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.
A article about record chart failing
WP:GNG with no
WP:SIGCOV. Its chart listing on English Wikipedia is sourced using Facebook and/or Blogspot, both of which are considered as unreliable. The article's citations are majoritively supported by
WP:BLOGS, other than I couldn't any reliable sources to proof that it's notable with significant coverage from secondary reliable sources and also independent of the subject. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)13:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The chart's data collection and neutrality are unclear, and no music chart would just track three items on a list. Nate•(
chatter)00:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit23:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I am a bit confused by the nom, as both
Starnieuws and
Waterkant are news media of some stature and definitely not blogs. I am not seeing any problem with the sourcing here. It should not be a surprise that a Surinamese Top 40 list will be covered chiefly in Surinamese media. Some more sources would be nice, but they certainly exist, see e.g.
[1],
[2]. --
Visviva (
talk)
01:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't see the GNG problems here either. I'm also not sure why the chart's data collection and neutrality would matter; it's the article subject. GNG sources should be independent, but there is no policy, guideline, or other form of consensus that says article subjects need to be neutral – what would that even mean –, nor that charts need to track a certain number of items to be eligible for an article. The deletion arguments provided so far are very unconvincing to me.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Note also, an old revision of creator's user page also identifies a potential COI. Seems like a good faith misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. —
siroχo06:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable TikToker (?). Beyond mentions in TikTok videos and a subreddit, I could find nothing on him. 0 coverage in RS.
ULPS (
talk)
21:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. This article has been moved around at least a half dozen times to numerous different titles and namespaces by this editor, most recently deleted as an attack page at
Draft:Daniel Larson (President). The page creator tried to hijack
Dan Larson (politician) which required numerous revision deletions. I think this article should also be speedy deleted and this editor face sanctions for continuing to create unflattering pages about this person (if they even exist). LizRead!Talk!22:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Would you say it qualifies under G10? I didn't think A7 applied (the billion views thing + being allegedly killed by police), but I was unsure considering it's not an unambiguous attack. Not a hoax either, the guy seemingly does exist.
ULPS (
talk)
22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, considering the BLP is unsourced, I wouldn't rule out that it is a total hoax and the photo might be of someone else entirely. I think if someone was a TikTok celebrity and was killed by the police it would not just be on local news but national news. I'd delete it myself but I've already commented here. But I think that my POV is also colored by the fact that I've seen this exact same article with the same content many times under different page titles over the past two weeks. LizRead!Talk!00:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think that the police murder thing is a lie, but he does seem to exist. I think we should let the AfD run (most likely will end up deleted anyway) but if someone else decides to tag or delete I wouldn't complain lol.
ULPS (
talk)
02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I suspect this is a hoax. The photo is apparently a selfie, so would have been created by this person. It was taken on July 5, and the article here says he died on the 11th. He took the photo, uploaded it to wikipedia, died, then someone else made an article about him a week later, using the photo? The only person with the same name
[3] for which I found coverage would be about 20 yrs older and only covered in tabloid sources.
Oaktree b (
talk)
04:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to
Asif Ali (actor) hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —
siroχo21:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to
Amal Neerad hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —
siroχo21:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to
Anwar Rasheed hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —
siroχo21:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to
Dileesh Pothan who seems to be the more notable of the 2 relevant producers, hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —
siroχo21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Seems notable as even though having at least he only had one lead role in a clearly notable film (Criterion for notability of Creative professionals). (And: Surya Sreenivas might be okayish.) -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)00:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) (Edited, see below, my bad!)reply
Both of these people are actors not creative professionals.
The criterion is "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" or "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
There is nothing unique for both of them; they did not direct or write any films, so first criterion.
Karan Verma: With just one film, it is a
WP:Too early.
You are right but Karan Verma has attracted quite a lot of attention for his only role so far. Even with what's currently on the page, can we not say that he meets the general criterion ("People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject")? (I'll leave it at that) -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Significant is not necessarily a lead role. One lead role in a film at least. And significant characters in 3/4 web series. I'm really leaving it at that, now. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:ORG, lacks "significant coverage" (
WP:ORGDEPTH) in "
independent" reliable sources about the organization itself. Also lacks
WP:DIVERSE. Sources are mostly
sensationalized coverage and
routine news surrounding controversies or such statements since its members are celebrities (
WP:INHERITORG). Inherent notability (assumed by media) has resulted in articles about its establishment and objectives and not based on their contributions or impact.
The Doom Patrol (
talk)
20:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only source is a 6 year old article (that I can't access from this neck of the woods anyhow) that is titled "...Gujarat could have an ISL, I-League team soon". My BEFORE can not find anything only the similar named state football team, therefore I thinks the article should be deleted now and re-created if/when a team actually is formed in the future.
Josey WalesParley20:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable episode, sources in article are IMDb and a factfile website with plot summaries. BEFORE searches give where to watch and a few passing mentions with brief plot summary when describing the TV series this stems from.
Karnataka (
talk)
20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Fails
WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. All of the current sources are primary,
user generated, or otherwise unreliable. I used the
WP:VG/S Google searches and found only
one reliable source, but at two sentences/paragraphs about the subject it's hardly significant. A more general Google search turned up only the usual primary sources, databases, forums, social media posts, etc.
Woodroar (
talk)
19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. No notability found. Zero. Thus, there is also no justification to merge the subject to a notable bio just because the subjects are related. -
AuthorAuthor (
talk)
16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment to justify the merge. There is information in this article that is useful to a biography of
William Robertson Coe, like details about that article's subject's immigration (ship, destination, where subject settled, etc). This is essentially a good faith
WP:CONTENTFORK (a semi-
WP:REDUNDANTFORK) and should be merged into the correct article. I volunteer to handle the merge if that is the consensus. —
siroχo20:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, (1a) I agree with
Pharaoh of the Wizards, it's inconceivable that a school of such age would have generated no paper write-ups of its history, and in any case (1b) the school itself knows quite a bit about its history
[6], and although we're not supposed to use the subject's own words, given the choice between assuming that they made it up, or assuming that they got it from somewhere, I think the latter is more likely. (2) We have a strong systematic bias on this. Most UK high-schools have articles, often based on little more than local news reports of whatever scandal or rebuild has happened. This school is in India, but also has local news reports of scandals
[7] etc.
[8]; why would we treat Indian schools differently to UK schools?
Elemimele (
talk)
20:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to assess new sources brought up in the deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Has been revised and has multiple solid sources now.
Keep, largely per Elemimele. I find the "scandal" sources more persuasive than the others cited in this discussion so far. In any event, here are some additional sources that haven't been cited thus far:
[13],
[14],
[15]. Being quite substantial and directly related to the article subject, and published in independent reliable sources, it appears to me that these articles in particular meet the GNG. (They might meet NORG as well, but we don't have to get into that per
WP:NSCHOOL.) As a side note, I would observe that invoking OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to dismiss any consideration of systemic bias is such classic
WP:ATAATA material that it has its own bullet point there and also gets a mention at
Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. --
Visviva (
talk)
03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Most of the coverage is about the rainbow flag incident which is not
WP:SIGCOV about her and would be better placed in the relevant bilateral relations article.
LibStar (
talk)
10:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I added some references. I found some additional references by searching for the person's name, restricted to the country where she was posted. That is, I searched for "Fionna Gibb" site:by. This is often the best way to find additional references about an ambassador or other diplomat. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)13:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't regard a number of additional sources are
WP:SIGCOV, they mainly merely confirm she held a meeting with the Belarus government. such as
[16],
[17] and
[18]. This
one is short and confirms a few biographical details of Gibb. This
one is her commenting as a representative of the UK government.
LibStar (
talk)
06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - there is enough to support her notability in my opinion including coverage of an attempted assassination in Yemen that she survived, and I think ambassadors probably should be considered more notable than not for inclusion. -
Indefensible (
talk)
19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Here is one more source from MENA REPORT via ProQuest
[19].
WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (with a long note about what trivial type sources don't help). The sources we have seem to provide that at this point. —
siroχo22:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG as I'm not really seeing significant coverage around the event itself, other than mentions and reports of the fixtures. Fails
WP:NRIVALRY as again no significant coverage of the matches. In my opinion, not really suitable for an encyclopedic article as it's only really relevant to Saracens, and reads as
WP:FANCRUFT. I suggested a redirect to a specific section on
Saracens F.C. but was reverted.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The nature of the article is wholly consistent with similar approved articles linked to
Premiership Rugby, including
The Big Game (rugby union),
London Double Header and
Slater Cup - none of which the OP has raised an objection to regarding
WP:GNG. By the logic spelt out here,
The Big Game (rugby union) should be considered
WP:FANCRUFT, as it is only really relevant to
Harlequin F.C., and
Slater Cup is only really relevant to
Leicester Tigers and
Gloucester Rugby, nor would that meet the threshold of
WP:NRIVALRY, as it is not even a year old. Indeed, the coverage of the matches detailed in this article is consistent with, and no less significant, than the matches detailed in these other three articles which, again, the OP has raised no objection to. Therefore, the OP's consideration for what qualifies as notable or significant would seem to be fairly selective, arbitrary and inconsistent with the aforementioned approved articles. If necessary, I would be happy to update this article with further citations to demonstrate the extent of the coverage although, to reiterate, this would be going above and beyond what has already been accepted for both
The Big Game (rugby union) and
Slater Cup. Lastly, the OP's final statement is not quite accurate - as the article's revision history shows, their action was less a suggestion, and more a blanket removal of the article's entire contents without any discussion. I would respectfully suggest refraining from making such unilateral decisions in future, in cases where there is no clearly no consensus for such an action.
House of Laughs (
talk)
10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: For all of the reasons outlined in the above reply, and with no objections having been lodged by anyone else, I propose keeping the article, closing this discussion and removing the
WP:AfD in the next 24 hours. To further highlight the OP's inconsistent approach to
WP:GNG between this article and other approved
Premiership Rugby related articles, I cite
The Clash (rugby union), which concerns an event that lasted just three years, relates to
Bath Rugby only, and the article itself has, at most, 2 meaningful citations. That article, along with
The Big Game (rugby union) and
Slater Cup, would all be nominated for deletion if we were to follow the OP's interpretation of
WP:GNG,
WP:NRIVALRY and
WP:FANCRUFT in this AfD nomination. Yet, all 3 articles have been widely accepted for years - including by the OP themselves, who previously contributed to
The Clash (rugby union) without raising any of the same objections. The OP's nomination of this article for deletion therefore does not seem to be based on
WP:GNG, but rather on their personal views on specific clubs.
House of Laughs (
talk)
10:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
There is far more GNG related coverage for The Big Game than there is for The Showdown, given its longevity over a period of time. Also the
Slater Cup features the same two sides each fixture, and there is coverage of the rivalry between the two sides. Dependent on the outcome of this AfD I will then consider nominations/redirecting for The Clash as I'm not seeing much in relation to that one, but given we have this AfD in process, and the lack of engagement rugby union AfDs get at the moment, another very similar AfD at the same time isn't in the best interests of other editors at this time, given that the outcome of this AfD will likely effect that one.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
10:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Longevity was clearly not the defining factor for either
The Big Game (rugby union),
Slater Cup or
The Clash (rugby union) to qualify for
WP:GNG or
WP:NRIVALRY. The article for The Big Game was created and reviewed in 2011, when the event was less than 2 years old, and the event has never consistently featured the same 2 teams. Meanwhile, the Slater Cup, as both an event and a rivalry, has existed for all of 6 months. As far as the coverage for each event goes, any cursory Google search would show that both the breadth and the amount of coverage of all of these showpiece event games each year is basically identical (a fact that is borne out in the citations within all of these articles, which frequently draw from the same sources). Given that each of these articles concern very similar annual showpiece event games within the same sports league, to so arbitrarily interpret them as notable or not notable, as this
WP:AfD has done, is utterly bizarre. Finally, as a more general point, I think AfD nominations such as this one do nothing for the integrity of
WP:GNG, and only serve to dissuade editors from contributing.
House of Laughs (
talk)
18:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Updated - As an olive branch, and in the interest of resolving this matter quickly, I have consolidated all of the showpiece fixtures hosted by
Saracens F.C. in
Premiership Rugby into this article (although The Showdown branding began in 2020, the actual event dates back to 2009, and was branded as Derby Day for many years, with the majority of the fixtures against rivals
Harlequin F.C. - all of which is now detailed and sourced within the updated article). As this brings The Showdown article even more in line with
The Big Game (rugby union) article, and should finally put to bed any issues you had regarding
WP:GNG and
WP:NRIVALRY, I would politely request that you review the latest version, and please consider withdrawing the
WP:AfD.
House of Laughs (
talk)
22:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
KEEP: If this test would help to expedite the process, I am happy to oblige. To highlight 3 sources that should satisfy the nominator's personal definition of
WP:GNG and
WP:NRIVALRY, I submit:
[1] (Independent coverage on the profile of the two clubs as
Premiership Rugby's biggest rivalry)
[2] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting the world record for a
rugby union club match attendance in 2015, which remains a
Premiership record)
[3] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting highest viewership for a
Premiership match in history in 2023, which remains a record)
None of those 4 articles have required such an extensive test to prove their satisfaction of either
WP:GNG or
WP:NRIVALRY as this one;
None of those 4 articles' current versions have anywhere near the level of citations and demonstration of coverage as this one;
If we were to treat the nominator's definition of
WP:GNG and
WP:NRIVALRY in this AfD as gospel, and apply it consistently, all 4 of those articles would fail and would all be nominated for deletion – yet all 4 have been accepted for a long period of time.
Therefore, it is clear that the nominator has not treated this article on The Showdown – which, to any objective observer, is extremely similar to those other 4 articles – with a consistent approach to
WP:GNG. And, to put it in stark terms, if they were being consistent, either all of these articles are acceptable, or none of them are. Given the precedent set by the acceptance of those 4 similar articles over the course of many years, it is only logical that this article is treated the same.
House of Laughs (
talk)
17:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll say weak keep based on the example sources provided and an examination of those in the article. I cannot see the Eurosport source and am not familiar with coverage of rugby union, so I am not confident, but it seems likely there's enough independent coverage in the sources to put together an article without requiring original research. The key for me is that the idea of a rivalry is verifiable and not OR. —
siroχo21:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Fails
WP:BIO for any biography because the subject of the article doesn't have any notable honours or nominations, no particularly notable contributions, or an entry in any country's national biography. As this biography fails all three points, it is eligible for deletion. All mentions I could find of the subject are trivial: mostly primarily talking about works that he played a part in. I don't see how we could disambig this or merge it, so deletion seems to be the only solution. Grumpylawnchair (
talk)03:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your evaluation of the biography article. I understand that the subject lacks notable honors, nominations, and significant contributions, and that the mentions of the subject are primarily related to works they were involved in. I agree that notability is an important criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia.
However, I would like to highlight a few points that could warrant further consideration before proceeding with deletion. While the subject may not have received notable honors or nominations, it's worth exploring whether they have made any significant contributions within their field or industry, even if they are not widely recognized. Additionally, it's important to carefully assess the reliability and independence of the sources used to determine the subject's notability.
Furthermore, although the mentions of the subject may currently appear trivial, it's possible that with additional research and sourcing, a more comprehensive picture of their significance could emerge. It may be worth exploring the potential for expansion and improvement of the article rather than opting for immediate deletion.
Before making a final decision, I encourage engaging in a discussion with other editors to gather diverse perspectives on the article's notability and potential solutions. Collaboration and consensus-building within the Wikipedia community often lead to better outcomes.
Ultimately, I respect the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, and I'm open to considering different viewpoints on this matter. I believe that a well-informed and balanced approach will help us reach the most appropriate resolution for the article in question.
Atulkulhari007 (
talk)
04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think I have written the article with sufficient sources and information. This user @
Siroxo also confirmed that the source appears to be that this person was the editor (not proper editor credit, assistant or extra, etc.) of Dilli Door Nahin Abhi (2023 film), a notable film that has multiple reviews at
WP:ICTFSOURCES matches. This makes the theme eligible for
WP:FILMMAKER.
And I have seen other articles which have been approved even though they have very few sources. I do not know on the basis of which policy it was done. I do not mean to say that I am doubting the policies of Wikipedia or this article is also correct on the basis of the same policies.
Despite this, if you feel like it, then it is okay. Ultimately, I respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I'm open to considering different points of view on the matter. I believe that a well informed and balanced approach will help us to reach the most appropriate solution for the article in question.
Atulkulhari007 (
talk)
08:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per Siroxo. It seems worth noting that the nom and at least one of the delete !votes seem to be misapplying
WP:ANYBIO as setting out necessary rather than sufficient criteria for retention. Ordinarily that would lead us back to
WP:NBASIC, but
WP:FILMMAKER helpfully lets us dispense with the elaborate exercise of finding and weighing sources against NBASIC in order to reach a decision here. I am thankful for Okoslavia's detective work in exposing the UPE shenanigans in this article. But ultimately I don't think the existence of the article constitutes promotional abuse. As long as having the article serves our purpose
as an encyclopedia, the UPE-tainted content can be dealt with through appropriate cleanup tags. --
Visviva (
talk)
03:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete: After some edits to remove puffery, fix some NPOV issues, gratuitous ref-bombing to bad sites, what's left is somewhat "meh" The editing for the film is the best shot for notability, but there's a single cite to a fairly poor quality review, and nothing in the film's article. The short film for the film festival is the next best option, but it's honestly not much. Really need sources that have in-depth coverage of the person, not the work.
WP:TOOSOON for me. Ravensfire (
talk)
04:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator) as the topic has been covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. This is a continuation of restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily (my user talk page is littered with notifications for similar entries which have been kept following AfD discussions). Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional news sources as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator many times to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm looking at the sources, and they are all either local reviews or listings in somewhat larger works. If that is all a restaurant has, it does not distinguish it from hundreds of thousands of others. I could write a similar article about a dozen restaurants in the town closest to where I live (which is about 5% of the size of Seattle). None of those are notable either; they have no significant history and are not mentioned in sources that are not restaurant listings.
Black Kite (talk)18:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I've expanded the article significantly, but I haven't even touched The Seattle Times archives or completed a library search for other newspaper and book sources. I am curious if you searched for sources other than those already used as citations? ---
Another Believer(
Talk)18:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The first block of 13 are really poor references. Its all ultra-local coverage and no indication its notable. Its all the same kind of local reviews. Not only does it fail
WP:SIRS and
WP:GNG. Its also fails
WP:AUD, Another very poor effort with something has no historical value. My local restuarants are built before 1720, which is the newest. Under the criteria you apply, I could effectively put in every pub and restuarant in the UK into Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk17:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as the article has basically been rewritten since the nomination. Please review new additions to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Since it is covered by Bon Appétit & Lonely Planet nationally, & out-of-state Daily Journal of Commerce, this passes
WP:AUD, which states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. WP:AUD is part of WP:NCORP, so the arguments that if fails that do not work for me.
Peaceray (
talk)
22:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Neutral on this. Probably scrapes a GNG pass. Sourcing is better than Post Alley Pizza. The reception section requires a severe pruning to remove the promotional dross.
Rupples (
talk)
20:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep and tag for cleanup. As explained by Peaceray above, this passes AUD, and Bon Appetit alone would satisfy the strict requirement of [a]t least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source. And based on the abundant other reviews I don't think there's any question that it passes the other elements of NCORP, viz. ha[ving] been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I don't really see the NOTTRAVEL argument here -- the existing article may have some unencyclopedic bits, but it doesn't seem to me that it is wholly or irreparably unencyclopedic (and TBH I'd guess the overemphasis on reviews probably comes from defensive editing to pass NCORP), so that's more of a cleanup issue. My keep is weak mostly because although the technical requirements of the rules are met, I'm just not presuaded this is the best way to approach this encyclopedically. I'd much rather have a more full-featured
List of restaurants in Seattle (or sublists) and merge all these articles there. But as no plausible merge target currently exists and we face a simple question of whether to include encyclopedic information about this restaurant as a standalone article or not at all, I'm not seeing a case for deletion. --
Visviva (
talk)
01:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -- the sourcing in the article is sufficient to meet GNG. Arguments that similar sourcing would allow many such articles to be written about restaurants in smaller towns than Seattle aren't convincing. If that's true then those articles shouldn't be deleted either, or perhaps it's a rhetorical exaggeration, as "local coverage" means very different things depending on the locations. Seattle metro has more than 4 million people, roughly the population of Panama. Regional coverage there carries some weight.
Central and Adams (
talk)
12:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep there is a large amount of coverage (lots of negative coverage, some standard media interviews) but might fall under
WP:BLP1E as outside of interviews it's all about one scandal afaict. eg.
[20][21]. However, the subject had an interview as recently as
[22] 2020. As such they would not meet BLP1E, hence my lean towards keep. —
siroχo22:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: As suggested by
Indefensible, I've taken a look at the sources in the German article. Note that in what follows, I'm also including sources I found during my research that are not in the German article.
This article in Welt is definitely in-depth coverage, and it's quite a reputable publication. I would also say that this is coverage of Born more so than the scandal itself.
This article on the Werder Bremen scandal covers Born quite in-depth as well.
This is pretty good biographical coverage of Born, another GNG source.
This is some further reporting on the scandal and Born.
This is an article in the Spiegel from when Born assumed his position at Werder Bremen (1999), and
this article is more coverage of him long after the scandal. All together, there's more than enough here to fulfill the notability requirements of
WP:GNG and
WP:NBASIC, and a pretty good article could be written from this information. For future reference:
This is a timeline of the corruption scandal, which might be useful if the article is not deleted.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
19:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: I really don't agree with those saying that
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:RECENTISM apply here. At the time, Iran sent "its biggest fleet yet of tankers to Venezuela in defiance of U.S. sanctions"
[23], making the incident notable enough for having a standalone article. The importance of this incident has also been noted over the three years span in reliable books like
2021,
2021,
2021,
2022, and
2022. If reliable sources matter, which is the most important criteria for AFD, the page needs to be kept. Maybe it is better for the page to be updated using the mentioned sources. --
Mhhosseintalk16:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Mhhossein (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD. reply
At first glance, all of these references are passing mentions of the crisis in Venezuela as a whole, and none of them delve in long lasting consequences. That is further proof that any notable content can be covered in other articles, as it already is. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, we are dealing with both deep sources and passing mentions. Deep reliable sources are required to prove the notability. Plus, the very fact that the gas export in 2020 is still being covered by academic books shows that the subject is not merely a NEWS or so. --
Mhhosseintalk11:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Responding to the last comments, the mentions are not related to notability as much as just coverage. A traffic accident or a robbery can have significant coverage, even nationwide or by academic sources, but at the end lasting impact is what determines notability. This is probably the same reason why these books at the end are not about the shipment, but rather about other topics: "US Energy Diplomacy in the Caspian Sea Basin", "The World Almanac of Islamism 2021", "Sanctions as War", "Iranian-Saudi Rivalry Since 1979", and "The New Cold War, China, and the Caribbean". --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
22:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Many people in the UK knew mr Abderrahmane, but very little information was shared about him. Sources used were from the British Broadcasting Corperation. As someone who lived in leyton for a long period of time, he was a well known individual. VICE news and Ladbible also confirmed that his name was indeed Abderrahmane Lounici.
Mrm1235 (
talk)
18:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
i already included the sources in the article, if you actually went on the page you would see this is true. Furthermore, there is only about 2 newspaper articles about him. So your in the wrong.
Mrm1235 (
talk)
09:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
That source does not cover most of the information included in the article. For example, the name "Richi" is not mentioned once in the article. Neither is "Mali Boys". Nor the Arabic translation. Drill is not mentioned at all. etc. Most of the articles information is therefore
original research, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. In addition, you haven't properly
referenced the information you're using that source for. Further more, one source in and of itself does not
prove notability, which is a requirement for Wikipedia articles. If there are only 2 articles on the internet about this person, then he most likely is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I understand this is no doubt frustrating. I kindly recommend you check out some resources for new editors,
WP:FIRST and
WP:PRIMER. For what it's worth, I am familiar with the topic.
HarrySONofBARRY (
talk)
21:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No such proof that China has "invaded" Ukraine. At best this is Crystal ball and propaganda. At worst this is complete and total fake news as this hasn't happened.
CaribDigita (
talk)
18:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The nom is inaccurate as the article does not claim that China participated in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Rather, this is an article about how China has reacted to the invasion and what attitudes have been taken by the Chinese government, media, and citizens toward it. --
Metropolitan90(talk)18:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - If you go back to March 2022 when this article was written, the terminology at the time - at least the buzz phrase used by the media - was
"China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine" So I would not quite call it "Crystal ball and propaganda", as that's how the general media saw it then.
— Maile (
talk)
18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The first link that turns up: "SOAS" is just an event title. By "a public research university in London, England, and a member institution of the federal University of London."
Those are all the same three sources over and over.
First one is a government owned agency of the UK.
Second one is a government owned agency of Canada.
The third is just J.P. Morgan investor.
And the rest are mirrors of the first three podcast and all.
Keep - Nominator seems to have misunderstood the article title. It's not parsed as "(China and Russia's) invasion of Ukraine" but "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)". -
Ljleppan (
talk)
08:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- How many countries are invading Ukraine? Is my point. "AND" is a conjunction. It should probably be the 'Role of (X-country) in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine' that would be more grammatically correct.
CaribDigita (
talk)
CaribDigita (
talk)
00:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - The only country that is invading Ukraine is Russia. By using "Role of China in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine", it suggests that China is playing a *role* and are *directly involved* in the invasion of Ukraine; it is even more misleading than the original title and defeats your main argument. There is nothing Grammatically incorrect or improper about "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)".
Vincenty846 (
talk)
02:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- It makes it sound as though Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine. Which I haven't seen any evidence of? Have you?
CaribDigita (
talk)
02:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - No, it doesn't. Just because the title "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)" sounds that way to *YOU*, doesn't mean that it is true for others. There is *nothing* in the article that states what you are suggesting (i.e. "Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine"), because factually it is incorrect and false information; which mind you does not belong on any Wikipedia article.
You can try and twist the words with your own opinions and ask as many rhetorical questions as you want; but it still doesn't change the fact that "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)" is proper and grammatically correct.
Vincenty846 (
talk)
03:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - It seems like the nominator has misunderstood the title of the article. The nominator’s argument that “No such proof that China has "invaded" Ukraine” is irrelevant to the title and content of the article because the article is about the *reactions and responses* of China to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. There is nothing in the article that states nor suggests that China has invaded Ukraine with Russia. There is also an article on
United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, does that mean that the U.S. is also involved with Russia and invading Ukraine?-
Vincenty846(
talk)
12:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article title is being misinterpreted. We also have article titled Anonymous, Collective responsibility in Russia, Iran, Lithuania, Religion, United States, and Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, none of which are implied to have invaded.
[29] And there are other variations with “in” or “X-ian involvement in,” “in the Russo-Ukrainian War,” etcetera. If the problem is an inappropriate title, then an RM is appropriate, not an AFD. —MichaelZ.22:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
WP:BLP of an actor, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists roles, and requires external validation of the significance of his roles through
reliable source coverage about him and/or noteworthy acting awards. But the only "reference" cited here at all is a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person on a non-notable blog, which is not a reliable source or a carrier of notability at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This list is a mere copy of the related category at the time of its creation in 2015 without the subcategories (including American children's novels and other significant omissions), plus some random books since added. No one since my original suggestion in 2015 has made any attempt to improve the page and it has very few page views.
Robina Fox (
talk)
15:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep: This is not an inappropriate topic for a list. It also doesn't have to be "hopelessly broad". It's already limited to a specific country, as
WP:SALAT suggests in cases of large-scope list topics, and it could easily be divided into sections in accordance with genre, year of publication, or some other criterion. Since this list contains only notable entries, I don't think
WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. So far, no policy-based argument has been made to show that this topic is intrinsically inappropriate for a standalone list. The fact that the list is currently out of date is not really a good reason for deletion either. The next step, then, is to establish standalone list notability as per
WP:LISTN. So, have American children's books been discussed as a group by reliable sources? In short, yes. I quickly found
an academic article on it, as well as
this article.
Leonard S. Marcus, who probaby qualifies as a subject-matter expert, wrote Minders of Make-Believe: Idealists, Entrepreneurs, and the Shaping of American Children's Literature. Multicultural and Ethnic Children's Literature in the United States by Donna Gilton is another book on the topic from a subject-matter expert. There is also
this article, though I'm not sure of the reliability of that publication. Encyclopedia Britannica has
this, but that's a tertiary source; still, it can contribute to the understanding that this is a notable topic and appropriate for a list.
This BBC coverage is also an appropriate source for establishing notability. I'm sure more could be found, but the point is made: the topic "American children's books/literature" has received significant coverage as a group from reliable sources, so the list fulfills the relevant notability requirements. I'm not sure, then, what remains as a reason for deletion. The list topic is 1. generally appropriate for Wikipedia and 2. appropriately limited in scope and through selection criteria and 3. notable. Actualcpscm (
talk)
17:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
In principle this is a fine subject for a list, but as it stands it is hopelessly inadequate and misleading. It gives no information not given in the category: no date, no author, no genre, no setting. It doesn't include, to take a few books at random, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The Cat in the Hat, The Giver, The Lightning Thief, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, The Secret of the Old Clock, Antiracist Baby. If deletion is not the answer, it should be gutted and started over as a more selective list with actual information on each book and a link to the category in the lead. As it is, it is actually anti-encyclopedic.
Robina Fox (
talk)
20:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that would fulfill the purpose of a list; a list with a higher threshold of entry than notability and with extensive information on each entry would probably be better placed in
Children's_literature#United_States, or in a standalone article on that topic, which
has been suggested. I don't think that information like author, genre, setting, etc. is appropriate for a list with only notable entries (i.e. easily accessible in-depth information on each entry), but that is better debated on the talk page of the list. I agree that this isn't a particularly helpful list in its current state, but it would be much better to keep it around and improve it. To that end, I wouldn't oppose draftification in principle, but that's really only necessary if the current version of the list is so bad as to be positively damaging to readers' understanding; is that what you mean by anti-encyclopedic?
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes. Imagine if someone tried to write an article on American children's literature using the current list as a starting point. An encyclopedia should provide basic significant information. On notability, I'll just say that if your standard is the existence of an article, what function does a list serve that a category does not? I love categories myself – I've made lots of them – but I expect more of a list. Well, I'm not sure this is contributing to the deletion discussion, so I'll leave it there.
Robina Fox (
talk)
20:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Your judgement is more informed than mine on that; draftify for improvement would be an acceptable outcome imo, but it‘s a workable list topic in principle.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
21:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong delete This is absolutely hopelessly broad. The source analysis above misses the point – none of those would be used as sources for this and no one is suggesting the concept of children's literature as a whole is not notable, so if you want to write an article about
American children's literature as suggested above be my guest. But that's no reason to have a bullet-pointed list that could have several thousands of items.
Category:American children's books has over 5,000 books in its subcategories, and just duplicating (just a small fraction of) that in this way is not the way to go. Existence of a category does not inherently mean an identical list is acceptable, and with a lack of selection criteria or other analysis, this is simply too indiscriminate. What's even more ridiculous is that
List of children's books made into feature films has more books than this page! This is just too broad to be workable. The other items in
Category:Lists of children's books have much narrower scopes.
Reywas92Talk14:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reason to duplicate the category with a manually updated list; that's a colossal waste of time. Fix the category and its subcategories, and delete this page.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify for rescoping and improvement; I still think the topic is principally fine, but I see the issues with scope and the state of the article probably warrant removal from the article namespace. I have been convinced!
Actualcpscm (
talk)
15:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Usually draftification is reserved for relatively new articles and lists. This list has existed since 2015. But if you're really interested in working on fixing the list, maybe you should clearly state that.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
13:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete If nothing else, this is NOT a list of American Children's Books, but of ACB that have Wikipedia articles. Next, what makes a book "American"? Published in the US? - no, that would include Alice in Wonderland which is republished in the US. Author is American? (Do we always know?) What if author is non-US but illustrator is, or vice-versa? This is a list that cannot be defined usefully and that is truly unlikely to be maintained. This kind of categorization is exactly what the categories are for. I just wish that the categories were publicized more.
Lamona (
talk)
02:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: As mentioned in the nomination, a search turns up no appropriate sources to establish notability, including under its other names. I don't think a redirect or merge are warranted, since a lack of reliably verifiable information about the history of this vessel makes it unclear where the merge/redirect target would be – the source in the article right now doesn't look particularly good. If someone figures that out in the course of this discussion, I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to an article about, say, the shipping company that verifiably operated the vessel.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
17:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete. Ridiculous article. Cites the websites Cuteness.com and onlinepsychologydegree.info. Probably a hoax. I can find reliable sources on animal models of intellectual disability (in humans) but that's not the same thing.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk)
17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - did a search on JSTOR, all results lead to intellectual disability in humans, found nothing about intellectual disability in animals. Doesn't look like it's something that's widely studied.
Jaguarnik (
talk)
17:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: If my sources were horrific I’m sorry and I would never on purpose use any third class sources on any Wikipedia. If the article was not that good please erase and I’ll never create this page on Wikipedia again. You have my words.
Angela Kate MaureenPears17:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Only good source I could find is
this but .hack is not that explored when compared to other RPGs in the West so I guess there is not much else to search.
Tintor2 (
talk)
22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't think this is a place for an argument about policy, but the topic of "Evil Entities in Chrisitianity" is the author's synthesis of various Biblical and non-Biblical sources, none of which is actually about "evil entities".
PepperBeast(talk)23:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
"Evil" should be identified by its Christian definition (or definitions) rather than saying meaninglessly that it "exists." Likewise, "sin" is not defined but is said to exist and to be personified by entities. Evil exists, sin exists, but it is not evident in what sense the entities exist "in Christianity." Are these "entities" metaphorical personifications, according to the Christian imagination, or do Christians believe that they are real?
My first objection to the article is that it does not define any of the terms of its title.
It's unclear where these entities are found "in" Christianity. Are we talking about "in" Christian scripture, doctrine, tradition, literature, art, or an article in Christianity Today? Most of the cited material is Biblical, but an extra-biblical back-story stands behind the interpretation, such as what is proposed by Seventh-Day Adventist writers, for example. The article doesn't say. What is clear is that if you can find Christianity, you will find these characters there.
That is my second objection. It is not written like an encyclopedia article but like notes from a visit to a nature park called "Christianity," which is populated with this and that sort of creature. The Satan exhibit is especially interesting
In fact, the guide is so fascinated by the devil that whatever other entity is met on the tour, there's really only one highlight, and that's the
Devil in Christianity.
This is my third objection. It is nothing more than an expansion of Devil in Christianity, which has many of the same problems. But assuming that article should be kept, this article does not substantively expand on that topic and, therefore, should be deleted because it is redundant.
Delete or move to userspace if the author prefers. There is very little here that wouldn't work better in
Devil in Christianity or
Christian demonology. 'Allegorical representations of evil in Christian texts' could be another topic but it would need sources addressing the topic as a whole and not just a synthesis of examples to be viable as a separate article.
Eluchil404 (
talk)
01:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable: out of the sources in the article, neither can contribute to passing
WP:GNG (1: database entry, not significant coverage, 2: interview, not independent). During a
WP:BEFORE, only one source came up that might satisfy contributing to GNG:
[30]. However, this is a local news source with a writer that may possibly be a relative of Lunde's (same last name). Based on this lack of sourcing, I think this fails
WP:NMUSICIAN and
WP:NBIO. Schminnte (
talk •
contribs)13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The one sources they cite reads like a family produced obituary and the only ones I found on google were publishers' blurbs on sites selling his sheet music. Though there is a review of his Sonata
[31] from an academic site. We just don't have enough independent, reliable sources for an article.
Eluchil404 (
talk)
01:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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.
Delete - It appears that the title is sometimes simply "I'm on the Battlefield". This is because the hymn is listed in many directories of hymns that can be performed during services, and they all have their own interpretations. I can find no further reporting or analysis of the song as an item with its own encyclopedic information. Also, since it has been recorded by several different people, a redirect to Ms. Caffie-Austin is not workable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 18:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Topics like this are typically required to meet
WP:LASTING, rather than the more liberal standard of
WP:GNG, simply because any early death will receive local news coverage that Wikipedia
may not be the right place for. Nobody has made a substantive argument that the coverage here passes that standard, and I'll note in passing that NY Post is a deprecated sources. Vanamonde (
Talk)15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
References provided fail to establish
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTBASIC as there is no significant in-depth coverage of Montiel contained within. From the database sources available,
WP:NBAD doesn't seem to be met either as her only 'claim' to notability is a runner up in a tournament at the lowest level of the tour, the
2016 BWF Future Series. According to
BWF, she only ever won one match, which doesn't give me confidence that
WP:SIGCOV can be found. An
Argentine source search yields nothing better than what we already have and nor do Google searches.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)11:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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
Eternal Champion. Discussion and analysis of the sources supports the conclusion that there is insufficient coverage of Erekosë qua Erekosë to justify a standalone article. signed, Rosguilltalk02:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-notable book character. This appears to be an article fit for Fandom, not Wikipedia. The previous AfD (from 2018) yielded a few book sources but to me this does not appear sufficient for
WP:GNG, as they focus on the books rather than the character. All references in the article are to the book series the character appears in. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
02:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
That's blatant nonsense.
this is secondary, just not reliable. I just picked it as the first non-Wikipedia ghit for the character name to illustrate the fallacy of broad, universal pronouncements such as this.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as with 5 years ago,
WP:NEXIST has been met. The fact that noone bothered to incorporate the sources illustrated in the last AFD is not an argument against keeping it.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I said they're insufficient for notability, imho, not that the current state of the article is the reason to delete it. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Eternal Champion (novel). That's a lot of "keeps" above with no source analysis. Since the article cites no reliable, secondary sources, let's look back to the
last AfD. All sources cited there discuss Erekosë in the context of the Eternal Champion novel, therefore we should cover Erekosë proportionately in our article on the topic. In
doi:
10.1007/978-1-137-07657-1_11, Erekosë is only mentioned in context of plot, with no analysis specific to the character, independent from plot context. czar21:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug!07:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - There are 10 references on the page, but these are all stories by Michael Moorcock in the Eternal Champion series. The information drawn from these falls short of
WP:NOTPLOT which states that Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. The reference to these is plot and not encyclopaedic discussion. They are essentially to be discounted as primary sources. So what we have left at this time are the sources raised in the previous AfD. Two of these were found, but the suggestion is that this was a non exhaustive list. If there are more, we should consider them. However, looking at these two we have:
So Scroggins (2015) mentions the subject throughout. He says, in the introduction,
“he cleverly interwove the otherwise disparate worlds and quests of a whole stable of heroes: Urlik, Erekosë (the Eternal Champion), Corum Jhaelen ...
That is Erekosë is identified up front with the Eternal Champion, although it clearly is more involved than that. Yet the nuance is about plot. What the author does not do is to look at Erekosë and discuss the character as a concept, discussing development, design, reception, significane or influence. Rather it is the concept of the Eternal Champion that gains such treatment. Mentions of Erekosë in this work are all about the specific plot element. An example:
“John Daker has not merely gone to bed John Daker and awoken Erekosë, but—as The Eternal Champion’s sequel Phoenix in Obsidian will demonstrate more explicitly—has awoken to his own destiny as the self-conscious embodiment of the Eternal Champion, the occupier of that subject-position who is able to recall his own previous incarnations, and to feel the weight of the endless battles he is constantly reborn to fight.”
So here Erekosë, along with John Daker, is the name of the character, and the concept being discussed is the Eternal Champion.
What then of (Hoey, 2000)? Hoey's abstract begins:
Michael Moorcock’s The Eternal Champion (1970) has a simple enough plot. Humans on a parallel Earth call to their aid an eternal champion, Erekosë, to help them rid the world of the Evil Ones, the Eldren
The title of the paper is indicative of the content. The paper is discussing the writing of Moorcock, using the concept and sequence of the Eternal Champion as its source material. That Erekosë is the name of the champion is incidental to the thesis of the paper, and, indeed the context of the chosen source material. Per czar, there is no analysis of the specific character of Erekosë here. The mentions are again specifically about plot.
So on this source analysis, I think we are left with nothing. A redirect to Eternal Champion would clearly be sensible, but I see nothing to indicate a keep. Before posting that as a !vote, I would ask if there are any other sources we should be considering, as Jclemens inidicated the posted sources were not exhaustive.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
14:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sirfurboy: From the pages I can see in Google Books I agree with the analysis on the book. From the two first pages I can see of the paper I have to disagree: Both the title and the content do not refer to Moorcock's concept of the
Eternal Champion, but rather the specific novelThe Eternal Champion and its main character. The paper acknowledges that Erekosë is one incarnation of the Eternal Champion, but that's it. Everything else is specific to the Erekosë from that one book. Like him being a metaphor for the nuclear apocalypse.
Daranios (
talk)
19:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
(Hoey, 2000) is a chapter in Imagining Apocalypse, which you can borrow from Open Library here:
[34]. It is at page 151. The abstract just reproduces the start of the chapter and the chapter itself is definitely a study of Moorcock's writing technique using a large data corpus to analyse linguistics. On that score I stand by what I said, that the paper is not about Erekosë. It is about Moorcock's writing technique. However, on page 152, we read:
My interest in this book, however, lies elsewhere, namely in how Moorcock succeeds in portraying a hero who is unremittingly destructive and commits two great acts of genocide and yet does not turn into a villain.
And herein lies a small amount of analysis that is also mirrored in your Black Gate source. Because the reason that Hoey is looking at this book is because, in the character of Erekosë, there is an incarnation of the eternal champion who commits two genocides and yet is not treated as evil. As you say, it is this incarnation that interests Hoey. He is interested in how this is carried off linguistically, but it is relevant to the thesis that Erekosë has done something we would generally be inclined to disapprove of (genocide of the human race). The character's actions are important to his choice of subject material in conducting the analysis. So, to run this through GNG, we have here and below two reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The question is whether they reach the threshold of significance. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. so Hoey is relevant. Yet we are still left with the question as to whether we can write an article that discusses the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. These sources are not really enough for that. We have a character and any page on the character is going to be almost all plot, even with these sources. Almost, but not entirely. I expect that Erekosë would better be dealt with on the page of the Eternal Champion, which, as you say, is in poor shape.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
20:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sirfurboy: In general I agree. One additional piece of analysis rather than plot summary in Hoey is the embodiment of real-world contemporary fears of a nuclear apocalypse in the universal destroyer Erekosë with his radioactive sword. I expect all analysis taken together might be enough to produce an article on Erekosë beyond stub-length (as usual balanced by a reasonable amount of plot summary + publication history). I am unsure if that would be better treated wholly within the
Eternal Champion article or not, so I will refrain from !voting here and let others decide.
Daranios (
talk)
11:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Indeed, my lack of !vote up to this point also reflects my own uncertainty. I think my preferred outcome is a redirect with
Eternal Champion. I think that places the information we have within a context it can be encyclopaedically discussed.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
17:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Its former incarnation as a print magazine can be judged on its own merits, but its current incarnation is no different from a personal blog in lacking hallmarks of reliability: a site fact-checking policy, a masthead of professional editors, recognition by peers as reliable for statements of fact. czar03:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Eternal Champion (which as a parent article has huge plot problems itself) for
WP:ALLPLOT. Notability (claimed or real) is irrelevant if this topic wasn't, isn't and likely won't be covered encyclopedicly here. –
sgeurekat•
c08:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sgeureka: Isn't that exactly
WP:NOEFFORT, an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion? Anyway, now that secondary sources with some non-plot information have been identified, you are very welcome to
just fix the problem that it likely won't be covered encyclopedicly here.
Daranios (
talk)
10:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
No, it's the argument that if you remove all unencyclopedic content as per
WP:NOTPLOT/
WP:ALLPLOT, which in this case means removing everything, you may as well redirect the article until someone comes along who actually wants to add something encyclopedic. –
sgeurekat•
c13:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
But if your argument is based on
WP:ALLPLOT, the guidance this essay gives us to deal with such a "bad article" which "little more than a synopsis of the plot" is not to remove all content. It rather says that it should "be improved to provide more balanced coverage", because "A good encyclopedia article about a work of fiction will almost always include a brief synopsis of the major points of the plot". So the plot summary here may need trimming, but not wholesale deletion. Also, I think the publication history should be preserved.
Daranios (
talk)
14:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
To be clear, a close as redirect will preserve publication history, and that history can, of course, be referred to by any editor in the future, either on this page or, by attributed copywithin, on another page.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
16:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
These sources only underscore the above source analysis, that Erekose as a concept is only discussed within context of Moorcock's oeuvre (ref 1) or the Eternal Champion cycle (ref 2) but not independently as the subject of analysis. Ref 3 is straight plot analysis, in which Erekose is incidental. These sources support a redirect rather than a dedicated article for the character. czar08:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I disagree with your assessment of the sources. There is discussion of this character specifically and how he differs from the other incarnations of the Eternal Champion in the other 2 sources. "Erekose himself remains the only avatar of the Eternal Champion actually conscious of his enforced desitny..."(pp. 492-3)
Yes, I said that Ref 2 discusses Erekose within context of the Eternal Champion cycle. It's content that one would expect to find within the parent article on the Eternal Champion novel or cycle. It would need wider and more coverage specific to the character to warrant a
summary style split-out. czar03:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect. I am not unsympathetic to the claims this topic may be notable, but we had years for someone to try to start a section on analysis/reception. Having done so for many articles I care about, well, the ball is in the court of keepers, b/c so far I see here and it the prior AfD vagues claims that this topic is discussed in source A, B and C. I glanced and I see plot summaries. Sure, it was just a glance. Maybe there is analysis there. If so, take a bit of time and add few sentences of analysis to this article and ping me and I'll gladly vote keep. Until that happens, we have a plot summary that does not merit being kept outside of a redirect. Again, I'd prefer to see this rescued, but I have nor time nor will to do it myself here (I just expanded the relevant section in
G'Kar and my time to edit Wiki today has just run out). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Eternal Champion. I have reviewed the sources provided here, and there are decently reliable sources that have substantive literary analysis in them. However, the analyses I have seen have to do with either the narrative arc of Moorcock's books or with the arc of the Eternal Champion as a character; and are thus better handled at those articles. Covering fictional subjects in an encyclopedic manner does not mean dredging up every fragment that mentions them and sticking them into an article; it means summarizing the analyses at logical titles, which can certainly include articles about specific fictional characters, but does not in this case. Vanamonde (
Talk)15:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Clearly not being deleted but feel arguments to keep on the award are probably going to need a guideline level discussion before they become authoritative given that we do seem to delete quite a lot of the winners.
SpartazHumbug!07:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Unremarkable former child actor who's only claim seems to be winning a child actor award aged 12. No evidence of further film participation or notability from existing credit. Fails
WP:NACTOR. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)06:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say "unremarkable", although he might not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. He did win a national film award in the eighth most populous country in the world.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
18:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing anything that would suggest this person is remarkable or otherwise noteworthy, as you latterly note. I guess the outcome of this would determine if we should look at other actor articles
on that list also. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)20:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because I think some of these comments here are advocating Keeping this article without stating that opinion in BOLD font. The discussion seems to rest on the question, is winning
Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Child Artist enough to establish GNG? Looking over the list on that page of previous winners, my guesstimate is about half of them have Wikipedia articles, likely based on future accomplishments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
KEEP: My thinking is that if an award is notable, then those receiving the award are notable. Particularly in the arts where future contributions from the subject seem likely.
CaseArmitage (
talk)
14:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I would suggest that every category from the most important film award in any country with a "llywood-type" film industry would go toward the criteria. I can't really see how picking and choosing which countries or which awards from the most prominent awards in a country would be NPOV on Wikipedia's part. (Are choreographers more or less notable than sound designers, is Nollywood more or less notable than Dhallywood, for example...). The only possible criteria I can imagine would be how many years the award has been given, but this one would surpass any reasonable cutoff at 40+years. —
siroχo07:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep there is some independent coverage from the Mirror and Teeside Live in the article and the number of schools and a college in this trust makes it something we should be covering if possible, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
19:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
This should just be a list page instead of an article I think. Sources are not really enough to support the article but maintaining just the straight list could still be helpful. -
Indefensible (
talk)
01:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third, final relist for more input Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
06:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough as a new L2 Schools section, per
[35]. Ironically the diocese navbox currently has better coverage of its schools than the diocese article. A Schools section could also be expanded (or tagged for expansion) to cover St Cuthbert's Roman Catholic Academy Trust and
Ampleforth College as well. As an encyclopedia we need some coverage of the system of which the various individual schools are a part, but per NORG that is probably better handled at the diocese level than the trust level since there isn't much information we can provide about the trust as such. --
Visviva (
talk)
01:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I found an image caption in
Arriyadiyah and
SA24, which is a basic contract renewal announcement, much like one of the sources already in the article. I'm not seeing how this guy is any more notable than the last time the article got deleted.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: All media coverage was about the incident, not the person, and was fleeting. No media mentions since 1989, apart from a one-sentence name-drop in SFGate. Non-notable individual remembered for getting fired 34 years ago...who cares.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk)
14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
No evidence found that this location is or has ever been notable. The article's only citation is to the USGS GNIS verifying that there was once a site with this name. The only other verification I could find was old topographic maps (most recent from 1947) showing the site with that name, absolutely nothing else since then.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk)
04:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: At these coordinates,
Google Earth and Google Street View show just a compound at 901 Floradale Avenue belonging to Launchpad Land, apparently an agribusiness. Lots of agricultural equipment and some living facilities for migrant field workers (that's from the sign at the gate). There are several more buildings scattered along a mile of Floradale Avenue. Other than that, it's just 100s of acres/hectares of crops. It's about a mile west of
Lompoc, California. My ref check came up empty.
If there's something of historical interest that would make this place notable, ping me.
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.
Non-notable Greek/American soccer player. A bit difficult to search for as she is overshadowed by the 2000-born USA player.
Natg 19 (
talk)
04:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:BASIC and
WP:HEY. One biographical article focused on Sophia Smith,
"Cornell grad plays for Greece" in Ithaca Journal.
One paragraph in USA Today discussing her jersey and her awkward role as an American of Greek ancestry on the Greek national women's team at the 2004 Athens Olympics. Another paragraph on her status as a local soccer player playing internationally in the
Houston Chronicle. In addition, during her college years (particularly her junior year), her match performance as the leading scorer on the team was regularly covered in Ithaca Journal. Per WP:BASIC, it's just enough. (Also...per her LinkedIn profile, she now works as legal counsel for FIFA in Zürich, but without coverage in reliable secondary sources, we'll just leave that aspect of her career for now.)
Cielquiparle (
talk)
11:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: the coverage here is not
WP:ROUTINE, which would be e.g. inclusion of her name on a team list in a match report: there are multiple articles already cited covering her specifically, either as an individual or within a small group, so
WP:GNG is passed.
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.
Delete as the article lacks sufficient references; have struggled to find meaningful coverage in reliable secondary sources to add that would satisfy
WP:BASIC. Not finding much in ProQuest except for a 2001 mention of her oil paintings being exhibited at the Schoolhouse Galleries in Croton Falls, plus a photograph credit in Oprah magazine. Her work Baby Paintings is discussed briefly in
this art exhibit description. If the article creator's objective is to promote the artist and her work, there are other websites and blogs that are more appropriate for that than Wikipedia.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
13:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (
non-admin closure)
The articles were all put out near the day of the release. They are at the very least press releases and raise doubt on their
sponsored/pay to play nature. This browser game does not seem to be notable for anything in particular and the coverage died down right after its release.
Kate the mochii (
talk)
03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a subject that on the surface would feel like there's a lot of discussion because of how outlandish and honestly petty it was, but in actuality doesn't. After
Polygon Man was a surprise in terms of reception I figured I may be wrong and look through sources for Johnny Turbo. However:
A
Internet Archive search turned up nothing outside of a few small statements in two issues of Retro Gamer that are more in passing.
A
google books search also turned up nothing. The one source that mentions him properly is discussing the GameSpy article already cited.
Google News,
same boat. The one article that seems to be discussing them, Nintendo Life, instead links to a youtube video we can't cite as a source.
Similar outcomes when trying to do web crawls through Kotaku, Polygon, Siliconera, Destructoid, GamesRadar, etc. There's no discussion about this character. The whole point of this extensive
WP:BEFORE is to show that despite belief that due to its notoriety as a bad campaign, it's not notable as a subject on its own.
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
TurboDuo#Marketing. A minor character who was only used in a single ill-fated ad campaign and had a video game compilation or two named after him (but not actually about him). GNG is not passed in this instance.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
03:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
I think weakkeep given the language divide here. It looks like this film did not get much exposure in English-speaking markets, but has just enough coverage in English to soothe my doubts, plus a very reasonable cast list. —
siroχo04:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I am unconvinced that Asian Movie Web is a clear-cut
reliable source.
The about us page neither lists the staff or editorial policies, which is not promising. The only potential claim is some
WP:USEBYOTHERS in Google Books, i.e.,
1,
2,
3 from obviously RS books, and a few others, but I'm unsure whether it is widespread and consistent per the guideline. Likewise, movieXclusive has no clear staff page or detailed editorial policies, and USEBYOTHERS is even weaker (based on Google/Google Books at least). Otherwise I'm unable to find sufficient sources and will probably vote weak delete later, but I'm aware of the language barrier here and might take another look again at TWL and Baidu to find sources if I have energy for that.I had another look and was unable to find sufficient sources, and remain unconvinced on the reliability of existing reviews. However, I am not proficient at Chinese or Cantonese and had to rely heavily on the unreliable Google Translate, so on the balance this is a Weak Delete .
Siroxo and
Mushy Yank, if you find more sources please ping me. Thanks.VickKiang(talk)10:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Updated on 22:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The film already has an article in the Chinese wiki. The film released during the age when film reviews were online yet no reliable reviews found.
DareshMohan (
talk)
18:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per Siroxo. Regarding the arguments above: (1) I don't think there is a policy basis for AFD to require clear-cut reliable sources, in the sense of addressing every possible concern. Adjudicating the fine points of reliability is not something the AFD process is really suited for; we have a whole
separate board for that. As we are assembled here to decide whether an article should be deleted, as a rule, any genuine doubts about the appropriateness of deletion
should be resolved against deletion. (2) To the extent the existence of an article on the Cantonese Wikipedia weighs at all, it should be in favor of retention, since it shows that an independent community of editors who share
our encyclopedic purpose decided that this was worthy of an article. I would consider that one of various secondary indicia of notability here, along with the existence of a
Baidu article. (3) An awful lot of content from 2007 is nowhere to be found today (or is buried UnGoogleably behind paywalls) (or was never online to begin with), so I don't think our difficult in locating clear-cut RS reviews is likely to indicate
their actual absence. In sum, as there doesn't seem to be any real problem with verifiability or encyclopedicity, and especially as there is at least a prima facie case that the GNG is met, I think the
balance of considerations weighs in favor of retention here. --
Visviva (
talk)
02:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The default here is that we keep things if they meet
WP:GNG and we delete them if they don't, or if someone makes a compelling argument that we ought to keep it. AsianMovieWeb is not a reliable source, as far as I can tell, it is a website published by a one "movie fan" who doesn't want any other authors to contribute (source:
https://www.asianmovieweb.com/en/about.htm). It is normal to discuss if a source is reliable at
WP:AFD.
CT55555(
talk)
02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Lin, Xinruo 林欣若 (2006-09-26). "曾志偉兒子 「鬼計」嚇人" [Eric Tsang's son's "Dead Air" is scary]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. D5.
The article notes: "由陳德森監製、李伯達執導的新片「鬼計」昨天在香港開鏡,參與演出的演員包括曾志偉的兒子曾國祥、尹子維、谷祖琳也參加開鏡儀式,陳德森解釋,雖然片名是「鬼計」,但其實是一部驚悚懸疑片。... 「鬼計」雖然昨天開鏡,其實早已拍攝四天 ... 在「鬼計」裡,曾國祥飾演靈異節目的導演,因為收視跌到谷底,被尹子維飾演的監製譏笑,為了突破收視率,曾國祥找來自殺未遂人士上節目表演各種自殺方法,雖然收視告捷,卻引來更多危機。「鬼計」的劇本很有創意,光是構思自殺方式,就讓編劇想破頭,還得忙著四處蒐集資料。"
From Google Translate: "Produced by
Teddy Chan and directed by Xavier Lee, the new film Dead Air opened shooting in Hong Kong yesterday. The actors involved in the performance include
Eric Tsang's son
Derek Tsang,
Terence Yin, and
Jo Kuk who also participated in the opening ceremony. Teddy Chan explained that although the title of the film is "Dead Air", it is actually a thriller and suspense film. ... Although Dead Air started filming yesterday, it has already been filmed for four days... In Dead Air, Derek Tsang plays the director of a supernatural show. Because the ratings fell to the bottom, he was ridiculed by the producer played by Terence Yin. In order to break through the ratings, Derek Tsang recruited suicide attempters to perform various suicide methods on the show. Although the ratings were successful, it caused more crises. The script of "Dead Air" is very creative. Just thinking about the method of suicide made the screenwriter want to break his head, and he was busy collecting information everywhere."
"曾國祥首次擔正感壓力" [Derek Tsang feels the pressure for the first time]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). 2006-09-27. p. D3.
The article notes: "由陳德森導演的電影《鬼計》昨舉行開鏡拜神儀式,出席演員包括曾國祥、黎耀祥、谷祖琳、黃浩 然、謝雪心及尹子維等,影片將在衛視電影台獨家首播。 曾國祥在片中飾演一名電視台導演,由於這是他首次擔正演出,加上稍後還要拍劉國昌執導的 ..."
From Google Translate: "The film Dead Air directed by Xavier Lee held a shooting worship ceremony yesterday, attended by actors including Zeng Guoxiang, Li Yaoxiang, Gu Zulin, Huang Hao Ran, Xie Xuexin and Yin Ziwei, etc., the film will exclusively premiere on Satellite TV Movie Channel. Zeng Guoxiang played the role of a TV director in the film, because this is his first performance, and he will be filming the film directed by Liu Guochang later."
"曾國祥幫女鬼接生嚇破膽" [Derek Tsang was scared out of his wits when he helped a female ghost deliver her baby]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C1.
The article notes: "另外,唐寧在片中首次扮演大肚女鬼,更要駁長發演出。甚少拍鬼片的她,雖然相信世界上有鬼但卻不會太驚,相信不刻意去想及拜過神便沒問題,而且媽咪也會為她祈禱。幸而故事環繞在電視台發生,不用去偏僻恐怖地方拍攝。而她雖聽過電視台不少怪異事,卻從未遇過怪事。至於拍鬼片經驗較多的谷祖琳,今次乃飾演電視台監製,是女版俞琤,故沒有感情線。"
From Google Translate: "In addition, Tang Ning played the female ghost with a belly for the first time in the film, and she even had to cut her long hair. She seldom makes ghost films, although she believes that there are ghosts in the world, she will not be too shocked. She believes that it will be fine if she does not deliberately think about it and worship God, and her mother will pray for her. Fortunately, the story revolves around the TV station, and there is no need to go to remote and scary places to shoot. And although she has heard many weird things on TV, she has never encountered any strange things. As for Gu Zulin, who has more experience in making ghost films, this time she plays the role of a TV station producer. She is the female version of Yu Teng, so there is no emotional line."
Cheung, Wing-zi 張穎芝 (2006-09-26). "唐寧首次演女鬼恐怖血腥" [Leila Tong's first horror and bloody female ghost role]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). p. D2.
The article notes: "唐寧在戲中飾演大肚女鬼,首次擔演女鬼的她,駁了一頭長發配合角色。 ... 唐寧日前在郊區拍攝被殺後,曾國祥為她接生的一幕戲,場面很恐怖血腥,其餘大部分場景則在電影台內拍攝 ... 首次擔正的曾國祥日前在郊外拍攝,大髀內側慘被蚊狂叮 ..."
From Google Translate: "Tang Ning played the female ghost with a big belly in the play. It was her first time to play the role of a female ghost, and she parted her long hair to match the role. ... A few days ago, Tang Ning filmed the scene where Zeng Guoxiang delivered her baby after she was killed in the suburbs. The scene was horrific and bloody. Most of the other scenes were filmed in the movie station. ... Zeng Guoxiang, who took the lead for the first time, was filming in the suburbs a few days ago, and the inside of his big thigh was bitten by mosquitoes."
"唐寧生仔血淋淋" [Leila Tong gave birth to a bloody baby]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C13.
The article notes: "唐寧、谷祖琳、曾國祥及尹子維等昨日齊到清水灣,參與新片《鬼計》開鏡拜神儀式。唐寧飾演腹 大便便的女鬼,日前還拍攝一場血淋淋的生仔戲份,"
From Google Translate: "Tang Ning, Gu Zulin, Zeng Guoxiang and Yin Ziwei all came to Clear Water Bay yesterday to participate in the opening ceremony of the new film "Dead Air". Tang Ning played the female ghost with a belly poop, and she also filmed a bloody birth scene a few days ago,"
"唐寧拍鬼片阿媽代祈禱" [Leila Tong's acts in ghost film, her mother prays for her]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C12.
The article notes: "飾演女鬼的唐寧透露,該片已拍攝了多天,她謂第一場拍攝的戲份便是由曾國祥替她接生BB"
From Google Translate: "Tang Ning, who played the female ghost for the first time, revealed that the film has been filming for several days. She said that Zeng Guoxiang delivered her baby in the first filming scene BB"
"唐寧媽祈禱保佑女兒拍片平安" [Leila Tong's mother prayed to bless her daughter's filming safety]. am730 (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. M31.
The article notes: "戲中唐寧與曾國祥有一段感情戲,而唐寧更首次要駁長發扮演女鬼,自言甚少拍鬼片的她相信世界上是有鬼的,記者問她是否害怕拍這類型的戲時,她答道:「《鬼計》故事主要描述電視台發生的怪事,我喺電視台就冇遇過鬼怪事,不過聽聞過好多怪異事件,我相信唔刻意去諗,同埋拜過神會無問題嘅,而且媽咪都會幫我祈禱,所以都唔會太驚嘅。 」"
From Google Translate: "In the film, Tang Ning and Zeng Guoxiang had a relationship scene, and Tang Ning even refuted long-haired female ghost for the first time. She said that she seldom made ghost films and believed that there are ghosts in the world. When the reporter asked her if she was afraid of filming this type of scene , she replied: "The story of "Dead Air" mainly describes the strange things that happened on the TV station. I have never encountered ghosts and strange things on the TV station, but I have heard of many strange things. Yes, and Mommy will help me pray, so I won’t be too surprised.”"
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.
This is a how-to guide that seems more appropriate for a project like
Wikiversity. However, how-to guides on home theaters seem like they might be off-topic for that project, too, so I'm bringing it up for discussion to see if there's a better home for this.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
00:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - Notabile topic. Deleting would not serve readers. No opposition to also covering this topic elsewhere. If there are
WP:HOWTO issues with the article, those should be discussed on the article's talk page.
WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~
Kvng (
talk)
16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)reply
You seem to be asserting that this is a marginally notable topic. You did not cite a notability issue in proposing this deletion so I did not address that in my original keep statement. But, here's a
book search that clearly establishes notability IMO.
After reading deletion reason #14 in the very page that you just linked, would you like to retract your statement that I did not include a clear and valid deletion reason? Also, I'll link you to
WP:GOOGLEHITS. Do you have a valid keep rationale, or are you just going to keep going down the list of invalid ones?
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
14:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I think there may be a misunderstanding about the content of this article. Granted, it could do with some improvement, but it is not a how-to guide; it describes how bass management is implemented, often (but by no means always) in A/V receivers. This is about the design of the digital signal processing functions, and (in my opinion) is suitable for Wikipedia. If it would help I can volunteer to try and improve it (but not if it's about to be deleted). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tawny Brown Frowny Owl (
talk •
contribs)
08:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article I created in 2008 before I understood that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL ultimately required compliance with
WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage available; just routine match reports and contract announcements like
this. Article fails
WP:GNG.
Jogurney (
talk)
00:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per article creator who has nominated it for deletion. Checked ProQuest and got 4 hits, including 2 in La Nación but all of them were mentions in match reports (he scored 2 goals in a Libertadores Cup match) or other articles (1 where his name was listed as one of the protegés of Juan Carlos Pírez; another mentioning his departure from Arsenal).
Cielquiparle (
talk)
17:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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.