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

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 19:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat

Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The article Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat is not notable enough to be considered for a WIki article. Although there are events tied to the location, they do not read as significant enough to constitute the necessity for a Wiki page. Secondly, there is not enough information on the notability of the location nor resources to credibly attest to its notoriety. There is also no public coverage on the location to properly deduce its sociocultural impact. The page fails to meet the guidelines as per WP:GNG. There is not enough coverage and the sources used presume its own notoriety.

You provide only three sources within the entire articles. The first does not attest to its notoriety and simply denotes its existence. The second is an inoperable website and does nothing for the site. The third is a dead link and holds no intellectual or thematic value. See WP:PLOT, as Wikipedia is not a website to dump information about places which hold little to no global value.Gongfong2021 ( talk) 22:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - this seems to be a named geographic feature with protected status as a Ramsar Wetland. I found substantial coverage to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article, beyond basic statistics and coordinates (per WP:GEOLAND). Due to the language barrier I'm not comfortable making a definite judgement though. Aranya  (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Aranya  (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Aranya  (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close. I do not believe this was a good-faith AfD nomination. On July 14 the nominator went on a spree of inappropriate deletion tagging, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. pburka ( talk) 21:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per references found by Aranya and my own research. While there are language barriers, it does appear there are sufficient references to meet WP:GNG. Jeepday ( talk) 13:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater ( talk) 10:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Ernest Kabushemeye

Ernest Kabushemeye (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:SIGCOV. Primary notability seems to be his death, rather than his career as a politician. Offline independent sources beyond primary sources are not likely to exist (meaning original research would be required to build an article). 4meter4 ( talk) 22:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He has held national office (Burundi's Minister for Mines and Energy), so he passes WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Presumed notability at NPOL is based on the concept that offline sources would exist for a government official at that level; enough of which to meet WP:BASIC. It's my contention that a Minister of Mines from Burundi, a nation without the infrastructure to produce much independent coverage, is unlikely to have sources beyond government documents which are only accessible if one does original research. In other words, I'm not sure NPOL should countermand the sourcing requirements of GNG in this context given that expanding the article beyond the assassination of the individual is unlikely to ever occur without a researcher doing original research. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• From what I've seen in other politician-related deletion discussions, "presumed notability" is usually interpreted as that the person is notable as long as sources show that the person has held the WP:NPOL-passing position. Passing WP:GNG is then not required anymore. If the officeholder would still have to pass GNG, "presumed notability" would be meaningless, as every person (including a politician) passing GNG is notable. Reliable sources ( The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Libération show up on Google) confirm that Kabushemeye has indeed held a position passing NPOL. - Tristan Surtel ( talk) 19:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Lots of results in a google book search, in. Probably lots of local Burundi news results, but digitization can be tricky for the 90s. He was a party leader and had a cabinet level position, this was a senior politician.-- Chuka Chief _talk 14:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

All of the google books hits are about the assassination. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The assassination is widely covered in contemporary sources and any concerns about WP:ONEEVENT can be allayed by his status as WP:NPOL. Although it is certainly not the major event of the year, his assassination does feature in at least one footnote of a highly reputable secondary source. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 16:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Brigade Piron Perhaps it would be better to move the article to Assassination of Ernest Kabushemeye given that it is what all of these sources are mainly about. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep aside from holding the ministerial position, as party leader of the RPB he was a signatory to the 1995 Burundian Convention of Governance, ample evidence of his prominence within political affairs. He would have been reported on throughout the early 1990s in the Burundian press; assertions that offline sources would not exist for a leading East African politician of that time seem incorrect to me. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - He satisfies NPOL as a government minister, led a political party, and his assassination (mentioned across many sources) heralded a new flare up of political violence in Burundi in 1995 that threatened to derail a coalition government. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Aarupadai

Aarupadai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or significant coverage was found in a WP:BEFORE.

PROD removed with explanation "having enough citations and reviews", but the citations are not reviews, the are film and music database listings, and none were added when PROD was removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Gamebred Fighting Championship

Gamebred Fighting Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Sporting event (MMA) promotion company does not meet WP:NCORP- the event might be notable, but this isn't inherited by the company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 22:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hunter Kelly (disambiguation)

Hunter Kelly (disambiguation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page since Lil Hunter Kelly is not mentioned in America's Got Talent (season 16) and would be referred to as Lil Hunter Kelly (not simply Hunter Kelly) in any case. Pichpich ( talk) 21:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete I removed the invalid entry and added a possibly ambiguous one to see also (Kelly Hunter). Still doesn't add up to needing a dab. Boleyn ( talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect. Daniel ( talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 outbreak at the UEFA Euro 2020

COVID-19 outbreak at the UEFA Euro 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

There was no outbreak at Euro 2020. A few people got COVID, sure, but nothing that should called an outbreak. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I made this in the light of the controversy of the fans crowding teach other. I am not sure if this should be renamed, redirected or stay deleted because there are other cases related to football events? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd ( talk) 21:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close because the article is turned into a redirect by its creator. enjoyer -- talk 10:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - do not procedural close, we need consensus on this to avoid re-creation in the future. The redirect is the right call. Giant Snowman 06:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as there wasn't an outbreak, just a few people testing positive. An article doesn't pass WP:GNG, and redirect is too sensationalist, and therefore misleading. Also, procedural close would be wrong, as the article shouldn't be blanked during an AFD anyway (it's on the AFD template). Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per above, although not accurate, it could be a possible search term, and it's WP:CHEAP. Govvy ( talk) 10:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Where it redirects to, there is nothing about players/staff testing positive for COVID at the tournament. So doesn't seem like a valid redirect to me. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn). Daniel ( talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Alex Millmow

Alex Millmow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

promotional and non-notable Fails WP:PROF and GNG, and certainly fails the much more important NOT ADVERTISING (TimTrent is not the creator--it's an artifact of a self-move from AfC by the obviously coi editor, who would seem an undeclared paid editor for Federation University Australia--I'm checking their other articles).

Two books only, one of which is the thesis--neither are in many libraries. The "frequent commentary" are his own publications, which are too minor for PROF and self-published as far as GNG is concerned.do not amount to notability. The award is a blatantly promotional award from his own university. , DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I concur with the nom. And no, I am not the creating editor. Fails WP:NPROF. Any article containing the word "Notable" tends to fail in my opinion. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 06:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 08:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I see some progress towards WP:NAUTHOR, with two reviews of his books [4] [5]. Still looks a bit light to me, and I agree citations also look light for fall far short of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 20:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I found and added to the article four published reviews of one of his books, seven of another, two more each of two more, and a seven-article journal special issue entirely devoted to the second book. That's significantly more my threshold for this notability criterion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Edits for tone might be necessary, but that's not an AfD matter. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:HEY of David Eppstein. Plenty of reviews now. WP:PROMO issues are much improved over when this was brought to AfD, although sourcing is still weak (apart from the reviews, which are fine). Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 17:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the others above and WP:HEY. Dr. Universe ( talk) 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep I would strike out references relying on "Journal of Economic and Social Policy", as subject was a founder and co-editor ?, but even so seems to have sufficient referencing to pass notability. Aoziwe ( talk) 04:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• I'm withdrawing this my apologies for noy checking adequately. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Bensussen Deutsch & Associates

Bensussen Deutsch & Associates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

WP:ADMASQ. The awards it received do not seem notable. The Seattle Business Magazine article is sponsored by the company itself; the Forbes article is written by a contributor; the Entrepreneur article is written by the company's cofounder. Kleinpecan ( talk) 20:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan ( talk) 20:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete with sources from publications like Chief Marketer, supplychaindigital, Promomarketing Magazine and Advertising Specialty Institute, I find the coverage to be questionable. NCORP Fail. --- Possibly ☎ 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is an advertisement masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to CVS Health. Daniel ( talk) 19:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

CVS Lookbook

CVS Lookbook (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Very limited coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge with CVS Health. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect, no referenced content to merge, stand-alone notability is unclear and unlikely. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - It does not appear to have been a notable product. The one review mentioned in the article currently seems to be the only actual coverage this product received, which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete articles are to have references and this article doesn't have that. Catfurball ( talk) 18:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G3: Blatant hoax (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Ken Souder

Ken Souder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

None of the added sources seem to resolve to real web pages. Not sure if this is nonsense, a hoax, or a real person with fraudulent sources. Citing ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus exists that GNG is the overriding factor when it comes to technical passes of the SNG (and that is disputed here anyways). Daniel ( talk) 19:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Tuğba Babacan

Tuğba Babacan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

A Turkish source search mostly produces user-generated websites and hits about namesakes. The best coverage appears to be a match report in ITV Haber and an article in Birgun but this falls short on WP:GNG. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep BirGün article is enough for her to fit WP:NFOOTBALL as she played in at least one Tier 1 professional football match (she is mentioned in the lineup at the article). Per NFOOTBALL criteria 1 and 2. — Pamphylian ● 💬 12:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Pamfilyalı - where in the article does it mention that she played in a tier 1 international match? The article is about a domestic club game, in a league clearly listed as 'not fully professional' at WP:FPL. There is no mention anywhere of Babacan playing for Turkey in a tier 1 game. If she did, it would certainly give her presumed notability but a reliable source must be cited. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. While there was some agreement on moving the article, there isn't enough consensus here to make that happen. A move discussion can take place on the article's talk page if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

List of largest nebulae

List of largest nebulae (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Deprodded in January 2021 by Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs) without explanation or improvement, 2 hours before it was eligible for deletion. The PRODder, SkyFlubbler ( talk · contribs), was concerned that this list is woefully incomplete to the point of being inaccurate, is based entirely on WP:SYNTH, mixes different size metrics for non-compact objects, and fails WP:LISTN. There are also concerns that it inappropriately lumps together Lyman-alpha blobs and high-velocity clouds with other types that are much smaller. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest galaxies, a similar AfD from 2018. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The largest astronomical objects naturally attract attention on account of their size, whether its absolute or apparent. So, notice that we have lots of similar lists like the List of largest cosmic structures, List of largest stars, List of most massive black holes and many other Lists of superlatives in astronomy. Nebulae such as the Tarantula Nebula are naturally included in this as they are major astronomical objects. The only complication is that there are different kinds of them and so we don't have a single list of nebulae, rather we have several lists of nebulae. The nomination mentions another AfD for the List of largest galaxies. Notice that this did not result in deletion but that the title was redirected to the list of galaxies where similar content is found. That solution won't work in this case and so some more considered approach is needed. The nomination complains at the lack of the improvement but notice that neither the nominator nor the prodder have made any constructive improvement. See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. See also WP:DINC. Andrew🐉( talk) 20:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Being complete is never a requirement for a list to exist. This aids in navigation and gives far more information than a category would. Use the talk page to discuss any changes that need to be done. Dream Focus 21:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment The WP:LEAD currently reads Below is a list of the largest nebulae so far discovered, ordered by size. This list is prone to change because of inconsistencies between studies, their great distances from our stellar neighbourhood, and constant development of technology and engineering. Nebulae's boundaries are also undefined, and is also prone to change. Lastly, scientists are still defining the parameters and defining features of nebulae. Because of all these scientific inconsistencies, this list might be unreliable. That seems to bear out the concerns noted in the nomination. Superlative lists are usually fine, but we need to be able to tell what qualifies to be on the list and how to order the entries. In other words, we need proper WP:LISTCRITERIA and at least a fairly well-defined measure which is applied consistently by WP:Reliable sources. Do we have that here? TompaDompa ( talk) 23:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Move to List of nebulae. The size criterion is inherently unreliable, and not even followed by the list itself. Makes more sense to simply rename it as a list of nebulae, as this is what it is. This also solves the lack of criterion: like list of galaxies, it is explicitly fuzzy. Tercer ( talk) 10:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• As I explained above, List of nebulae already exists as a redirect and the page that it redirects to is a list of lists, not a single page like the list of galaxies. So, it's not the same structure. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I'm aware of that. I'm suggesting removing the current Lists of nebulae. The content there is trivial, it's no loss getting rid of it. Tercer ( talk) 11:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Move to List of nebulae; I would rather have it in there. The thing here is, our data regarding the size of nebulae is still too inconsistent to make an appropriate list. Nebulae can range anywhere from small Bok globules to galaxy-sized Lyman-alpha blobs, and an attempt to make a list would just end up being completely dominated by LAB's, HVC's while leaving out the more famous and prototypical representations of nebulae: planetary nebulae and H II regions. There is also a very large gap between the size of the largest entries and the mid to low entries (SSA22 Protocluster is 200 million light-years while the low entries are in the mere hundreds, and not very many entries between); such gaps are not present in the List of largest stars and List of most massive black holes. I've even got myself on such great lengths of time trying to fill out the latter list to avoid having any massive gaps between the entries the size of Sgr A* to the overmassive beasts at the top.

And finally, the benefit of both the largest stars and most massive black holes list is that we have large-scale surveys and references available dedicated to the determination of their sizes. Such references are not available for galaxies (hence the problem of the list of largest galaxies) and the same is true for the largest nebulae. While I do see the potential of such a list as being a useful navigational tool, and I do agree that incompleteness does not disqualify a list, we must understand that our problem here is inconsistency - no clear consensus on how sizes of nebulae can be defined. Vast majority of the entries, I believe, are products of self-research as well, and I don't think Wikipedia is the one that should declare what should be and what is not.

Moving it to Lists of nebulae instead can solve a few problems; we can just add the nebulae as much as we can without having to worry about what their sizes are. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 12:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Doyle Branch

Doyle Branch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I just don't see how an intermittent stream testified to only on topo maps is notable. We have of late deleted several short German creeks which had better testimony; this one I cannot even see on aerials. Mangoe ( talk) 18:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Doyle Branch is labelled and clearly runs its course on ACME's topo map. 74.83.4.200 ( talk) 04:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Appears on a map" is not a valid keep argument per WP:NGEO. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." The guideline also excludes maps and databases from establishing notability. This leaves the Carter County Place Names source, which really doesn't amount to significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Cambodia national rugby union team. Daniel ( talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Morrison Mong

Morrison Mong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Cambodia is not a High Performance Union so his alleged appearances for Cambodia do not meet the requirements of WP:NRU. His rugby league career was at university level, which falls short of WP:RLN. More importantly, there is no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. According to Daily Mail, he is a close friend of David Warner but this isn't enough to justify an article. My WP:BEFORE search didn't come up with anything else.

The only two links in the article that aren't permanently dead are this and this, neither of which establish notability. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone, my before search revealed nothing of substance. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom, fails WP:NRU with no professional or notable international appearances. Not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:Notability. Simple searches show there is no relevant sourcing to substantiate an article here.-- Canyouhearmenow 12:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to a section for key players in Cambodia national rugby union team. Subject is not notable in own right, but as an international and national team member is a possible search term. Aoziwe ( talk) 05:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Response to Redirect while I think it is fine to add his name as a player at large which would include other players into the Cambodia national rugby union team page, I do think this WP:AFD should play out and the subject page should be deleted per failed WP:Notability guidelines.-- Canyouhearmenow 13:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Scott Andrews (musician)

Scott Andrews (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable musician. PepperBeast (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

*Possible keep - Article needs more sources to justify keeping. Kevin19781 ( talk) 00:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete No WP:SIGCOV from third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete — per rationale by OhNoitsJamie, and pepperbeast I too do not see significant coverage met. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination and above comments. Genuinely just not a notable-enough subject to have an article. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 18:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, lacking significant coverage.-- Eostrix  ( ^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:56, 24 July 2021 (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Maureen Mbondiah

Maureen Mbondiah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Uk businesswoman who seems to be completely unknown in the UK, even though some "articles" in foreign media give a different impression. You get e.g. things like this, a glowing article about her at the occasion of her nomination for the "prestigious" CEO Care Professional Awards. Bizarrely, the existence of this prestigious award is not even mentioned anywhere,at all, but in this article [6]. Which makes the award and the source meaningless. The same goes for things like "EAWA Philanthropist of the year". Fram ( talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Thank you for noticing, however i think we can keep the article, the subject is notable with accomplishments in her field.

As for the award, When i did my research at first it was hard to find the awarding body until I searched online with the full name McAlpine CEO Care Professionals Awards. I came across their website to understand more about the organisation https://mcalpinecare.com/. I then realised that organisation does not do much press coverage, they communicate with their nominees via email who then publicise in the press or as social media announcements.

https://www.facebook.com/AmberSupportServices/posts/we-are-delighted-to-announce-that-we-have-been-moninated-for-the-mcalpine-ceo-ca/2594468220659120/

https://www.sure-grp.co.uk/news/sure-healthcare-wins-mcalpine-ceo-care-professional-award/

https://www.ascotcareagency.co.uk/latest-news/ascot-care-agency-nominated-for-award

Solace Care post ^[1]

Aspire post ^[2]

Apologies for the long links.

According to a statement on their website: The McAlpine Care Professional Awards (MCPA) celebrates excellence throughout the care industry, recognising team efforts across the UK regardless of size or CQC rating. https://mcalpinecare.com/care-awards-2021

Nenerue ( talk) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - not notable at this time WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Kindly take note or consider that the person is also being reconised by other awarding organisations in her field and her biography is also featured on Women Economic Forum which could prove her notability in the field. Am appealing for consideration keeping the article. If there are improvements to be made there can be done.

Nenerue ( talk) 15:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: coverage in The Herald and NewsDay. If she's not notable in the UK, she does seem to have a degree of notability in Zimbabwe. NHCLS ( talk) 13:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per NHCLS, she seems to have received coverage in her country (Zimbabwe).- Xclusivzik ( talk) 19:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm struggling a bit with this one. The Zimbabwe Herald article (which is a report of an interview with her) says "Her name might not ring a bell in some people’s minds, but she has made strides in empowerment circles. Mbondiah is an entrepreneur based in the United Kingdom with interests in fashion, literature and health." If one of the better available secondary sources is apologising that she's not well-known, it may indeed be true that she's not well known. If she hasn't yet done enough to become well known, it's perhaps Too Soon. Meanwhile, I'm not sure what to make of McAlpine care, who gave her an award. According to the care quality commission (cqc) who have oversight over such businesses, they have yet to inspect it, and it's registered as a flat with a mobile phone (though the website gives it a proper phone). According to companies house, it consists of a single employee, and has assets of less than £10,000. I think we have to entertain the possibility that its awards are entirely meaningless; a big website with nothing behind it. The Beffta award nomination, which is only a nomination (best author) is for Mel Mbondiah, not Maureen Mbondiah; are we sure these are the same person? I'm also not sure about the mbcc awards, how meaningful they are? It doesn't seem hard to nominate someone[ [7]], but she is listed as a finalist. I don't know how much extra you have to do, to become a finalist! In her interview in the standard, she claims " I won the Outstanding Business Achievers Awards International 2021 and Outstanding Business Achievers Awards UK 2021" but if I do a Google search for "Outstanding Business Achievers Awards" I get only this interview, and if I do it without the " ", I get ukbizawards, who are still selling tickets to their final awards ceremony for 2021. I'm not sure how much value one can attach to an award one cannot trace. Again, I can't find the "Midlands Business and Community Awards" 2016. I can find only the Midlands Business Awards [ [8]] for which she is not listed as a finalist. I am trying to assume all is well here, and that she's a fine person with good notability, but I'm struggling. Is any of this real, or are we looking at a non-notable businesswoman who runs a probably perfectly decent run-of-the-mill care provider, and has written a motivational book, but who happens to have a big charisma and a rather edgy approach to blowing her own trumpet? Elemimele ( talk) 12:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

forget the book, she was one of 300 contributors. The book's creator is Ruth Cyster-Stuettgen (not Ruth Strutten as in the article); it does in fairness say she's just a contributor, in the article. Her magazine doesn't seem to exist any more, but the orphanage in Zimbabwe has a website. Elemimele ( talk) 13:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for your notes with good observations, I just think there should be a difference between being popular and being prominent or notable rather, her work in her field is notable, how about other sources and recognitions. She also features on Women Ecomomic Forum, thats not a platform for persons who haven't done enough to prove their status.

I noticed in research that each and every field has its own recognition platforms that award for merit, they may not be as popular to us who are not in the field but have weight in meaning in their respective areas.

So I think she has done notable work to put her name on the mark in her field and we shouldn't disregard her notability.

Nenerue ( talk) 07:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not disregarding her notability. I'm just trying to assess it. In the UK she is not running a notable business. It's a middle-of-the-road, perfectly normal, small-scale care-provider, rated by cqc as 'good', but nothing special, nor is it a nation-wide huge organisation. The orphanage in Zimbabwe has no appearances in secondary sources, and its own website says "we plan to house...", implying it might not even be open yet. All the newspaper sources about her are interviews, which means they are primary, not secondary. And I cannot trace any of her awards as actually both meaningful and existing. Some of them look strongly as though they don't exist; usually when people describe awards they've received, they get the name of the award sufficiently right that the award can be found by a Google search. Many of hers cannot. It seems symptomatic of her that she describes herself as "co-author" of the book, when it has almost as many authors as pages - 300. I believe she is genuinely philanthropic and cares, and I hope she succeeds. But I don't see any evidence she's succeeded yet, and I do see a lot of evidence that she is prone to extreme exaggeration about her achievements and status, and is very good at publicity (which is making it very hard to assess her notability). But in the end, it's not a question of what you or I think, it's what the great world of newspapers etc. think; I have yet to see a single secondary source referring to her or her work. Elemimele ( talk) 21:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete — I was “walking” past when I stumbled on this, Let me try and explain my POV which largely aligns with what Fram said in a potion of their nom rationale above. Generally, winning awards do not auto confer notability and even worse when the award is a non notable award. Any body can invent or create award shows, hell even worse here in Africa (here it’s literally a business) and Asia, what I'm saying is just about any person or group of persons can create award shows. Except clearly notable awards and notable categories (“Awards”) do not confer automatic notability as some poorly worded guidelines here might have you believe. I’d give y’all a real life scenario, In Nigeria, it’s pure business, certain people conjure up award shows in their basement, proceed to contact individuals mainly “celebrities” and “entrepreneurs” , and say to them; “we are(insert whatever nonsensical name of the award show or award they just created in their heads) and we notice your good works, thus an award “abc” is available for you if you can pay an amount “xyz” “, Sorry for the wall of text but yeah I’m with Fram on this one. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: This article's references seem like some sort of Publicity Campaign to me, the article titles and style of writing by the journalists feels like its controlled for an agenda to create an image.

I think its too soon. Zvandofarira2 ( talk) 20:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I cleaned this up a little so it could be judged on its own merits, and not for grammar and syntax. However, there's only one real source of media coverage - The Herald. Newsday is a simple announcement of a breakfast she hosted. A Google search doesn't turn up much else. I looked up her businesses, and one is a dead link, and the the other has some grammar and typos which hurts notability. I removed the nominations for awards that she didn't win, so we could focus on the most important ones. She won an award for having a business that earned £500,000, nice but not earth shattering. She's doing good work for women and children, and has overcome hardship, but I'm not seeing enough to keep. Needs more sourcing to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your efforts @TimTempleton, but this is getting really complicated. The BEFTA award was to Mel Mbondiah, not Maureen Mbondiah. Now both have linkedIn profiles, both look very similar, both come from Zimbabwe, and both work around Wolverhampton, one (Mel) is a social worker with a series of solid council roles, the other (Maureen) runs a Dravens healthcare. Mel has written a single-author book that can be found on Amazon, Maureen contributed to the 300-author book. But on the linked-in profiles, Mel claims to have been at EATC private school Zimbabwe" doing A-levels in 2000-2002, while Maureen was at Birmingham City University doing Mental Health Nursing from 1999-2001, which suggests they're not the same person. There are also no other overlaps between the CV sections of their LinkedIn profiles although they overlap in time. Meanwhile, Mel's LinkedIn says she was director of Goshen business solutions in 2012, which according to companies house was founded in 2012 by Maureen, Melody and a couple of others. So I'm guessing Mel might be a relative. Either way, if they're not the same person (and the fact they were listed as two different directors in Companies house suggests strongly they're not), the BEFTA award doesn't apply to Maureen. Also, the Midlands Business and Community Awards 2016 remains unreferenced and (at least by me) untraceable. Elemimele ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

That just reinforces the delete vote. A single somewhat decent source doesn't make a keep. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Elemimele TimTempleton, Fram thank you guys, i think the article should be deleted or incubated in draft space, it is too soon for Wikipedia, i do agree with everyone. Nenerue ( talk) 10:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I agree with Celestina007 that some awards could be pay-for-play type, but at least one of them has its own Wiki page and that is what I always look at. If the award has a Wiki page then we should assume that is legit and notable and based on a few other new coverage, I feel we should keep this one. Peter303x ( talk) 08:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce. Though not unanimous, there was a consensus that notability was not established.

While there are two redirects and a merge, the redirect was in the "I've merged, so now redirect" form, and so are functionally doing the same thing. As such I believe it remains the consensus view, and enables any additional merging thought to be beneficial. Nosebagbear ( talk) 01:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Triforce (Arcade Board)

Triforce (Arcade Board) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable piece of arcade hardware. BEFORE searches do not return anything close to significant coverage. And aside from one source cited in the article, the rest of the links cited are effectively dead/broken. Also Earwig suggests potential copyvio issues as well. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• If kept it should be (arcade board) not (Arcade Board).-- 70.24.249.16 ( talk) 03:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - Has sources with [9], [10], and [11]. Would most certainly need a rewrite if kept. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 14:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce So all the sources in the article currently are unreliable, that's for sure. Oinkers did some nice detective work and found some good sources above, but not substantial enough to build an article out of. Best solution would be to redirect and summarize the hardware somewhere. The best target currently is List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce. An alternative would be a paragraph in the GameCube article since it is based on GameCube architecture. There's a brief mention there currently but until that article gets an overhaul (which it desperately needs), I think the Sega board list is a better target. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 09:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Update: I took the initiative and merged all reliably sourced information to the target I suggested. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 02:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep copyvio is not a reason to delete an article on a notable topic. Sourcing presented here shows notability. Elli ( talk | contribs) 16:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Other than IGN, all the other sources used are unreliable. And of the IGN articles, only one article is explicitly about the arcade board. I'm not seeing how the sourcing demonstrates notability. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 02:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - actually, Copyright violations are a very good reason to delete. However, it is not at all clear from this discussion whether the copyvio is merely suspected, if a few parts of the article are copyvio (these should be removed and revdeleted), if there is a "good" version to revert to, or if the entire article needs to be removed and rewritten using available reliable sources. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce. The brief sources mentioned/added together do not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) We would need way more content to write a dedicated article on the subject. The suggested merge target would be sufficient for housing the little sourceable info. czar 03:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce per TarkusAB. Wario-Man ^talk 11:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Samantha Spackman

Samantha Spackman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG; I have tried Google searches and also searching under Samantha Spackman and Sam Spackman and even Sammy Spackman in an attempt to find significant coverage of this footballer.

Best sources appear to be My Football, Illawarra Mercury and TWG, all of which only address Spackman in passing. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment If the subject was playing in a male league, with multiple appearances for a team in the top national league . . . . but the WP.NG.FOOTBALL . . . . Aoziwe ( talk) 05:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Even male footballers playing in the top national league are required to pass WP:GNG as is clearly stated at the top of WP:NFOOTBALL in the Q&A section; specifically Q1 and Q2. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodie Bain, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alesha Clifford and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronwyn Nutley for examples of W-League footballers with several appearances that were deleted for failing GNG. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Dr. Wonder's Workshop

Dr. Wonder's Workshop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable TV series. I was almost tempted to keep it because it’s an interesting curiosity but it just doesn’t pass notability standards. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. There are no GNG compliant sources and the article is written as an advert. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete My search for references did not find much. At first I though The book "The Story of Dr. Wonder's Workshop" would be a good reference but it is primary source as the author of it and the creator of the show are the same person. No objections to recreation if secondary sources can be found. Jeepday ( talk) 14:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. While there is some consensus to leave this article as a redirect, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus that the singular version is a common enough misspelling to justify a redirect. However, the consensus is pretty evenly split here. So, no prejudice against recreating this as a redirect. If there is disagreement, feel free to take it to RfD to have a proper discussion about whether or not this is a valid redirect. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

List of largest nebula

List of largest nebula (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

A supposed list of nebulas which contains galaxies and protogalaxies, no longer referred to as nebulas. The list seems to have no indication of what it's based on whether it is length, volume or otherwise. It includes listings that have no articles and no references. There may be a valid topic here but with this current page I believe WP:TNT applies as this list is currently not reliably sourced or accurate. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Article already exists at List of largest nebulae. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of largest nebulae I didn't think of an alternate spelling of nebula when I nominated and would support a redirect to that article instead as it is much better laid out and sourced. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 18:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with McMatter, i think we should redirect it to the List of largest nebulae. D Eaketts ( talk) 18:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

That article is now up for deletion itself, interestingly Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:DELREASON#5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). I don't think it qualifies for WP:Speedy deletion per WP:A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) since the title is a plausible redirect (but would also not be opposed to a speedy delete per WP:IAR). Whether or not a redirect to List of largest nebulae should be created depends on the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/List of largest nebulae; I say delete for now and create a redirect afterwards if necessary, but turning this into a redirect that may or may not need to be deleted is also perfectly acceptable. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of largest nebulae. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy redirect to List of largest nebulae as this discussion is confusing the deletion discussion of that article. An admin should just do the redirect and close this discussion. -- Bduke ( talk) 04:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect to List of largest nebulae. Unnecessary duplicate. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just a content fork as described above. Shankargb ( talk) 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Excelse ( talk) 20:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Any list that mixes nebulae with galaxies and protogalaxies must be bonkers. Lack of pluralization is problematic as a redirect. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 19:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Alison Norrington

Alison Norrington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Appears to be a recreation of an article on an author deleted in 2012. She does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. In these cases, sometimes we can redirect/merge to the company that she owns but Storycentral doesn't seem notable enough for an article of its own either. I can't find any significant coverage of any of the five novels that she has released. The best thing I can find in terms of WP:SIGCOV is this article in The Independent, which is a passing mention. Her YouTube career also seems to be non-notable. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of generation III Pokémon#Blaziken. Daniel ( talk) 19:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Blaziken

Blaziken (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Lack of significant coverage we would expect for Pokemon species. The largest chunk of this article, "Appearances", is just listing off the character's appearances. Concept is weakly sourced, Reception is dry. There's no substance here. Key points can be summed up in the species list. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 17:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of generation III Pokémon. Per WP:BEFORE, the subject lacks significant coverage as a fictional character or element, and not in relation to other Pokemon species, period. And if the nominator is suggesting that there is worthwhile material which simply can be better summarized in a list article, then this should never have been sent to AfD and should have been resolved by a merge proposal instead. Haleth ( talk) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of generation III Pokémon#Blaziken per Haleth, no WP:SIGCOV. Link20XX ( talk) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge as a compromise. No WP:SIGCOV but there is a well-organized merge target. Shooterwalker ( talk) 20:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge into the corresponding list of Pokémon. As I have been saying, most of these characters indeed include reliable secondary sources, but the sources do not cover the subjects in a deep way; the Reception section in this case is just a collection of random comments from these sources and other game guides, which are not enough to establish Notability. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 00:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 02:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to said list, stand-alone notability is unclear. Ha, for a moment I thought this is about Blaviken... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per others, non-notable Pokemon, article is fancrufty. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Dimitrije Terzic

Dimitrije Terzic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article has lasted a long time and, although there is some coverage of him, I don't think that it's enough to pass WP:GNG. I found a match report of a game against an English club but I don't think that will get him through GNG or WP:NRU. There was then another article on the same website. Rugby Ozone also mentions him in a match report. A DDG search came up with no other sources that could be used to build a biography. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom, certainly fails WP:NRU with no professional or notable international appearances, and while there is coverage, it's mainly trivial and not enough to pass GNG. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Spiderone, why don't you just {{ prod}} about everyone from Category:Serbian rugby union players? I doubt there's anyone notable there, by listing them here you're wasting everyone's time. All those unsourced substubs were created in 2015 by Terminator2015 ( talk · contribs) in span of an hour, we're going to discuss for days to get rid of them. No such user ( talk) 10:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Actually, I've just did that, save for three that had a credible claim of notability. No such user ( talk)

Yeah, fair enough, they all seem to get relevant hits in Serbian, though, so I was worried about accidentally deleting a potentially notable person was all. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

List of computer peripheral companies

List of computer peripheral companies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Unsourced list of practically nothing, mainly a flag farm. BilCat ( talk) 17:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Unsourced list that does not passing any "notability criteria" and "no practical purpose for the list". Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability states: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). -- Otr500 ( talk) 11:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Looks like a non-notable list, with no incoming links. Jeepday ( talk) 18:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Jethro Tull (band). Daniel ( talk) 19:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

John O'Hara (musician)

John O'Hara (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Unsourced BLP, the Italian version only contains one reference and it is not reliable [12]. Any search only brings up the band not him so I don't believe he merits his own article and fails to meet WP:GNG on his own. At best this should be redirected to Jethro Tull (band). McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Hi. John O’Hara has been a member of Jethro Tull for almost 10 years, touring and recording with the band. Jethro Tull is a world famous band and John already has pages on Wikipedia in Italian, French as well as other languages. I believe he deserves a page just like the other members of the band.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valere24 ( talk • contribs) — Valere24 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What we need to see is that others have taken the time to write about him apart from his group. We don't care what other language projects include or don't, as each has their own inclusion criteria. We also don't accept the " but so and so has an article" argument either as each subject must stand on its own merits. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I don't think this page should be deleted as many Jethro Tull fans and also followers of John O'Hara's work will be interested in the page. He has a worldwide following and is greatly respected in the rock world and classical world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Treetopcow ( talk • contribs) — Treetopcow ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Redirect to Jethro Tull (band) My search for references did not find anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday ( talk) 18:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. Daniel ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean)

Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article declined 5 times in the AFC process, moved by the original author into the main space with an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument bowing out of the AFC process. This does not qualify for a standalone article as it has not received enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. There are 2 references in the article which do help with some notability that may be worth adding some information into the Oasis-class cruise ship article. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Mcmatter: I have tried improving the article many times. I took feedback, added sources, removed blog sources, all what I can to try to get it to be published. It gets dificult when they reject your draft and having to spend time fixing it only for it to be rejected again. If other users would help improve the article, that would be better ass I am only a single person. Please don't delete this article or the Viking Crown Lounge article. Angelgreat ( talk) 16:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Angelgreat: The declines was probably a sign that the subject was not notable enough for it's own stand alone article. Article creation is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia as most newer editors are not familiar enough with the policies of inclusion and sourcing. I don't think anyone could improve this enough to warrant its own article as I found, when I did my WP:BEFORE, there just isn't enough coverage. This isn't a reflection on you or the work you did but the subject itself. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 17:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Mcmatter: Ok then, Could you move the article back to the Draft? Maybe later, it can be merged into the Royal Carribbean or Oasis class articles. Angelgreat ( talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Pupi Poisson

Pupi Poisson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Poisson fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about her. The Screen Rant source is three lines long. Being on several reality shows doesn't make her notable either. Dougal18 ( talk) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" With 5 keeps there's no point keeping this open for another 6 days. BTW can the last edit be revdelled? I don't want my IP visible.-- Dougal18 ( talk) 16:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• • Comment I took care of the rev-del. I'm arguably involved as I !voted below, but this seemed a no brainer Star Mississippi 17:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Thank you.-- Dougal18 ( talk) 11:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There's an in-depth biographical article in El Espanol here; another biographical article on 20 Minutos here; and Ecoteuve here. Those are just the sources that focus solely on the subject, but there's more out there in relation to her appearance on RPDR reviews. All available sourcing should be reviewed when nominating an article for deletion, not just the sources on the page. This article should be expanded, not deleted. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Did you even try finding more sources? If so, you'd see the subject has appeared on multiple television series, released an album + multiple singles, and been featured on singles released by other artists. Plus there's Spanish-language sourcing to consider as well. We should expand the Career and Personal life sections further, not delete the entry. I'd welcome Spanish speakers to assist with finding additional coverage. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 17:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment She fails WP:ENT and WP:SINGER. But let's ignore that just because some people wrote articles on her non notable TV appearances. Dougal18 ( talk) 09:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Reply yep, around here we call that GNG. Star Mississippi 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Reply You mean the routine coverage any competitor gets from being on the show? Dougal18 ( talk) 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Yep, if you find others have the same in-depth profiles of their careers to date and other work, you're welcome to create articles on them too. Most of these sources are far beyond routine Star Mississippi 15:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn. I'll try and avoid sending articles to AfD of people who's only vague claim to notability is being a Drag Race contestant. I will take into consideration media appearances that would result a "delete" should the article have been created prior to being in Drag Race. I will take into consideration that having several non notable "careers" can make someone notable because there is a few articles written about said "careers" due to their latest appearance on reality TV. Shantay stay.-- Dougal18 ( talk) 16:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I don't think the sarcasm is particularly helpful or constructive. If you want to withdraw this nomination, you can follow those steps listed at WP:WDAFD. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep have expanded it with some of the articles mentioned by Kbabej and another I found. I cannot access this one but do read Spanish and am happy to help if someone can access it. Star Mississippi 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Agree with the other users on here. I found, apart from the articles I added to this post, mentions in one in El Comercio (Spanish-language source), one page on Tidal, this, or an article in La Vanguardia, to name a few. Clearly, the OP did not even try and find additional sources for Pupi, but went to the extreme option of nominating the page for deletion without a second thought. It is unfortunate to see. Historyday01 ( talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Subject is meeting WP:GNG, as per GNG keep. Bapinghosh ( talk) 13:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Subject meets GNG as of current edit. Naraht ( talk) 00:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. Daniel ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Viking Crown Lounge

Viking Crown Lounge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article about a feature on a cruise ship that doesn't meet WP:GNG and has so flagged since 2016 and flagged for lack of sources since 2006. The only source I could find which discusses this is [13] this is not enough for a stand alone article. I'm not even sure if this would be worth redirecting to Royal Caribbean International. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Mcmatter: Ok then, Could you move the article back to the Draft? Maybe later, it can be merged into the Royal Carribbean or Oasis class articles. Angelgreat ( talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 19:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The Clockwork Cabaret

The Clockwork Cabaret (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources currently referenced are all WP:INTERVIEW content, which are generally considered primary sources and don't contribute to notability. Most of them also appear to be WP:BLOGS and would not meet the requiremwnt that the sources should be WP:RELIABLE. Searching on google, google news, and google books yields no independent and reliable secondary sources with more than a trivial mention of the show. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. If desired, a proper merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Wooloo

Wooloo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Nominating this for deletion for the same reasons I nominated Drifloon, but essentially to sum it up, lack of significant coverage. The same coverage can be aquired for most of the other 800+ pokemon:

• Characteristics: This reads like a Pokedex entry. All fictional in-universe information. Can be acquired for any pokemon character.
• Appearances: Just a list of appearances in games and the anime. Again, this could be done for any Pokemon character.
• Reception: Dry surface level commentary that is fluffed up to seem like significant coverage, but it does not arrive at any meaningful conclusions. Same comments about Wooloo being cute over ...and over ...and over ...and over ...and over. There have been so many articles written about Pokemon over the years, that you could generate the same level of commentary for most species.

I'm seeing a lack of significant coverage ( WP:SIGCOV). TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 15:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. This nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on WP:GNG grounds. It is primarily concerned with article content, an editorial concern, as opposed to a proper discernment on whether suitable sources exist. Highlighting that there are 800+ other species or judging their subjective importance within a series is irrelevant, and demanding that a higher bar should be set just for Pokémon material is simply an other stuff exists or WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Why should articles about Pokémon species be scrutinized any differently from all other articles about fictional characters or elements, when they are all covered by WP:GNG and there is no special WP:SNG specifically dedicated to Pokémon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokémon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? The only consideration for editors to consider would be, either the subject have WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources or they don't, according to their own interpretation, and that is not hard to establish because the vast, vast majority of Pokémon do not get article-length coverage from a real world perspective anyway. A cursory look at available sourcing, both cited or uncited in this article per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, indicate there is sufficient coverage specifically about the character, and the article does not revolve around in-universe cruft or original research.

Several sources like Polygon reported a series-wide comparison of the character's popularity or significance to species from other generations like this article which is not cited in the article, not just its contemporaries, so the nominator's assertion that there is no credible claim of significance and that it is the "same coverage" for the other 800+ Pokémon is incorrect. A few more from Dot Esports, and US Gamer, suggests that there are more reliable sources out there who have taken notice of the character and that it is certainly not non-notable as represented by the nominator. According to the cited sources, the character somehow spawned a meme, and even PETA decided to get involved, so there is the real world relevance/notability for editors who believe that a topic should be "important to the world" somehow. Not liking the volume of coverage or dismissing critical commentary by professional journalists as vapid is not a valid guideline or policy consideration for deletion. Haleth ( talk) 18:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• The nom cites "a lack of significant coverage". There's nothing "malformed" about it. czar 03:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• But the nom did not provide a source analysis by explaining why the cited sources or that the potential sources per WP:BEFORE were not suitable, only that "the same coverage can be aquired for most of the other 800+ pokemon" which is objectively untrue. The nomination mainly focused on the quality of the written content, which is inconsistent with the guideline provided by WP:ARTN. The notability guidelines does not indicate that notability of a topic can only be demonstrated by high quality, academically-vetted sources, only that it is reliable and independent/unaffiliated with the subject. This is not a BLP which by nature demands a higher standard of sourcing, and most of the sources do not seem to be promotional by nature in any way. If this was a merge proposal, I may be inclined to vote in favour for a merge, but I don't see any issues with the available sourcing which warrant deletion or that the topic lacks potential. Haleth ( talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• The nom isn't obligated to perform a source analysis, just as most of the !votes here haven't either. You're welcome to disagree with the nom, but as long as it has a reasonable deletion rationale, it isn't "malformed". czar 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Correct, AfD nominators are not obligated to do a WP:BEFORE. Nominators who only leave a vague statement that the topic lacks WP:SIGCOV should not be surprised then if they receive criticism that the nomination is overly focused on article content at the time of the nomination as opposed to a proper critique of potential sourcing per the WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN aspects of the WP:GNG guideline, which is in line with Wikipedia's deletion policy. The onus goes both ways, the nominator should articulate why an article on a given topic should be deleted, and should not be entitled to a free pass just because they agitated over a content issue they claim is insurmountable. Anyone who oppose the deletion rationale should state their case, or at least defer to someone who does. Haleth ( talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Haleth. The controversy surrounding PETA combined with the coverage of the meme give it enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Link20XX ( talk) 18:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge into List of generation VIII Pokémon: even with reliable sources cited in the Reception section, they do not deeply cover the subject; the section is just a collection of random mentions, written in a fashion that gives an initial impression of Notability. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 00:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge into List of generation VIII Pokémon: The PETA controversy is insufficient to establish notability; when was the last time PETA was taken seriously about anything? The rest of the reception section does not demonstrate enduring notability aside from a small cluster of coverage upon its reveal. They are largely clickbait-type articles, and merely state an opinion on its appearance. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • "When was the last time PETA was taken seriously about anything?" is not a valid argument for deletion for reasons that should be obvious. "The reception section does not demonstrate enduring notability" is not a valid argument for deletion, as notability is not based on the current quality of the article, it is based on whether reliable sources exist (and Haleth has demonstrated that they do). "They are largely clickbait-type articles" is not a valid reason for deletion; thinking that the coverage is vapid doesn't change the fact that it's significant coverage from a reliable source. Mlb96 ( talk) 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The lack of mentions outside of its announcement is absolutely an indicator that it's non-notable, per WP:SUSTAINED. And let's face it, people aren't constantly writing articles about Wooloo, it was just the meme of the day.

Vapid content is also not significant coverage. That has been established many, many times in AfD, although some people seem to not realize that people use the fact that a source is reliable to justify keeping regardless of how vapid the article content is. Simply because a mention in a reliable source exists does not guarantee it is suitable to use. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 07:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Except WP:SIGCOV is not concerned with whether the coverage is culturally important or vapid as that is a subjective judgment, but whether coverage of the subject consists entirely of mentions in passing out of a list of other Pokemon within some of the cited sources. "Lack of mentions outside of its announcement" is not true as I am still seeing recent hits on Google, even if they are only mentions as you said so yourself. I can understand concerns that there is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage, but unless we know for certain that there is a complete dearth of all trivial or non-trivial coverage about the topic going forward, I don't think that argument holds water. Either a topic entirely consists of an aggregate of mere passing mentions, or it isn't. As far as I know, there is no guideline that actually exists and vetted by consensus within numerous AfD's as you have claimed, which specifically defines what "vapid content" exactly is or legitimizes under what condition is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a legitimate rationale for deletion. What Wikipedia does prohibit is original research, and I don't see any on the article. I do however, see claims of significance about Wooloo being a "breakout" character among the new Pokemon introduced in the most recent main series game, here and here. Haleth ( talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the sources mentioned by Haleth. Mlb96 ( talk) 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep with the PETA controversy, Twilight Wings, and the sources provided by Haleth; this definitly meets WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 13:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - Bulk of the reception content consists of trivial mentions. Much like the bulk of these recent nominations, it looks well-referenced at a glance, but shows itself to be nothing but fluff when looking at the sources. TTN ( talk) 22:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The sources Haleth mentioned are good and notable enough, and the sources do indicate a significant amount of coverage surrounding this Pokémon, especially compared to a few others that have a page as well (*cough, cough* Drifloon *cough, cough*). This really seems to be a big case of WP:OSE or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I'm not just saying this as a fan of the franchise. Compared to other articles I've edited/worked on recently, even ones that have already been deleted, this is better sourced and some of the arguments for deletion don't entirely seem valid. ChessPiece21 ( talk) 13:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of generation VIII Pokémon#Wooloo. This is the same situation as Klefki—the article is jam-packed with vapid sources to the point that it's painful to review. Why are we citing listicle-style brief mentions sources like [14] [15] [16] [17] as the basis for an encyclopedia article? The fact that fans have produced fan art and memes about a Pokemon they deem cute is barely worth citing in the parent list article, nevertheless being the basis for the character's independent notability. With what overabundance of sourcing are we going to write an entire encyclopedia article that does justice to this topic? I was expecting a bunch of sources on PETA per the above discussion but even that is a manufactured controversy with no substance to cite. What are the WP:THREE for this article? It would be a generous stretch to say that any of these sources provide meaningful coverage of real-world perspective on the fictional subject. Same goes for the Polygon, Dot Esports, and USgamer sources cited above. Each provides no basis for speaking to the importance of the character. Polygon's points have already been made by the listicles. Dot Esports is a soft news story in which Wooloo is trivia. USgamer recites basic plot details from an animated short—it is in no way significant coverage, as the nom originally stated. All we have is trivia. I'd expect those reviewing these articles to have a keener eye for that kind of low quality coverage. Nothing worth merging that isn't already said in the list article. czar 03:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• In response to your comment about the lack of coverage on PETA, I can see as examples, three more websites which did not seem objectionable as sources at first glance: one in English, one in German and one in Mandarin Chinese which also weighed in on the PETA issue, but you are of course entitled to your opinion about the coverage being trivial, even though the cited non-listicle sources on the article which does specifically discuss the subject were not addressed. Looking at the page curation log, the NPP editors who did review the article left notability tags, but did not redirect the article back to the list or take it to AfD, so perhaps the issue with notability isn't as insurmountable as you are suggesting. Haleth ( talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• None of those three PETA sources are substantive either. This is content of a failed, minor viral marketing campaign written by a breathless games press, not an indication of a tangential character's independent notability. Surely you can see that after these recent noms, right? NPP is doing a minimal assessment of the topic—it isn't their responsibility to adjudicate on the quality or depth of the sources. czar 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I am not saying it's their responsibility, I am saying that it is within their discretion to do so as part of the role, and indeed, there are countless instances where NPP editors have not hesitated to boldly redirect articles they deem unsatisfactory, or send it to AfD, and surely that would reflect their judgment of the sourcing. PETA is not endorsed by or affiliated with Pokemon's IP owners, and therefore this is not a viral marketing campaign which is promotional in relation to the character, but a publicity stunt since PETA clearly wanted to co opt the character's surge in popularity following the release of the game it debuted in. As someone who does not follow the series and never heard of the character until this AfD, an overview of the non-listicle sources clearly paint a picture that this particular character has achieved some significance to stand out among others: whether there should be a standalone article is another matter entirely. And I don't see how any of the other recent AfD noms involving Pokemon is relevant to this discussion, because not every one had the same outcome, and isn't that just a WP:OSE argument? Haleth ( talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or delete per TTN and Czar. It's irresponsible to go on a wikilawyering rant about how the nom doesn't understand policy while offering such inadequate sources as evidence that the article should be kept. Avilich ( talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Per another editor who very recently warned you on your talk page, you are supposed to comment on content or the editing rationale, not make personal attacks on other editors or label them "irresponsible". If you have nothing constructive to add to what TTN and Czar has to say, perhaps your "vote" should be discarded by the closer. Haleth ( talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Take from the article this source for instance. Basically relates some player's experience in grinding and beating the game with the creature in question. Even if you think "it's possible to beat the game with Wooloo" is encyclopedia-worthy, that's just a single sentence that can fit into a list. Then there's those you posted just above, which are little more than a listing of angry tweets in reaction to an activist group's take on the subject. Fleeting, unencyclopedic, and failing in the basic requirement of significant commentary in reliable secondary sources. Avilich ( talk) 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• The salient point I took from reading that article, as someone who is not interested in Pokemon in the slightest, is that a person interviewed by the article stated the case that the character has become "a sort of pseudo-mascot for the game, with a lot of fan art for Sword and Shield featuring Wooloo", not how to beat the game with just Wooloo. Is it enough by itself to demonstrate notability? Of course not. But there are other sources, cited or otherwise, which do not cover Wooloo as part of a list or in mere passing mentions, and are considered reliable sources independent from the Pokemon IP owners, to consider. And the sources are clear that the character's surge in popularity drew attention from PETA, when the organization could have picked any other Pokemon character for their stunt. That said, at the end of the day, you are still entitled to your opinion. Haleth ( talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The coverage of the PETA controversy and the meme is enough for notability, standing out from many other Pokemon articles. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge at the very least - Personally I think this article is way too long and detailed to be outright deleted. Looking at the List of gen VIII pokemon though I lean more towards keep than merge bc it wouldn't fit into the table format, there's too much information to merge it there. I agree that some sections could be cleaned up but I don't understand why this went straight to deletion rather than cleaning it up. If it Going through the GNG: 1) significant coverage - the Wooloo has been individually covered in a number of articles cited therefore not trivial mentions, 2) reliable, secondary, and independent sources - some of the sources come from independent news orgs that cover games. Additionally the people arguing that the PETA stunt is insignificant should consider the fact that some PETA stunts related to pokemon have their own page PETA satirical browser games. I will admit though my opinion may be biased bc I'm quite fond of the Wooloo due to one meme that the article doesn't mention that plays on the similarity between the word "Wooloo" and the acronym WLW sometimes pronounced "Wooloowoo" (see the end of this article) Contrawwftw ( talk) 04:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of generation IV Pokémon#Drifloon. Daniel ( talk) 19:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Drifloon

Drifloon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Considering the fact that there are over 800 Pokemon species (!!!), there's a reason we set the bar high to give one a dedicated article. When reading this, I ask myself "What makes Drifloon so much more important than the other 800+ Pokemon that it needs its own article?" Let's take a look:

• Characteristics: This reads like a Pokedex entry. I get that it's sourced to an RS, but it's ultimately all fictional information pulled from the games anyways. This can be done for any Pokemon character.
• Appearances: Just a list of appearances in games and the anime. Again, this could be done for any Pokemon character.
• Reception: Dry surface level commentary that is fluffed up to seem like significant coverage, but it does not arrive at any meaningful conclusions. This section is full of excessive quotes of journalists finding creative ways to describe how creepy Drifloon is over and over. Most of the sources are "top 10 scary Pokemon"-like lists and not specific to Drifloon. There have been so many articles written about Pokemon over the years, that you could generate the same level of commentary for most species.

So answering my original question above, I came to the conclusion that no, there is nothing significant about this Pokemon such that it needs its own article. I'm seeing a lack of significant coverage ( WP:SIGCOV). TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon after a cursory look at available sourcing per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, as there appears to be insufficient dedicated coverage about the character. However, the nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on WP:GNG grounds, and it is primarily concerned with article content, an editorial concern, as opposed to a proper discernment on whether suitable sources exist. Highlighting that there are 800+ other species and demanding that a higher bar should be set is irrelevant and simply an other stuff exists or WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. So what? Why should articles about Pokemon species be scrutinized any differently from all other articles about fictional characters or elements, when they are all covered by WP:GNG and there is no special WP:SNG specifically dedicated to Pokemon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokemon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? And no, the so-called Pokemon test does not count and it was never a vetted and accepted guideline to begin with. The only consideration for editors to consider would be, either the subject have WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources or they don't, according to their own interpretation. Haleth ( talk) 18:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon#Drifloon per Haleth, all of the sources except this one are all listicles or about something else entirely and give it just a passing mention. Link20XX ( talk) 18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Link20XX. The sources are mostly WP:PASSINGMENTIONs and not enough to represent WP:SIGCOV for this topic. A merge is a decent compromise considering the existence of a larger list. Shooterwalker ( talk) 20:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge into the corresponding list. The Appearances section proves that even within the Pokémon franchise this character is not relevant, and the Reception section is written in such a fashion that gives an initial impression of Notability, but it is just a collection of mentions from reliable sources but that do not deeply cover the subject. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 00:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge Per others, the article is largely fancruft on a minor Pokemon. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 03:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 08:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Thomas S. Nolan

Thomas S. Nolan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or the political guidelines. FiddleheadLady ( talk) 13:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Can't find any coverage in RS. NickCT ( talk) 13:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - After reading WP:NPOL; I guess this guy does meet the "state-wide" criteria for presumed notability. Frankly, that criteria seems a little nutty to me as there are probably thousands and thousands of state delegates about whom little is known and about whom few care to know. But the rule seems clear.... NickCT ( talk) 20:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Plenty of google book results. He was elected to state assembly ( "Thomas+S.+Nolan"+state+assembly), so passes NPOL.-- Chuka Chief _talk 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:NPOL as a state assembly member. Mccapra ( talk) 15:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Member of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Passes WP:NPOL. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep – members of state-level legislatures are presumed notable under WP:NPOL. (There's also plenty of coverage available via Newspapers.com: it might be enough for a GNG pass as well.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep state legislators are notable. Thank You- RFD ( talk) 20:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: WP:NPOL. Curbon7 ( talk) 11:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Yes, the article needs some improvement — but people who have verifiably served as state legislators are inherently notable under WP:NPOL #1 even if the current state of the article is inadequate, because they are always improvable. A person who served 100 years ago is not going to Google well, so his sources will have to be retrieved from newspaper archiving databases, but that's why we have an WP:NEXIST rule. Bearcat ( talk) 16:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Ayyavazhi (film)

Ayyavazhi (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF, deproded without addressing concerns BOVINEBOY 2008 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Can't find any coverage in RS. NickCT ( talk) 13:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Major mainstream film with top name stars, most of whom have Wikipedia entries. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, User:Roman Spinner, notability is not inherited, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen that you were directed to also read WP:NINI and WP:GNG in another AfD, but appears you have not. Films must be judged based on their own merit. Who appears in them, who directs them, and whether or not there are Wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia for those actors/crewmembers, or an article on the film on another language's Wikipedia are all arguments that have no merit in a deletion discussion. Therefore, unless you can provide reviews to this film, or other coverage on the film that passes WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

If it is indeed a major mainstream film then where is the significant coverage and where are the multiple reviews that one would expect? Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 ( talk) 18:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Height 611 UFO incident

Height 611 UFO incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Only sources in the article are the same ones that were there 8 years ago. One is a Discovery, Inc. 1996 TV show and the other is a self-published book. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The claims of a glowing object depositing metal of supposedly mysterious origin are limited to decidedly WP:SENSATIONAL stories in the Russian press and WP:FRINGE writings by a UFOlogist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Sourcing looks v. weak. NickCT ( talk) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete The sourcing dug up in the first round still doesn't look sufficient: Some of it's not RS, and the rest just isn't enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Here's an excerpt from ISBN  5-17-041429-3, containing an account of events without needless sensationalism. If you dig around for more Russian sources, they are there to be found. The event is no Roswell incident, but has plenty of coverage and is thus notable on just those grounds alone. This doesn't mean the UFO claims should be taken at face value, of course.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); July 21, 2021; 14:43 (UTC)

ISBN 5-17-041429-3 directs to this book (the one with the dramatic flying saucer illustration on the cover), entitled "Secrets of UFOs and Aliens" by the author Михаил Борисович Герштейн (Gershtein Mikhail Borisovich), which does not appear to be "an account of events without needless sensationalism", but rather a sensational book by a Russian ufologist. "Litmir.me" appears to be a website that provides an online library of some sort that is simply hosting pages from the book. It's not a WP:FRIND source. I’ll not bludgeon the discussion further, however I urge reviewers to make use of Google translate to evaluate additional Russian sources presented. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I cannot judge the book as a whole as I have not read it in its entirety (unlike you, I can't read that fast). However, in the section that pertains to the incident (which I did read) I see nothing "sensationalist". It combines the accounts of people who saw the events, lists the findings, and draws no conclusions of the "UFOs must be real" variety (which would be a red flag for me personally). As for the Litmir link, I provided it merely for ease of review. The actual source will be the book itself, not the website. The author is a ufologist, yes, but that does not automatically invalidate every single thing he has to say. I also do not suggest using this book as the only source, but it can and should be a good starting point for further sourcing.

If that book is too much for you, there is plenty of neutral, objective press coverage that can be found (but of course there's plenty of sensationalist fluff to weed out too). This article, fairly recently published on Takiye Dela, is just one example. Whatever your views are on the incident itself (and as someone who lived there when the incident took place, I think it's a bunch of BS), there's no denying it is notable, of only in a way conspiracy theories and hoaxes can be notable.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); July 21, 2021; 15:57 (UTC)

If the author is taking the claims of UFOlogists seriously (which seems likely, as the author is a UFOlogist), then the author is necessarily an unreliable source, unless and until such time as their beliefs about aliens visiting us are proven accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Evaluating those claims is his job, is it not? One can bill oneself a "ufologist", yet still be capable of considering the claims on their merits (one would hope someone is doing that?). Anyway, like I said, the text I linked to merely lists the facts and presents possible explanations by others (including government officials and researchers). The actual conclusions are left to readers, which is, really, the best one can do in such a situation. The subject matter itself naturally means the sources will be of a... certain variety (many of the sources used in the Roswell incident article, for example, could be dismissed on exactly the same grounds). What would be your ideal source, one that you'd see and can tell right there, "that's it; it works"? I could be wrong, but I feel much of the rationale for deletion here is that the subject matter is one that naturally arouses suspicion, its notability is mainly outside of the Anglosphere, and the sources are mainly in Russian (with so many of them being pure junk). None of that can be helped, but it doesn't make the topic any less worthy of inclusion. An incident that people are returning to over and over, which has not been conclusively confirmed or debunked, is absolutely a part of "all human knowledge", if not one that's vital. We should cover it the best we can.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); July 21, 2021; 16:45 (UTC)

• Delete - No good sources for anything worthwhile. The book by a Russian UFOlogist suggested above does not change that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  ...and may I know your opinion on the other source? Trying to figure out here what kind of sources people are looking for. It's a bit hard to satisfy sourcing expectations without knowing what they are.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); July 21, 2021; 17:20 (UTC)

  The necessary information is covered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  I guess that by "the other source", you mean the "Takiye Dela" thing. I have no idea what it says and what its reliability is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, for two reasons. One, it's supposedly a famous Russian case, yet no stand-alone article on the Russian-language Wikipedia (see why below). Two: See the quotes below.

Continuing, I came into this with an open mind, but if the Ru Wiki doesn't feel it deserves a stand-alone article, then neither should we. 5Q5| ^✉ 11:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

For anyone interested, the on-location 7-min Nov 6, 1994 segment ( IMDb) on Sightings was recently uploaded to YouTube by a UFO group here as part of a longer compilation of Russian cases shown on the series. It's the first clip on the video. As expected, no skeptical explanations offered except for a policeman witness who described it as a traveling "fire balloon" in quick voiceover translation, which means he could have said "balloon on fire." 5Q5| ^✉ 10:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment @ 5Q5: I changed the formatting of your comment because we suspect that it is screwing with AnomieBOT's DeletionSortingCleaner task. See User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 12#AfD erroneously archived on delsort pages for more details. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment This discussion was erroneously moved to archives on the delsort pages. This has been undone. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Comment AnomieBOT ( talk · contribs) erroneously archived this AfD on the delsort pages shortly after it was listed. I just reverted this a second time. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Bikini Pirates

Bikini Pirates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 12:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Non-notable film. No apparent coverage in RS. NickCT ( talk) 14:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady ( talk) 14:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Fred Olen Ray is a cult filmmaker with well over 50 films listed in Wikipedia. (See Template:Fred_Olen_Ray). No need to single out this title for deletion. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, User:Roman Spinner, notability is not inherited, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen that you were directed to also read WP:NINI and WP:GNG in another AfD, but appears you have not. Films must be judged based on their own merit. Who appears in them, who directs them, and whether or not there are Wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia for those actors/crewmembers, or an article on the film on another language's Wikipedia are all arguments that have no merit in a deletion discussion. Therefore, unless you can provide reviews to this film, or other coverage on the film that passes WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 ( talk) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply