victim is WP:WELLKNOWN (CEO of the 11th largest company would be well known or important) OR the crime is unusual or historically significant that they meed the criteria for a page. I would argue that over two weeks of non-stop news coverage, the fact that it's not normal for a CEO of this large of a company to be shot, and the fact that he's become a meme would have him meet this criteria. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at merge into the killing article. Already far too much overlap related to the capture, and trial that is already covered on killing (like, 80% of this article) . Beyond that, clearly is only a BLP1E, scraping the bits and details of his life show nothing notable beyond his role in the killing. Masem (t) 00:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile WP:BLP1E's third criteria with your !vote? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two reasons: in the case of John Hinckley Jr. or someone like Lee Harvey Oswald, there are years following the event that try to make sense of why the person took the actions they did. While they are only notable for that one event, there's a large volume of details beyond the event itself (not just related to their life before the event) that are covered by criminologists and other experts. Second, at the current time, the article for Mangione is pretty much duplicating what is in the killing event article, as well as suffering from the overly excessive coverage that is not in line with NOTNEWS. Eliminate all the duplicate material and you're left with a routine biography (birth, school, career) that is being overly detailed because of all the news scraping that is going on (again, a NOTNEWS problem). Until there is significantly more about Mangione that is in relation to the killing but would not be part of what's covered on the killing page (as there is for Hinkley and Oswald), there's simply no need for a separate article. Maybe in the future yes, but we don't use crystal balls to guess that.
    And keep in mind, there are cases of clear BLP1E that we don't have articles on purpose for the killer, such as Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Brenton Tarrant in the Christchurch mosque shootings, despite the fact that their life had been similarly documented as much as Mangione.
    I'm also very worried about the way that Mangione is being seen as a hero or the like in social media circles and how that is influencing the editing of his article. I cannot point to any specific edit or editor, but it does feel there's a push to document him in this way. This makes it a larger BLP (not just BLP1E) issue to make sure that we're not being overly favorable towards how he is written about, and it is far easier to keep the right POV in the context of the killing article (which also already covers this social media reaction factor). — Masem (t) 05:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your vote is your vote, but regarding your last point, without being able to point to specific edits as evidence for the article itself presenting him as a hero, its sounds like you kind of just WP:DONTLIKEIT (with "it" being positive public reactions)? Peachseltzer (hello!) 20:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has gotten much media coverage since the event. Also, conviction of Thompson's killing is not required for Mangione's article to stick around on Wikipedia, either (Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of anything relating to JFK's assassination, but Oswald still has a robust Wiki page). Canuck^{89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page} 00:38, December 20, 2024 (UTC)
Keep More than notable enough at this point and there’s already documentaries that are being made specifically focusing on his whole life. (talk) DovahDuck 07:45 PM, December 19, 2024 (EST)
Keep Mangione's notability is already signficant and is growing. Much of the news coverage focuses on him rather than the crimes he's been charged with. It would be ridiculous not to have an article about him when there will no doubt be articles on books and films about him. For precedence, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has an article. — HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the subject of this article has generated enough public discourse and significant coverage on his own that it may overwhelm the Killing of Brian Thompson article. RachelTensions (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel the burden is on the nominator to explain the reason for deletion in the RfD discussion. Deleting this would be completely asinine. Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep - Insane coverage, completely merits an article. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On quality, on notability. Early delete votes were totally shortsighted. 74.73.224.143 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Luigi Mangione is more than notable enough for his own article. Deleting it would be a foolish mistake. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's too notable lol. Y'all should delete that Sommer Ray article though. Strawberries1 (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the future, the fact that his notability was in contention will seem ridiculous. MrsKoma (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mangione is notable now and is covered by all legacy media. PatrickChiao (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is broad media coverage regarding specifically Luigi Mangione, a separate page will be needed to keep up with the information. J.pshine5t (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously, this is even a question? 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson - Redirect for now. Non-compliant with WP:BLPCRIME at this point. Mr. Mangione has not yet been convicted of the crimes for which he is charged. Maybe re-create after he is convicted. Danzigmusicfan1 (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - He's very notable both in the legacy media as well as in common discourse. It just makes sense to have an article dedicated to the subject. Ashtremble (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Mangione is notable and his WP:Bio full biography is inappropriate in killing of Brian Thompson, agree w User:Chessrat that would become a WP:coat- Should reduce the section about Mangione in killing of Brian Thompson to bare bones, as I agree w guninvalid there is duplication. Wondring why after 4 days this discussion is still open. The vote is clear!--Wuerzele (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is an increasing amount of notability beyond BLP1E, and as long as the language is written correctly, shouldn't be a BLPCRIME or SUSPECT issue. No doubt other sections such as his public image will expand rapidly over time. CNC (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WereWolf (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conditions 2 & 3 of BLP1E are not met. The article's subject is notable enough for his own article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. There is no doubt that Luigi Mangione is a notable enough figure to warrant his own Wikipedia article. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTheMusicMaster (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has become a somewhat major internet phenomenon, and that coverage is significant and would not fit in an article about the killing itself. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a legitimate concern others have pointed out in this discussion is the amount of overlap between the murder article and this one, it would definitely be more manageable to limit discussion of his arrest to one article and leave a summary with a link on the other. I've posted about it on the murder article's talk page. CVDX (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, much like Ryan Wesley Routh. DonBeroni (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely insane amounts of coverage, he's generating tons of reactions and discussions about reform/violence/copycats/etc far beyond just the killing itself, and the trial is shaping up to be another media frenzy that'll probably get its own article someday. --Aabicus (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tons of notable coverage, and it's becoming more of a cultural commentary than many other assassins out there. Lexrama (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notable coverage of him has gone far beyond what would make sense as an addition to Killing of Brian Thompson. I would prefer to see the overlap between this article and the Brian Thompson article addressed not by deleting this article, but editing that article. Peachseltzer (hello!) 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has is significant, famous and notable enough to have an article. Javajourney (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is famous enough, Javajourney is correct. (Your welcome.) 98.143.67.244 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most news I've seen regarding the murder feature Luigi's photo and mention him in the title. People on the red carpet are asked about him and his looks, he's been in jail for only one day and he's received 87 pieces of mail and 163 donations already. He's a star. Alecsdaniel (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as major news outlets report on him and have his name in the heading: CNN New York Post BBC CBS New York Times

Laura240406 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge judiciously to Killing of Brian Thompson. Mangione has zero significant coverage before the death of Brian Thompson. He is a prominent suspect in the death of Brian Thompson. Nothing in his own article can't be said in Killing of Brian Thompson. Keep WP:RECENTISM in mind, boys and girls. We don't make, nor keep, articles solely to tickle our fancies as enthusiasts or ADHD/OCD data compilers. Otherwise one could make countless trivial subarticles ("face of Luigi Mangione", "Luigi Mangione on December 4th 2024", "thirsty Tweets about Luigi Mangione" ad nauseum.) --Animalparty! (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is part of a larger significant series of events regarding healthcare in the US. Not BLP1E. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like it or not, he’s now notable (even if notable here means notorious). The mayor has gone out of his way to publicly involve himself in his storyline. Also you didn’t give a rationale for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue (documentary series)

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

I can find no independent coverage of this Channel 4 TV docu-series from 1996, not even on Channel 4's own website. The article is virtually unsourced, but I found the book that was published based on the series. However, without independent secondary coverage (reviews, etc.), this TV show fails WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_Channel_4_television_programmes#News,_documentaries_and_current_affairs -Mushy Yank. 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is pre-Internet, a Coventry Evening Telegraph article is mentioned, the title is super generic, it's narrated by John Peel, so not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with a redirect, in principle, but the docuseries is not listed there. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my merge proposal. -Mushy Yank. 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank If I go ahead and do a WP:BOLD merge, do you consent to my withdrawing this nomination and saving us all some time? Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Speedy keep; withdrawn. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 23:34, 16 December 2024 (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 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koeut Pich

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

No evidence that this football player passes WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. The only sources I could turn up (or in the article) are databases, routine match coverage and routine transfer coverage. If you find any sources in Cambodian I may have missed, please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find Post Khmer (translated) but it's not enough. Current article's sources not enough for either guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:17, 16 December 2024 (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 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reth Lyheng

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

I can't find sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary sources for this footballer to pass WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. We have perhaps one here but we need more. It's entirely possible I missed something in Cambodian, so please ping me if you know of additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (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 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Marques

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

Entire professional career was 15 minutes in two substitute games in the second division. Another example of a player who passed the antiquated WP:NFOOTY but falls far short of WP:GNG. There's a source for him joining Académica but that's...academic...if he did nothing of note for the club. [39] This obviously doesn't count for notability or not, but this club Facebook post (note the different spelling) may indicate that the subject is deceased, just thought I'd say. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NSPORT and WP:SPORTCRIT criteria. The only involvement is in Liga Portugal 2. 2 matches. 15 minutes playing time ([40]). In Taça de Portugal, playing time is 341 minutes over 4 matches ([41]). QEnigma (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2024 (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 23:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zé Miguel Esteves

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

Entire professional career was the 12-minute League Cup debut mentioned in the text (for a second division club). Never played a game in second division or higher, and a Google search is just giving me database results (his playing name, short for José Miguel, is very common, but even when combined with a club, yields me no sources). Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a brief article on Futebol Distrital de Leiria but it's certainly not enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Very weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:12, 18 December 2024 (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 Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premachi Goshta (TV series)

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

Edit war between three editors attempting to redirect and a LOUTSOCK who keeps removing. Looking at the sources, they are all unreliable as churnalism, general announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommend redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein which is the show this is based off of. Although, would also request protection of the title if that happens. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations: but given the fact that the plot is different, it has an obviously different cast, including notable actors, and coverage about this ongoing apparently popular series with almost 300 episodes exists I am really not opposed to Keep. What I am very opposed to is deletion. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show passes WP:NTVNATL straightway. There is ample coverage on its production, plot summaries (episodic), and cast updates, all supporting notability (majority being from Marathi media). There’s no strong basis for deletion. After the deletion discussion (if it remains), a request for article protection could be pursued.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between redirect and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MimsMENTOR. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2024 (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 Bermuda Twenty20 International cricketers. Consensus for a redirect established. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onais Bascome

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. This article is just a list of squads he was picked for and all the cited sources are routine match reports and squad listings. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Caribbean. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There isn't much substance to the article, but he would have met the minimum inclusion criteria that were in place at the time (i.e., having played international cricket for an ICC associate nation in a global qualifier). The goalposts have shifted since then, and I agree that articles shouldn't be created for players if even if they do meet the minimum eligibility criteria unless there is a decent amount of information beyond squad selections. Bs1jac (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bermuda Twenty20 International cricketers as I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the proposer of this AFD I agree the suggested redirect would also be an adequate alternative. Shrug02 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bs1jac: Would you support a redirect as an ATD? JTtheOG (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOG: Yes. Any such AfD should be redirected to the relevant list where possible.Bs1jac (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bs1jac and @JTtheOG Just for clarification I would have redirected this page instead of sending it to AFD had it not previously been subject to an AFD discussion the outcome of which was (bizarrely in my opinion) to keep the article. Shrug02 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really wasn't bizarre at all for the time. Back when footballers were automatically notable for playing one minute in the Moldovan National Division. JTtheOG (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I agreed with your redirect suggestion and was merely explaining why I didn't just redirect it in the first place. Let's just leave it at that. Shrug02 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you got combative. All I was doing was light-heartedly pointing out the absurdity of past rules, but I hope you have a better day. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2024 (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. If anyone wishes to merge the content somewhere, ping me to undelete/draftify/userfy the page. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic settlement units in Brno

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

This recently created list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an extremely detailed breakdown for specific purposes in a professional sphere, which goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Other European metropolises do not have a list with such a breakdown (so Brno is very random in this context). Similar lists are not found on cswiki either. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest that's quite fair. I simply wanted to make a ranking of the basic settlement units by density and population since that's what I'm usually interested in, but if others agree for the deletion I am for it too. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have to say this is largely incomprehensible without a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already the article Administrative divisions of Brno would it simply be way better to move the article there? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not solve the concerns I raised above. It doesn't matter if the list is stand-alone or not. FromCzech (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are usually by county, state or country, so this could be made into a list of places (or statistical or administrative units) in the South Moravian Region or there could be separate pages for each district, including Brno-City District. Peter James (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:10, 16 December 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenteman

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC.
As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain specific inclusion criteria referenced to reliable sources -- but the only attempt at a notability claim here, the confusingly-worded "His Royal Majesty Nene Sakite II, Konor of Manya Krobo - Ghana honours Kenteman and Queen Asabia Cropper" under an honours and awards header, is supported only by a reference that just says he was "acknowledged" alongside his sister for an award presented to her, at a festival that isn't prominent (or music-oriented) enough to pass WP:NMUSIC #8 in and of itself.
And the article is referenced entirely to sources in which he's a secondary tag-along in coverage about the sister, with absolutely no sources that are about Kenteman in his own right shown at all.
Further, this has already been sandboxed in draftspace, before being moved right back into mainspace by its creator with only minimal attempt at improvement, so just resandboxing it again would have to be discussed and would probably require move protection.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better referencing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTFB. In 2024, everyone knows that we are not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too soon at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 18 December 2024 (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) — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gourlay (soccer)

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

Doesn't look notable, unless people can find offline significant coverage about him. Redirect to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football seems sensible, but worth having an AFD discussion in case anyone finds some coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and Canada. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments/sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination and GiantSnowman. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Keep per newspaper archives found by BeanieFan11, which seem to show notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was the captain of an Olympic-gold-winning football team and seems to have been considered Canada's star of his era, additionally being a top official in the country's governing football organization ([42]). Here's coverage in the U.S. from the Detroit Free Press ([43]), noting him to be "probably the best known football player in Canada"; further coverage from the Free Press at his retirement ([44]) said that he "will gown down as Canada's most famous fullback" and said that he was well known in the Detroit, U.S.-area as well. Historian Colin Jose gave him ~130 words calling him "the father of football in Galt ... One of the best known Canadian players in the United States during his era ... Recognized as the greatest full back in Ontario at the time but was also regarded as a fine captain." Here's also a bit of Montreal Star coverage regarding a dispute over his professionalism, calling him "the famous full back of the Galt Olympic champions" several years after the event. His notability appears clear: @GiantSnowman and Clariniie: BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. Mets WP:NOLYMPICS as a gold medalist in the 1904 Summer Olympics, in addition to the coverage found. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOLYMPICS says Significant coverage is likely to exist, that doesn't mean we should assume that it exists without checking. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of what use is a notability criterion if you absolutely have to meet GNG whether you meet the criterion or not? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Clearly signficiant figure in Canadian soccer. Thanks, 04:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of fascism

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

POV fork, mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? It's a full article with seven different content sections. Only one of those sections is "Poor record in war". Also, why didn't you object to the spinoff when we were discussing this on the talk page before? Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed one paragraph, and edited it to address feedback over several rounds of discussion. In my reading of the discussion, I addressed all the concerns presented, after which most editors were neutral or generally supportive, except for one editor who believed it had too much weight. As a result, I declared my intention to create a spinoff where the paragraph could be included, and there were no objections.

As a result, over the past month I have been researching this topic in order to write a full spinoff article, in accordance with WP:Summary style and the established precedent on "Criticism" articles for ideologies (WP:CRITSP). The resulting article has three subsections derived from the main article, the one section we discussed before, and three entirely new sections written from imported content and my own research. But I suppose we can do an AfD? Sunrise (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence my reference to "one editor" in my previous comment (out of 7, by my count?). Regardless, I undertook to address their concerns by offering an alternative solution, and they didn't reply (nor did anyone else) so I assumed it was acceptable. Sunrise (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:POVFORK There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, we have Criticism of … articles for Criticism of socialism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of Marxism

Kowal2701 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also WP:CRITSP: For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as pointed out above there was no consensus to create this, which came out of a decision about the war paragraph which was (explicitly) rejected for inclusion in the main article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above - that is not my reading of the discussion (and you didn't make any objection yourself, even though you commented). Perhaps we can get an outside view on that? Regardless, there's no such thing as "no consensus to create" for an action that has been mentioned on talk with no subsequent objection. If your issue is about that single paragraph, then AFDing the entire subarticle would seem to be the wrong venue. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator, I suppose. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I don't really know what arguments will be accepted on this point. But there is a long precedent for "Criticism" articles about ideologies (WP:CRITSP, as mentioned above), with a full list at Category:Criticisms by ideology.

Normally, I would follow the organization of WP:Summary style, making a new article when a subsection gets too large for the main article, with a summary being left behind. That is what I was doing, and it's the opposite of a POV fork. (The main article is currently desynced due to a revert, but that's a matter for talk.) Certainly there should no question over whether there's enough content for a dedicated article; for one, there's quite a few things that I haven't currently added. The fact that an editor previously raised weight concerns about some of this content being in the main article (which is reasonable, and indeed this article was created in response to that) is a further indication that a dedicated article is appropriate.

AFAICT, I think the nomination may have been based on an error? The claim that it's mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2 doesn't make sense, as I noted above. The nominator has acknowledged an error (diff) but I'm not really sure what it is. Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep this. This is a matter of editorial judgment, since we all know that the sources exist. It's IMO not an unreasonable summary-style split, and since we have Criticism of democracy, Criticism of socialism, Criticism of Marxism, Criticism of monarchy, Criticism of libertarianism, etc., it is certainly not an unusual choice. If you thought that the content was better off in the main article, then Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers would be a better way to handle it than AFD, but I'd point out that with the main article already at nearly 14,000 words and over 300 inline citations, WP:SIZE is an issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUBPOV as an article whose subject is a point of view. "Criticism of fascism", as with criticism of most influential global ideologies, is notable enough for its own page. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OKFORK, as well as important to not conflate the movements of anti-fascism and with a critique of the political ideology. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shiny new xfd tool I installed failed to work, so I will retype my argument; while I do believe the article needs work, particularly on its tone, I do feel like the topic has strong grounds for an article, and there is a decent foundation here Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be distinct from Anti-fascism. Definitely a notable subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is largely redundant and lacks justification for its existence as a standalone page. The main Wikipedia entry on Fascism already provides a comprehensive, nuanced overview of its defining characteristics, failures, and global condemnation. Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms in a less coherent and poorly organized manner. Moreover, the presentation is overly verbose and fragmented, making it challenging for readers to navigate or derive meaningful value. Much of the content feels like a disjointed rehash of established ideas without a compelling reason for separation from the main article. If the intent was to provide a focused critique, the execution falls short; the article lacks a clear thesis, suffers from repetition, and fails to deliver fresh perspectives. Consolidating the most relevant points into the main Fascism article would serve readers better, eliminating unnecessary duplication while enhancing the overall quality and cohesion of Wikipedia’s content on this topic.TitCrisse (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the Fascism article can be considered comprehensive when it doesn't even mention the glorification of war, or anything about the economy or governance under fascism.

Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms

This feels like you asked ChatGPT to criticize the article, and this is what is came up with. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to offer new insights. "Merely" reiterating well-documented criticisms is exactly what we're supposed to do. The rest of your post similarly sounds like ChatGPT criticizing a student essay, but this isn't trying to be an essay with "a clear thesis" that delivers "fresh perspectives", it's an encyclopedic article that summarizes well-known and common criticisms of fascism. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. I actually agree with the original requester who said this article serves as a 'WP:POV fork' mainly focused on its failures in WWII. Your criticism feels overly prescriptive, as though you're evaluating this as an academic essay rather than an encyclopedic entry.

Yes, Wikipedia articles shouldn't offer 'new insights'—they summarize established information—but this article doesn't do so effectively. It lacks a coherent structure and simply rehashes points already well-covered in the main Fascism article. If the goal is to provide focused criticism, then it fails in its execution, precisely because it doesn’t bring anything new or valuable to the table. Reiteration isn't the problem; redundancy is.

As for your claim that the main article on Fascism isn’t comprehensive because it doesn’t mention the glorification of war or economic governance—those points could absolutely be added to the existing article, enriching it, rather than justifying a separate, poorly executed fork. Consolidating this content into the main article would better serve the encyclopedia’s mission of clarity and comprehensiveness. Let’s focus on enhancing the main entry rather than defending a fragmented, subpar offshoot.TitCrisse (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you add in your own words, it's still obvious when your post is primarily written for you by AI. If you don't have anything worth writing yourself then you don't have anything worth responding to.Photos of Japan (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TitCrisse, it does sound like your arguments are generated by AI, not by a human editor. I've reviewed thousands of AFD discussions at this point and I doubt any human editor would talk about the encyclopedia’s mission of clarity and comprehensiveness. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that these two qualities are Wikipedia's "mission". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, some of it might be. Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people. Please do go ahead and report my previous sentence to admins on this great encyclopedia. A quick CU search will confirm you are a CRAZY MEAT PUPPET THAT LOVES JIMMY REX. Again, in my humble opinion, I am getting CRAZY THIRD REICH vibes off of this whole crazy harassement. I am going to give EVERY GODDAMENED PERSON on this thread 48 hours to cool off. YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU are assuming bath faith in me. Please realize I am no dummy. You cannot ARM CHAIR WARRIOR your way out of this. TitCrisse (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TitCrisse is now globally locked for lock evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiman Says

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

The sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources include four YouTube videos and three blog articles, such as TOI Readers’ Blog and Talk Esports. I don’t think GNG is met here. GrabUp - Talk 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp: I have replaced three of the four YouTube videos with news articles. It will be helpful if you can let me know which ones are the blog articles. Pur 0 0 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails to meet WP:GNG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2024 (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!} 06:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez Bashar al-Assad

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

Redirect to Al-Assad family as WP:ATD. WP:NOTINHERITED. Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Of course there will be coverage in this context, but the child is not inherently notable. WP:SIGCOV is in the context of the child's comments about their parent, not about the child. Middling math accomplishments fail WP:DUE and are insignificant to establish notability. Sanctions in the context of being a tool of his father's regime. Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is an article about the daughter of kim-jung un (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ju-ae). Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Hafez's recent aquisition of a PhD in number theory seems significant enough to me. If deletion is chosen, then I also think a redirect to the family page seems best. 157.193.117.76 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that article is not up to standard, please nominate it for deletion as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simply having a PhD and being related to a famous person does not not meet WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The individual was expected to be the successor to Bashar al-Assad, having been designated as the future president. This anticipation has brought him significant media coverage from reputable news sources, as evidenced by the list of references provided, demonstrating that it meets the minimum requirement for WP:GNG.Instant History (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a good number of sources attesting to his mathematical skill (he got an Honorable Mention at the IMO at age 15 - nothing to sneeze at!). Perhaps we could add his mathematical acheivements to the article. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... so I nominate keep. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to have done much for notability, could be a brief mention in an article about the family or about his father. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources show WP:GNG, in-depth articles. I know "other stuff exists", but Wikipedia has lists and categories of heirs who never succeeded, so that doesn't invalidate notability, sometimes it is the hook to the coverage itself. Just the other day, in DYK, was Kim Jong Un's daughter of whom not even the name is certain. I don't know enough about mathematics to comment on his notability in that field. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While notability is not inherited, there are some subjects that are inherently notable because the media will cover such subjects. Children of heads of state are such subjects. Additionally, the article appears well sourced and some articles are in-depth on the subject itself. I cannot say for certain on all of the sources, as I do not speak or read Spanish or Arabic, and I would think there are a lot more RS out there in Arabic to further establish notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep history is important Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, under possibility of punishment against me. First of all, he is NOT a child, despite several claims in this AFD. Second, he is the son of a powerful head of state, despite that his father has left Syria. Due to the far reaching arm of Syrian intelligence, I cannot state any negative information about al-Assad, not even deletion of his article. However, I do note that there are numerous reliable source citations about the subject of this article, which would suggest keeping it. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you be concerned about punishment? DarmaniLink (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read. The. Room. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't catch on? Theofunny (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it easily meets the guidelines for notability, with him being the presumptive heir until his father's overthrow. Theofunny (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject is not notable other than being the son of a deposed dictator, usually articles like this are being made acknowledging the posibility of sucession, which in this case is not possible anymore (in contrast with Kim Ju-ae), and no, having mathematical acheivements and acquiring a PhD is not enough to reach WP:GNG and have notability by your own. So I nominate delete or redirect to Al-Assad family. Votbek (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alluding to the existence of sources without citing any does not help establish the case for retention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sigcov is easily met, and being the son of a former dictator, and the previously-prospective heir of the last dictator of a government with tons of press writing about you before absolutely makes him notable. Would his kids be notable? Small possibility and likely not, but as for this individual, he absolutely is. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the first three sources as of this writing are reliable sources and state that he was the heir apparent to his father as the third generation of dictators. That makes him notable due to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:-I think that we should keep it. My reasons are same as that of @Bearian and also due to his representation at the IMO

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fishes Preschool

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

No evidence of notability, no obvious redirect target. Sources are routine coverage or not independent. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Florida. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple new secondary WP:RS directly referencing the school over decades. Local newsapers as well as county & state government websites and reports ZebulonMorn (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added things like [45] and [46] but I can't find anything about the Little Fishes Preschool on these pages? Fram (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully:

[47] Page 21 – Title:Little Fishes Preschool to begin registration

[48] Page 11 – Title:Community helpers week ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you linked to other pages, it was rather hard to find these. You can't expect people to read a whole local newspaper to find what you intended. Both articles are routine local coverage, not the kind of thing that makes a school notable. Fram (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Command F on mac at least takes 2 seconds? ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search on Chrome returns nothing here, and the internal search of the website returns "Unknown error occurred We apologize for the inconvenience. Click here to return to the library. Click here to report the problem." And none of this explains why you would link to page 4 if the article is on page 21. Fram (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious [49] [50] [51] [52] ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? WP:NOTINHERITED. Fram (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason he's notorious, murdering children, is separate. The fact he has interacted with and had a history with children, relates heavily. Additionally, this tragic incident has gained notability in recent years with a more modern outlook and approach to police reform which has altered public perception of domestic violence by police. The association of the subject with the school/children is an interesting example of the complex nature of mental illness and violence, as well as this school and the broader educations system's inability to detect potential threats. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, no connection at all, just like I thought. Fram (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So had he gone to the dry cleaners instead, we wouldn't note that in their article. That's a very thin string upon which to build an article. Had he shot up the school maybe you'd have something. This isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Preschools usually do not hold N/GNG universally outside a few prominent ones, and this one is standard and WP:MILL. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC
Delete Does not meet any standards for notability. All sourcing is primary self-published, inclusion in lists of accredited daycares (which, let's be honest...if we're using that then every single accredited daycare deserves an article, which is utterly bonkers), or small announcements in local newspapers (which does not meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV. The stuff about Terry's notability transferring to a daycare he once visited is almost a comically stereotypical case of WP:NOTINHERITED, again...do we do an article on every entity that had a cursory interaction with a notable person or event? It'd be like having an article on every place that has a "George Washington visited here" sign inside. If someone wanted to include this information in Terry's article, then maybe, but it does NOT mean it deserves an article on its own. nf utvol (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strong failure of WP:MILL. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The school's website, then various listings, then an indeed post.... There just aren't enough sources to show notability. Having a police officer visit the school that later murders his family is a bit of a stretch to notability.... If he had gone to the bakery instead, we wouldn't note that in the bakery's article. Outside of this, there isn't anything to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Every single source can be easily categorized as (a) their own website or social media account, (b) a very brief government listing, (c) a brief mention in the news so attenuated in proximate cause that it's bordering upon urban legend, or (d) run of the mill coverage, or some combination of the above. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Urban legend" is a new one in AfD, we've not used that as a potential source to show notability. There is simply nothing that's contributing to notability from all that I've read above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that establishes notability. While I generally stand on the inclusion side of things, this doesn't make the cut. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (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 Modern immigration to the United Kingdom#Brexit and COVID. While opinions as to sourcing are divided, there has not been a serious rebuttal of the argument that the first article is a WP:CFORK (whether or not also a POV fork is immaterial) of the second: they both deal with the same topic, which is post-Brexit immigration to the UK. Our policies direct that we should not have two articles about the same topic, especially not an article about "X" and another about "Criticism of X", which is essentially what we have here. Editors should determine what if any content from the "Boriswave" article is suitable for merging to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom#Brexit and COVID. It is possible that the result might be suitable for a new spinoff subarticle (WP:SS) such as Post-Brexit immigration to the United Kingdom. Sandstein 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boriswave

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

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}}.

I have never heard this term used before. As another user observed this appears to have been referred to by a single writer for the Telegraph. I suspect the intent behind creating this article seems to be to create chatter so that it becomes a meme, which is subsequently used as a reason to have the page. John Smith's (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This term is widely used on Twitter. I've seen it like 20 times this year 213.147.110.205 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a term being used by 20 people on social media deserves its own article. John Smith's (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in common circulation on twitter and other social media outlets.

And it's certainly not 20 people. The OP reference that they personally had seen it 20 times. There's no hard and fast statistical analysis on this - just like many cultural references.

I suspect there's political motivation to prevent this article as it criticises Boris Johnson and he has a large base of political supporters. Gp1v07 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm the only person that's suggested the page be deleted. In contrast there's a sudden influx of unregistered users and people with few historical edits arguing to keep the page.

You've not exactly contributed much to Wikipedia, have you? John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a [omissis] measuring contest, or a place for open debate? 94.196.172.99 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing for over 15 years, albeit infrequently. So it's pretty obvious I'm not what you allude to. My knowledge, academic qualification and professional experience is specialised in history and politics, hence why I make occasional contributions in these areas.

Does frequency of contributing make someone's views more valid? Gp1v07 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a well sourced article and the terminology has clearly been used in more sources than the Telegraph, as has already been pointed out on the Talk page. To say otherwise is disingenuous and it seems you were more quick to call it a "clearly ridiculous" article than to actually check the sources. 148.252.144.37 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out on the talk page, there is already an article called Modern immigration to the United Kingdom and a section on immigration following the UK's departure from the EU and the Covid pandemic. It would make more sense to add a reference to "Boriswave" in that section if it's really that common, rather than create an entire article to duplicate the topic. John Smith's (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a reference in the ‘modern immigration to the U.K.’ article, and it links to the nominated page, where more high quality sources are available. I see no reason to delete considering the number of reliable and relevant citations. 2A01:CB06:9002:F604:C07F:821B:4642:E424 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — @John Smith's has assumed bad faith in this discussion.

Mass third-world immigration and the Conservative Party’s repeated choice not to reduce or end it (as they promised) are two of the major topics in contemporary British politics. They deserve their own article outside Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So have a descriptive title rather than use something that is not common. If you asked the man on the street they wouldn't know what the "boriswave" is. Not least because the "wave" hasn't ended - net migration to the UK remains high. John Smith's (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with the caveat that I would not be opposed to a name change. I think there are clearly two different issues here - the phenomenon of increased migration from non-EU countries to the UK after the 2019 elections seems to be noteworthy enough to deserve its own article in my opinion. On the other hand, there isn't really any reliable evidence that the term 'Boriswave' is in widespread in any mainstream media. I could only find one article in the Daily Telegraph. It's unfortunate that there is no generally accepted term for this phenomenon, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to coin one. Sides-Daren? (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the phenomenon is worthy of coverage, and is reliably sourced. Elshad (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find a few reliable sources that use the term to describe the recent surge of migration to the UK: Unherd, The Critic, The Telegraph, Reaction. The issue seems to be that they're split between using "Boriswave", "Boris Wave" and "Boris-wave"... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a qualitative change in immigration to the United Kingdom after Brexit, in countries of origin and the inflection point in numbers. Both the phenomenon and the name are supported by the sources. I see no need to merge into another article, Wikipedia is not limited by space, so we can go into detail in a dedicated article. cagliost (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a term created by a right-wing twitter subculture, and nearly all of its uses outside of this twitter subculture have been in polemical articles by writers who are part of that subculture. This article contains no information that couldn't be folded into Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. And considering that the guy who created the term also created this article, or at least is implying that on twitter, I see some conflict of interest.Theodore Christopher (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article on wikipedia that contains information that cannot be folded into another page. You can fold the information in a page about insulin into a page about something completely arbitrary to the topic, if you wanted. It doesn't make sense to do this though, because different articles have different focuses. Modern immigration page describes the overall and ongoing trend of modern immigration in the United Kingdom, whereas the Boriswave article in question deals with a description of the term and its context. I get a sense that you might be politically biased from your phrasing and this would itself imply a conflict of interest. Even if what you state is correct, why does this mean the term doesn't warrant its own page especially considering the context and references conveniently apportioned to the term just below (which would otherwise be much harder to find in a sea of references, in another page)? Jbeda.2000 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on Wikipedia are combined and scrutinized because of relevance issues all the time. In any event, what this article calls the "Boriswave", a surge in immigration since 2021, is neatly within the purview of "Modern immigration to the UK". The far larger-scale 2015 influx of Syrian refugees into Germany doesn't even have its own distinct article, not because it isn't extremely well-attested to in the media, but because that surge is covered within 2015 European migrant crisis and Immigration to Germany. So, yeah, regardless of my feelings about Twitter user Max Tempers, this is just not an article that belongs on Wikipedia for the time being.Theodore Christopher (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources focus on the term, only really mentioning the term as a passing, trivial reference so therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV. Even a basic search doesn't bring the term up in connection to what it purports to. I agree with Theodore above, anything of substance can easily be merged into the UK immigration article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're meant to take a user called "The C of E God Save the King!" seriously when discussing Conservative Party policies!? 81.158.176.237 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - IP @81.158.176.237:, may I suggest you please read WP:NPA? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    God Smite the King wouldn't really work in most cases. I rather enjoy that user name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a well sourced article and a simple search on Twitter shows hundred of entries simply for the past week. The term is clearly in active use and frequently referenced. Arugia (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Twitter is not a reliable source, and usage of a term does not make the term suitable for Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Boriswave is a term" - but Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT, not a dictionary. Contrary to the assertions of some !voters above, the article is not strongly sourced: the sources are of variable quality, full of errors, and offer only passing mentions which briefly use the term (or variants of it) without discussing it. That is clear deletion territory. The substance of the article, such as it is, concerns Modern immigration to the United Kingdom which already exists as an article. There's basically nothing worth merging, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the sources are good, but enough of them are. cagliost (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this supposed to be an article about immigration to the UK in recent years since Brexit (which happens to be called a boriswave), or an article about a notable term (boriswave) which has been applied to recent immigration? If it's about recent immigration, then sources exist and it might be notable, but I'm dubious because immigration has been a continuous, perennial issue in the UK since the Romans turned up, so it's questionable whether the sources justify a new article specifically for recent immigration. On this basis I'm a maybe-weak-keep provided it's moved to a better title. But if it's about the term, it's definitely not notable, because no matter how prevalent a term is in Twitter, we need it to be recognised in longer-lasting, serious sources, which would make me a delete. Elemimele (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elemimele: It seems to me to be a bit of a WP:COATRACK, which would then make it fall foul of being a WP:SYNTH article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep. The sources that support its use are of variable quality, but the way in which the pace and composition of immigration to the United Kingdom changed so dramatically post-Brexit, and the political controversy it has caused, may be worthy of a seperate article that goes into the phenomenon in depth. Regarding the views of an editor above that the term is a product of a social media subculture, I share this concern and think a name change might be worthwhile, but believe the article should stay at least for now. Holyisland (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the "Modern immigration" page where the term is already used, seems like a decent option instead of deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - I believe that User:Oaktree b's proposal of merging the article with the "Modern Immigration" page to flesh out where the term is already used seems like a sensible solution to this issue. BillyDee (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This term will probably come to be used for this immigration wave (I can think of no other word to use despite wanting to avoid such a word) and so wish to make clear that this AfD should not be used to prevent future articles titled so if it is nominated for deletion.

EPEAviator (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom as per User:Oaktree b, there's way too much WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here, with at least three of the references in the lead alone[53][54][55] being to articles or primary sources about UK migration in general, which don't use any of the terms. Comment a twitter account (@PolitlcsUK) with 330k followers has drawn attention to this article's creation which may bring extra attention. Orange sticker (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Boriswave is a statistically distinct phenomenon in the modern history of immigration into the UK, and as such deserves its own page. Benjji22212 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom, probably. However I feel the need to point out that in addition to the Sam Bidwell's piece for The Telegraph (already in the references) the term seems to be catching up in the blogosphere, with multiple examples over last few weeks I could find by googling. Slovborg (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was originally merge, but feel people have made plenty of decent arguments here for keep. It also seems to be more in use than previously thought due to different ways of writing it. I suspect even if this article gets deleted it will be back in some form in a few years as the level of immigration into the UK over the past 4 years is completely unheard of in the history of the UK. Historians will want a way to refer to it, and it seems there's a catchy one gaining popularity. 2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:C862:50D2:90F7:AD5E (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd literally *never* heard of this before today. A Google search for "Boriswave" brings up absolutely nothing. Ninehundreddollarydoos (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

What exactly is the articles existence detracting from? what confusion does it generate to exist, on its own, independent of other articles covering the same topic like the aforementioned modern immigration to the United Kingdom.

Provided the page is well referenced, and that there is proper disambiguation to cover similar terms like 'boris wave' or 'Boris-wave' and point in the direction of other pages, let it exist. It is after all a Wikipedia page primarily explaining what the 'boriswave' term means, which has been used in the mainstream media so it's not random.

It's not simply a replication of the other page because it contains information vital to understanding the term. It's also not possible to fold the information into another page without altering the focus and convenience of what is stated in the current 'boriswave' article; what you would be left with is a more obscure footnote and a decision between repeating previous information in the page to provide immediate context (which would create time inefficiency for users looking for those terms in different sections using ctrl+f, for example) or an inconveniently lacking summarisation of the term with at best a pointer back to the previously mentioned information. Jbeda.2000 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the articles existence detracting from?, see WP:HARMLESS. what confusion does it generate to exist, independent of other articles covering the same topic, see WP:POVFORK. Provided the page is well referenced, well that's the crux of the issue, it isn't well sourced; it's all passing mentions in WP:RSOPINION. It is after all a Wikipedia page primarily explaining what the 'boriswave' term means, except Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY; perhaps you were looking for wiktionary. what you would be left with is a more obscure footnote which based on how little the terms seems to be used thus far in WP:RSs, and per WP:PROPORTION, seems appropriate. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had been considering AFDing this myself as a WP:POVFORK of Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. I'm finding virtually nothing about this usage of "Boriswave" or "Boris wave" in reliable sources, and for the most part, the references in the article itself don't specifically discuss it either.Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elshad. We don't delete pages just because one editor hasn't heard of the topic. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If actually you look, there is actually a fair amount of POLICY based delete !votes that amount to more than not having head of it. I'm actually having a hard time seeing any keep !votes that make reference to policy, and I will remind that it is the quality arguments (not number of !votes) that decides consensus (WP:DETCON). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTDICT failure. Despite some assertions above we don't make articles on subjects just because they are popular on WP:TWITTER. All of the sources in the article or presented here either don't mention the term or are WP:RSOPINION that use it in passing. I've yet to see any in-depth non-opinion reliable source that is actually about the term, to show that it meets WP:N. Anything of use is already at Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICT. Few if any reliable sources use the term. Modern immigration to the United Kingdom is the correct place to cover the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources providing sigcov to this topic. In fact, it seems to me that most coverage about "Boriswave" is about the lofi beats rather than immigration. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - keep because I see significant coverage, weak because I find it distasteful. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Could stand to be merged into the overarching article, as this does seem like a bit of a POV-fork. Possibly rename to a non-neological title, but this is a pretty weak option imo. CR (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The term is well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggat (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is well documented and refers to a genuine phenomenon that has been noted in many mainstream news outlets. It is a significant enough change in immigration to the UK (unprecedented numbers, switch from EU to non-EU) that it is worth having a separate article. It is similar in concept to the 'Lawson Boom' (the macroeconomic conditions at the end of the 1980s associated with Nigel Lawson), on which there is an article, rather than simply being folded into the article on Nigel Lawson or on 'The British economy in the 1980s'. Thermocycler (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For both you and Tiggat: The term is well documented what (non-opinion) reliable source document the term. And as to the Lawson Boom article, making arguments to keep/delete based on other article's existence is generally discouraged (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It may be that nobody has got round to sorting out that not-particularly-well-sourced article. I'll also note that we don't have a separate article on the similar Barber Boom, so you can hardly call it precedent that we have articles on every catchy term the press comes up with. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete further to my comment above. It's pretty obvious that the article is about immigration, not the term "Boriswave", and the term is much, much sparser in sourcing than the actual subject of immigration. The "real" subject is covered at Modern immigration to the United Kingdom of which this article is a pointless fork, and the "named" subject lacks notability. Further, much as I dislike Johnson, I feel that carving out this particular episode in immigration and attaching his name to it feels very much like an attempt to politicise Wikipedia, a mudslinging exercise, which is hardly in keeping with neutral point of view. The Modern immigration article is much more encyclopedic. Elemimele (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, at best, rename. There is barely any sourcing of the term itself, and there are other articles about immigration to UK. - Karel Bílek (talk). 14:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Delete. This article unequivocally fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and neutrality, warranting a hard delete. The term itself is scarcely referenced in reliable sources, with most mentions being fleeting or confined to opinion pieces and social media chatter. This lack of substantial, independent coverage violates Wikipedia’s core policies, including WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO, as the article functions more as a dictionary definition or speculative narrative than a legitimate encyclopedic entry. Furthermore, the article serves as a WP:POVFORK, duplicating content already thoroughly addressed in Modern Immigration to the United Kingdom. Any meaningful information can and should be integrated into that broader context, where it can be presented more neutrally and cohesively. Allowing this article to remain risks politicizing Wikipedia and undermining its credibility. It is redundant, poorly sourced, and detracts from the encyclopedia’s mission to provide well-researched and balanced information. TitCrisse (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the term itself was significantly supported, which it isn't (I deleted the blog reference that was being used as the only source for it), it fails the basic notability requirement at WP:GNG. WP:GNG says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that 'sources' should be secondary sources. However, this topic fails on both counts. There is no significant coverage in RSes, and with much of the article relying on OR/SYNTH personal interpretation of primary sources, there are very few secondary sources used at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Czyszczon

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

Semi-professional footballer who mostly spent his career in the reserve team. The only secondary source I found is Raciborz, a brief mention in transfer announcement, but not enough to merit a standalone article of himself. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Nothing at de.wiki. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No pl wiki interwiki is a red flag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2024 (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. Sandstein 15:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Grandma Hardcore

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

No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Fox and CBS News [56], [57], Endgadget [58]... The name does bring up porn links, but we can still find some things about this granny. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced there is enough WP:SIGCOV for her to pass WP:NPERSON. There is an article on Igromania, but mostly an interview (primary source). Otherwise, she is largely mentioned in short anecdotes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the additional sources found by Jovanmilic97, I change my !vote to a keep. It's clear that NPERSON is passed at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in NBC News [59], Der Spiegel [60], The Columbus Dispatch [61], The Spokesman-Review [62], cz:Aktuálně.cz [63], has some brief commentary in The Village Voice [64]. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to evaluate whether they are solely known for being an older person playing games, which might be better to merge somewhere. The name and blog appear to be run by her grandson and how long did the MTV G-Hole segment run, not to discredit her part. IgelRM (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus to keep, but some input from community and the other !votes will appreciated regarding the comments by IgelRM. Another round of discussion can't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's 100% individually notable enough an article at this point. The articles seem to be on the topic of "old person plays games," but at this point, she has become notable in her own right. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate what lasting impact you see at this point? I could perhaps see a merge with Video game culture. IgelRM (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2024 (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 is no consensus as to the pertinence of the proposed sources. Sandstein 15:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Moleta

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this article because Moleta redirects here and I wanted to determine whether it should be a disambiguation or if Moleta (kgosi) should be the main subject. Searching suggests this is a run-of-the-mill musician. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and New Zealand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are four sources fully cited in this article talking about her. They appear to be reliable, secondary, and independent sources; the two I've managed to access myself provide significant coverage and I assume the others do as well, particularly the news article in The West Australian with her name in it. That's three GNG-qualifying sources right there. Quoting, GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- just because the sources in the article were not linked does not mean they do not exist. Whether a person seems "run-of-the-mill" is irrelevant as long as they pass GNG; and if you read the news articles which were cited in the article at the time of the nomination she does have a somewhat interesting style.

I would make this a strong keep if I could track down the URL for the West Australian article, but I can't currently. Probably searches are failing because the news source does not keep archives from 2001. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly I think it will likely need to be a disambiguation page -- the kgosi while arguably more historically significant is likely much more obscure. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ref 2 is significant (partially interview based but with more than sufficient additional coverage); ref 4 is the same author in the same source a couple of months later with a cut down para about a live appearance, so I don't give that particular weight. There's basically a paragraph of review included at De Morgen[65] (the article covers releases from multiple bands/muso )- it looks like this is the same as ref 3 since it's the only mention of her in the archives. Ref 2 (GTranslated) suggests that she has had more success in France than elsewhere, however she has hardly any appearances on French sites currently. The West Australian smells like an interview and/or a festival appearance (Kulcha was WA's multicultural arts body), but would need someone with access to the archive to check. I can't see any other reviews around for her albums including via sampling archive snapshots of her website. In the absence of additional reviews -- particularly for her other work -- I think that a case can be made that her album Dive weakly meets WP:NALBUM (the Liberation and De Morgen articles, plus two of its songs were in the soundtrack for Pretty Things (2001 film)), that her albums other than Dive are clearly non-notable, and that she does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added content, references and believe the subject is notable via WP:MUSICBIO.Didier Landner (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2024 (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 11:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashampoo Burning Studio

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

Unremarkable software, mostly seems liked an advert UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG in its current form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found some coverage of questionable reliability in TechRadar and some mentions in a few other places. Collectively, I could not find enough sourcing to make a solid claim that the subject is notable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2024 (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. CSD G3 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comte Samitier

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

I've been unable to confirm the existence of this alleged title. Of the cited sources I can only access two but those two don't check out, and I see no reason to suppose that the other two are any different. This author has produced other articles on the same family, none of which can be verified either (House of Samitier, Barón de Saint-Boissec, Draft:Carlos Samitier, Draft:Barony of Highmere) - presumably a genealogical fantasy / outright hoax. Their articles on the same family have been repeatedly deleted on Spanish Wikipedia. Ingratis (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as above:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, France, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. Delete the files and drafts as well and globally block the creator. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the removal of Comte Samitier and would like to address the concerns raised regarding the validity of this article and its associated pages.
1. Existence of the Title

The title Comte Samitier is rooted in 18th-century Franco-Spanish nobility. While it is true that records are not widely available in mainstream publications, genealogical sources and archival documents demonstrate the family’s contributions to diplomacy, trade, and cultural advancement during this period. I can provide both primary and secondary references that substantiate the historical existence and significance of the title.

2. Spanish Wikipedia Deletions

The deletions on Spanish Wikipedia were primarily due to insufficient sourcing at the time. Additionally, the Samitier family’s extensive presence across Spain, France, and later Argentina adds a degree of complexity to its documentation. However, the lack of easily accessible information does not equate to fabrication. Instead, it underscores the need for further historical research and preservation of these narratives.

3. Proposed Solutions

Rather than deleting the article entirely, I propose the following alternatives:

• Moving the article to draft space to allow for additional research and improved sourcing. • Collaborating with other editors to expand and refine the article, ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s content and citation standards. • Exploring the possibility of a merge with relevant related pages, where appropriate.

The Samitier family’s history, like that of many noble families, has faced partial erasure over time. Their contributions deserve accurate and responsible representation. I remain committed to improving this article with credible sources to ensure its factual integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisamit (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The LLM-generated justification is not convincing. Choess (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ASAP. The second link is a total lie, just by the title of the book (Free Masons out of NH?). The third link is dead. No secondary sources to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for the sake of accuracy, while these articles are, as said, either deliberately deceptive or hopelessly inaccurate wishful thinking, there is a genuine title "Conde de Samitier" (Count of Samitier) (see for example here) which is taken from the village of the same name, which is doubtless also the origin of the surname, but the surname of the counts is not Samitier, any more than the surname of the Duke of Wellington was Wellington. The title has an article on Spanish Wikipedia which makes it plain that these articles bear no relation to it whatsoever. Ingratis (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2024 (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!} 06:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump Aid

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

An article based on 2 sources. There's 9 google news hits but on closer inspection most of these are not WP:SIGCOV that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several citations with non-trivial coverage referenced within the article, including press and academic journals. This WP:NONPROFIT has provided water to c. 1.2 million people. I see no issues with the subject meeting WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with ResonantDistortion's logic Czarking0 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources are marginal/local (e.g., Wigan Today, BBC Radio 4 appeal) but the Guardian, New Scientist, and Daily Telegraph articles seem sufficient to establish GNG. Oblivy (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2024 (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!} 09:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Gabba

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

WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence that this is a notable list topic. While it is verifiable, there are very few sources who pay attention to which stadiums have hosted which centuries, normally the interest is in which player/team made centuries, not where. See also these related AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4 Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS and existing consensus that these lists are not notable. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom
Shrug02 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR. Easily found on ESPNCricinfo statsguru. Ajf773 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It passes WP:NLIST, with nearly 150 centuries and there are coverage on independent sources, they just haven't been added to the page. It's a case of WP:NEXIST. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (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. Editors can discuss a possible page title change on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kīngitanga election

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

Doesn't meet the standard for WP:NEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. All relevant sources are primary and I cannot find secondary sources on this specific event. No opposition to a merge/redirect although I'm not sure which article would be suitable as the target. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article obviously passes WP:GNG. The only problem I see is that the title may be incorrect, as most sources do not call it an "election." SportingFlyer T·C 03:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources make this obviously pass? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, it's fairly obvious - there's a range of sources in the article, including the Radio New Zealand article, the Sunday Star Times opinion piece, and international press from Australia and Fiji covering the process. If you view this as an article about the selection of a new monarch and not an election it's pretty clear. SportingFlyer T·C 05:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are supposed to be secondary for GNG, not primary. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the opinion pieces/Spinoff article clearly provide more than just routine reporting of a news event. SportingFlyer T·C 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cambodian here, where we have an electoral monarchy of our own. Per SportingFlyer, this article is well sourced enough to remain on Wikipedia.

Comment But I feel like we should still call this an election. Just because the election isn't open to the majority of people doesn't mean it isn't one. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think deletion is necessary. This article meets basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are all reliable news reports which are a perfectly good basis for a WP article (otherwise we'd have to delete 2024 United States presidential election). Neither WP:NEVENT nor WP:NOTNEWS apply as far as I can see. Furius (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (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!} 07:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olfactophilia

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

Non-notable term and essay-like. Found no reliable sources online (use incognito if you're gonna search this up. I was gonna draftify this but it was already draftified, before it being recreated without much improvement so here we are... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable topic, which doesn't even warrant a standalone article. Page is also poorly formatted, and would need to be significantly improved if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ESSAY... We don't post high school essays here. This reads as an extended dicdef. I wouldn't even bother drafting, this is a high school paper. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:TNT. Even if this were expanded and properly sourced, of which neither is true, it would still be such a mess as to require significant amounts of work. It's as if the creator has never read a Wikipedia article in their lifetime. In 2007, that was excused. In 2024, it's untenable. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Construction

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

Lacks notability --Altenmann >talk 07:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG. This news article only makes a brief reference. Other articles available online are mostly social media and user generated content. WP:ORGSIG. QEnigma (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail to meet WP:GNG.--Tristancr (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Brief mentions and routine announcements do not meet the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Passi

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG is definitely met. Even though a lot of his fame comes from his wife, who's an internet sensation for her luxury lifestyle and appearance on a popular reality show and Netflix series, he's made a name for himself too. WP:SIGCOV have been identified from sources like Economic Times, Motor India Online india.com, DNAIndia, Hauterfly, Times Now, Hindustan Times.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nominator appears to be a WP:SPA, unfamiliar to criteria's. Initiated a new AfD for Shalini Passi just days after the previous AfD was closed, reopening the discussion only 4 days later. The user's Afd history reflects a pattern of similar behaviour.— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning procedural keep, despite being poorly sourced. AfD was badly abused in c. 2007-2014, when someone would nominate an article hours after a closed nomination. Then they would canvas their friends. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark me as weak keep. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2024 (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!} 04:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical penetration

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

I don't find any sources for this use of the title term. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Mathematics, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this looks like something the (all but SPA) creator made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTGUIDE this one uses aircraft to explain it, but online this term can also refer to specifics of high rise building construction. Or any number of other uses. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced article for which I cannot find any sources in a quick search so it appears to be WP:OR. Created back in 2009 when things were less strict, but that does not justify keeping it.

Delete - besides being original research, which we have never published, and everyone knows that in 2024, it's WP:BOLLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2024 (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 Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters. The "keep" opinions are unpersuasive in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. Two amount to "did you search for sources", but they do not tell us which, if any, relevant sources such a search would have yielded. The third points to two documents that appear to be WP:SPS and therefore not relevant sources in the light of WP:GNG. Ultimately, nobody in this AfD is capable of citing WP:GNG-compliant sources to support this article's inclusion. Sandstein 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Snyder

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

This Buffy character doesn't meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG, there is no SIGCOV of him. Everything about the character is all in universe information, to make it worse, it only sites one unreliable source. Merge or Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Toby2023 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BEFORE not articulated, please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage. I see plenty peer reviewed independent RS on a cursory search which can be used to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to LoC. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and is just a supporting character. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A supporting character does not mean that they are not notable. There are some supporting characters with GAs DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do a search, or are you basing things on the current state of the article? Because if you did a search and found nothing, I'd like to help you improve your skills. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that BEFORE was not articulated - I have checked online and also have seen SIGCOV that Jclemens has included.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge, per Sgeureka. What few sources provide only trivial mentions or WP:PLOT, and this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has left the project after being counseled to learn how AfD works and admitting they never did a BEFORE. Right now, there's a lot of people looking at the article and saying "I don't see sources in the article, redirect it" and others saying "Sources are easy to find, I see them." Both of which are fine opinions, but the latter are less policy based, per WP:NEXIST and WP:SURMOUNTABLE--NOT#PLOT doesn't apply to an improved version of the article, and so is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think secondary sources like "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High", while remaining close to the plot, have enough characterization and commentary of what the character represents in the series to fullfill the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. The nomination reads a lot like it was considering only the current state of the article, which is not decisive for the question of deletion. At least, as Jclemens already said, there is no WP:BEFORE articluated. Daranios (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with no prejudice to revising my opinion if someone tries to improves this based on sources Daranios found or others, and pings me. Currently, however this fails WP:GNG, WP:V and like. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXIST a topic is notable (passes GNG) if sufficient sources exist, and nothing about copying them into the article changes that. Your opinion is not consistent with Wikipedia policy & guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2024 (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 Konštrukta – Defence. ✗plicit 03:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELOSYS

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

Declined G11. Mildly promotional article on a Slovak fire-control system. Article only includes one source, which appears to be primary, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. No evidence that this warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Konštrukta – Defence, the producer of this system, as an AtD. Agree that it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I have no knowledge of articles related to military products, but agree with Dclemens1971 to redirect this one to Konštrukta – Defence. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 20 December 2024 (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 Fred Sands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Real Estate

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Previously speedy deleted. Recreated by WP:SPA. Imcdc Contact 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and California. Imcdc Contact 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Sands: as an ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Sands (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to target listed above. Would recommend protecting the title or we will be right back here in a few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was recreated in 2009 immediately after the previous AfD. I don't think we'll be back where we started. If it's recreated, it can just be reverter back to a redirect. If an editor repeatedly tries to recreate this, then semi or ECP might be appropirate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edit history, I would say the opposite, but hope I'm proven wrong. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2024 (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 G8 by BusterD. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMART Commute Fleet (OMSI 2)

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

Current article content is a WP:NOT violation. OMSI 2 (deleted as article by WP:PROD and then deleted as redirect by RfD) appears to be a video game where you can pretend to be a bus driver, [66], from my WP:BEFORE search the game doesn't meet WP:GNG. This article is about a specific bus fleet within the game so is WP:CRUFT and I also can't find a WP:GNG pass for it, even if it were to be re-written in an article manner. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It would definitely seem very difficult for a bus fleet contained within a video game established to be non-notable to somehow attain its own independent notability. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this ends up falling under at least one speedy deletion criterion, though I'm not going any further than that for the moment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy G8 (dependent on OMSI 2, which was AFD'd to that deleted redirect, as a note) per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 16 December 2024 (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!} 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yin-yang-style baguazhang

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Revirvlkodlaku, what did you think of the existing sources? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I'm not sure what there is to think. There are two hyperlinks, both of which are of Chinese text, and the rest are books. It's not clear to me how anyone can easily verify the content, but more importantly, this still seems like a rather small and obscure school of martial arts, and I don't think it warrants its own article. I think the topic should perhaps be redirected to Baguazhang. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ai, Hu 艾虎 (2013). "田氏阴阳八卦掌探源及发展" [The Origin and Development of Tian's Yin-Yang Baguazhang]. 中华武术 [Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "阴阳八卦掌，明末清初时，早在四川峨嵋山与青城山一带，碧云、静云两位道长所传。由田氏远祖田如銨始习阴阳八卦掌。在反清复明特殊的历史背景，阴阳八卦掌只在田氏族中秘密传承。传承序为鹏、利、富、海、山、回、克、子、金、川。"
  From Google Translate: "Yin-Yang Bagua Palm was passed down by Taoist priests Biyun and Jingyun in the Emei Mountain and Qingcheng Mountain area of Sichuan in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Tian Ruquan, the distant ancestor of the Tian family, began to practice Yin-Yang Bagua Palm. In the special historical background of the anti-Qing and restoration of the Ming Dynasty, Yin-Yang Bagua Palm was only secretly passed down in the Tian family. The order of inheritance is Peng, Li, Fu, Hai, Shan, Hui, Ke, Zi, Jin, and Chuan."
  The article notes: "为弘扬中华武术，田迴先生于上世纪60年代将祖传阴阳八卦掌始传外姓，1990年9月田迴所著《阴阳八卦掌·蟒形掌》一书由人民体育出版社出版，并列为中国武术协会审定的《中国武术文库》“拳械部”所属的“拳术类”，后又作为经典，被选录入《中国武术百科全书》和《中国武术拳械录》。"
  From Google Translate: "In order to promote Chinese martial arts, Mr. Tian Hui passed down the ancestral Yin-Yang Baguazhang to foreign surnames in the 1960s. In September 1990, Tian Hui's book "Yin-Yang Baguazhang·Python-Shaped Palm" was published by People's Sports Publishing House and listed as The "Boxing Category" belonging to the "Boxing Department" of the "Chinese Martial Arts Library" approved by the Chinese Wushu Association was later selected as a classic and included in the "Chinese Martial Arts Encyclopedia" and "Chinese Martial Arts Boxing and Weapons Record"." The book from Tian Hui:
  - Tian, Hui 田迴 (1995). 陰陽八卦掌 : 蟒形掌 [Yin Yang Baguazhang: Python-Shaped Palm] (in Chinese). People's Sports Publishing House [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5009-0508-0. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
2. 天津通志: 体育志 [Tianjin General History: Sports History] (in Chinese). Tianjin: Tianjin Academy of Social Sciences Press 天津社会科学院出版社. 1994. p. 71. ISBN 978-7-8056-3498-2. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "芦忠仁(正文)近年献艺整理出版了《阴阳八盘掌》一书。阴阳八盘掌最显著的特点是,它的走转行动毫不停息,手法腿法步法身法变化多端,姿势时正时斜,时转时翻,时起时伏,并且各个动作组织严密,技法纵横游击,左右盘旋,大有冲锋陷阵威力。演练时,给人以强烈的艺术感和实战感。其器械套路较多,这里只记“八盘刀”、“八第一篇传统体育"
  From Google Translate: "In recent years, Lu Zhongren (text) compiled and published the book "Yin Yang Ba Pan Zhang". The most striking feature of Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm is that it moves around without stopping, its hand, leg, footwork and body movements are ever-changing, its postures are upright and diagonal, turning and turning, rising and falling, and each movement is tightly organized. , the technique is vertical and horizontal guerrilla, circling left and right, and has great charging power. During the drill, it gives people a strong sense of art and practicality. There are many equipment routines, here we only remember the "Ba Pan Knife", "Eight Pan Knife" and "Eight Pan Knife". The first traditional sports"
  The book notes: "阴阳八盘掌在清代也称“阴阳八卦掌”。此拳强调“八盘” (指人体的八个部位)的锻炼。因传授的人不同而变得多种多样。但在董海川以后,尹福和程廷华传授是主流。李振清前期弟子萧海波( 1863——1954 ) ,将此拳从民间传入清朝王府。萧的传人芦忠仁在津门潜心钻研,并向下传续了此拳,另有人称“醉鬼张三”的张长祯,与萧交往很密切,对萧述及所学的“内八卦'乾字门'拳法” (即此拳一支)"
  From Google Translate: "Yin-Yang Baguazhang was also called "Yin-Yang Baguazhang" in the Qing Dynasty. This boxing emphasizes the exercise of "eight pans" (referring to the eight parts of the human body). It varies depending on who teaches it. But after Dong Haichuan, Professors Yin Fu and Cheng Tinghua became the mainstream. Xiao Haibo (1863-1954), a former disciple of Li Zhenqing, introduced this boxing from the people to the royal family of the Qing Dynasty. Lu Zhongren, Xiao's descendant, devoted himself to studying in Jinmen and passed on this boxing to the next generation. Zhang Changzhen, also known as "Drunkard Zhang San", had a close relationship with Xiao and told Xiao about the "Nei Bagua" Qianzi he had learned. "Men'quanfa" (that is, this fist)."
3. Liu, Jun-xiang 刘峻骧 (1996). 东方人体文化 [Oriental Human Body Culture] (in Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai Literature & Art Publishing House [zh]. pp. 107, 109, 115. ISBN 978-7-5321-1488-7. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The book notes: "《阴阳八卦掌》则以蟒形学为首,顺序是按后天八卦图的排列,分别狮形掌、虎形掌、熊形掌、蛇形掌、马形掌、猴形掌、鹏形掌等。但不管哪一派,都讲八方、八位、八掌型。其掌型分别为仰,俯,竖、抱、劈、撩、穿、挑。"
4. Hao, Xinlian 郝心莲 (1998). 中国武术百科全书 [Encyclopedia of Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese). Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. p. 518. ISBN 978-7-5000-6087-1. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "《阴阳八卦掌》《中华武术文库·拳械部·拳术类》之一。田廻著。中国武术协会审定。 1990 年 9 月人民体育出版社出版。全书共分上下两篇, 8 册。上篇总论,主要介绍了阴阳八卦掌的源流、内容、特点、练习步骤、阴阳论等;下篇讲述蟒形掌等一至八掌的掌势套路练法和技击作用。第 1 册蟒形掌,第 2 ~ 8 册依次为狮形掌、虎形掌、熊形掌、蛇形掌、马形掌、猴形掌、鹏形掌。... 它与董海川所传八卦掌不同,实为八卦掌另一流派。该书材料翔实,图文并茂,文字简练,通俗易懂,便于自学,利于查阅。"
  From Google Translate: "The Yin-Yang Bagua Palm is based on the python form, and the order is arranged according to the post-natal Bagua diagram, including lion-shaped palm, tiger-shaped palm, bear-shaped palm, snake-shaped palm, horse-shaped palm, monkey-shaped palm, roc-shaped palm, etc. But no matter which school it is, they all talk about eight directions, eight positions, and eight palm forms. The palm forms are upward, downward, vertical, hugging, chopping, lifting, piercing, and picking."
5. Ren, Zhicheng 任致诚 (2001). 阴阳八盘掌 [Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm]. Jiaolong Library Ancient Boxing Manual Series 矫龙文库古拳谱丛书 (in Chinese). Vol. 2. Shanxi: Shanxi Science and Technology Press [zh]. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Google Books.
6. Tian, Keyan 田克延 (2005). "阴阳八卦掌基础套路八卦阴阳鱼" [Yin-Yang Bagua Palm Basic Routine: Bagua Yin-Yang Fish]. 中华武术 [Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese). No. 9. pp. 54–57. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via CQVIP [zh].
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yin-yang-style baguazhang (simplified Chinese: 阴阳八卦掌; traditional Chinese: 陰陽八卦掌) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those all seem to show that the "Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm" may be notable, the subject of the article doesn't inherit notability just because one of their forms has been mentioned widely. JeffUK 12:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Palm" here is a Google Translate error for "zhang", and according to source 2 above, yin-yang baguazhang 八卦掌 seems to be a synonym for yin-yang bapanzhang 八盘掌. ('阴阳八盘掌在清代也称“阴阳八卦掌”'). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! JeffUK 14:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to get a second opinion on these recently discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The Chinese sources appear to be Chinese State revisionist propaganda to support some minor apparatchik's region, which is a very common practice in that country. Using Google translate to generate article topics ? What next ? ChatGPT ? Really !!! Arcot Shankar (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- This account was created a little over three hours before participating in this AfD. I used Google Translate to generate the quote translations here as manually translating them would be too time consuming. Google Translate was not used to generate the text of the article. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily was closed as (bolding added for emphasis):
  In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.
  I consider this to be a good guideline to follow for other state-affiliated sources. The martial art Baguazhang and this style of Baguazhang are not political topics so I consider these sources to be sufficiently reliable. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REMARK The issue is not the sources, the issue is of Notability as per the deletion proposer. I'm a martial arts practitioner myself, so it is true that the martial art (Wushu) Baguazhang technique is notable (the final climax fight in Jet Li's The One), all the other so-called "family" variations are just schools of a particular not-notable long dead teacher being cashed in by his children and relatives. In reality they are all variations on the 8 animal techniques. So you have Yin-Baguazhang by Master"A", Yang-Baguazhang by Master "B" and then Yin-Yang Baguazhang by this master. All completely not notable and essentially spam pages to promote a particular school running somewhere. Arcot Shankar (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping to get some sort of consensus on the value of the additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cunard has shown that this topic clearly meets the GNG. I highly doubt that all of these sources from apparently reputable scholarly publishers across various provinces of China are somehow paid promotional pieces created to puff up some local official. Toadspike [Talk] 08:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 16 December 2024 (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.