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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. It appears as though multiple editors have a different assessment of the article than I do. I'll withdraw this. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath ^talk 03:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ TarnishedPath: your AfD. As you wish then. Elinruby ( talk) 07:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2021 Canadian church burnings

2021 Canadian church burnings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a hot mess of original research seeking to lump together the arsons of a group of churches to particular prior events on the basis of speculation only. Of the church arsons listed in the article no motive is cited to reliable sources. WP:TNT is required at the very least. TarnishedPath ^talk 02:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Religion, Christianity, Canada, United States of America, Colorado, and North America. TarnishedPath ^talk 02:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep: A CBC News investigation three years after the fact should be enough to evidence the notability of this subject. See coverage in the BBC, Guardian (and again), and New York Times. It was so notable, Trudeau had to make a statement about it. TarnishedPath, retract this AfD. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep I am unable to see how this nomination represents a competent, good faith appraisal of the reliable sources. Existing references 1, 2, 6, 20, and 25 are to CTV, CBC, BBC, and two different CBC stories, respectively, which specifically connect the arsons to the mass graves allegations. The article's language documents speculation as speculation, attributes statements, and overall shows nothing remotely requiring TNT. Jclemens ( talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And what do the sources tell us pray tell. There were some fires at the end of June 2012. Some were man-made and some were not. Some of the man made fires were arsons, and some were not. An unknown number of those arsons may or may not have been set by indigenous people upset about Kamloops. Plenty of that going on at the time, but there was a lot else to be upset about as well, including the complete breakdown of all provincial infrastructure that followed just afterwards. Possibly somebody lost their mind and committed arson, though I doubt it, but let's say. The the problem is that it's three years out and we still don't have an example of that. Meanwhile this list of wildfires in late June 2021 either needs to be part of a category of articles or else expanded, if we keep it. I see no reason to keep it given that the information is at already BC Wildfire, which might even waive copyright if asked nicely. There also exists a list of some fires at the beginning of June 2021, I have no doubt, as well as any particular timeframe that you care to name in the last few years probably. None of these individual events is noteworthy without the Grand Theory of Everything here that does not have any sources for the logic. Elinruby ( talk) 07:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I reopened this. If this needs to be a 2nd Afd or I in some other way did the template stuff wrong, which I suspect I did, please help me to do it right. In the meantime a speedy keep within a day based solely on the outrage of the author seems questionable to me. Could somebody please explain tome how that is any kind of discussion? Elinruby ( talk) 07:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Manyiel Wugol

Manyiel Wugol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Basketball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Australia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG: The only potentially reliable source, the Herald sun article, does not mention his name. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no significant independent coverage. Astaire ( talk) 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Do not delete

I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below

https://pickandroll.com.au/p/bigger-than-basketball-manyiel-wugols

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8102113/sudanese-refugee-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/unstoppable-african-australian-athletes-smashing-through-the-barriers/97b7l6fjq

https://thewest.com.au/sport/basketball/sudanese-refugee-manyiel-wugol-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia-after-death-of-close-friend-alier-riak-c-9888802 SportsFanatic220 ( talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for a review of newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Terry Long (white supremacist)

Terry Long (white supremacist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. LibStar ( talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Agree that he doesn't pass NPOL or NBIO, but does clear WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in Atkins, Kinsella, Bartley, Sherren, and Perry and Scrivens, plus newspaper coverage. His notability seems to go beyond a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails notability and RS guidelines. Go4thProsper ( talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile ( talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b ( talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew ( talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The article is a mess. I believe the subject is probably notable, but I could make a case for good old TNT without prejudice towards recreation. Carrite ( talk) 04:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  There's no point in TNTing a stub. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 06:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review sources brought up in this discussion along with any in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jon Kiper

Jon Kiper (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Food and drink, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete or draftify: Article reads like an advert, and subject doesn't look notable enough. — Mjks28 ( talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• I submitted a multitude of changes to the article today--cleaned up the sources, added missing information, changed the voice, and eliminated some information. Hope that helps. RainbowPanda420 ( talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your effort, but the new sources you added seem to be more WP:ROTM coverage from local outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 06:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps if someone wrote a book and mentioned in it that he deserved a Wikipedia article, he might get on the front page. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Royal Autumn Crest: Really? That's your rebuttal? Do you have any actual reason why Kiper's page should not be deleted? BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 00:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ BottleOfChocolateMilk: I just gave you one, the article I mentioned has nothing but ROTM and incidental references, and yet nobody's nominating that for deletion. Kiper is running for governor of an American state and is being included in debates and other events with the other candidates. Given your incivil tone, I honestly think that your nomination has some kind of ulterior purpose. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Royal Autumn Crest: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're right, I must have an ulterior motive for deleting this random dude's Wikipedia page. And all the other editors who are agreeing with me and voting to delete? I must have paid them to further my nefarious agenda... BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk)

@ BottleOfChocolateMilk: A "random dude" who has spoken at numerous events and been in polls along the other candidates he's running against who do have articles. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Royal Autumn Crest: Being included in a poll and speaking at events does not prove notability. That's to be expected of just about any candidate in an election. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and political candidates. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ BottleOfChocolateMilk: Luckily, that's just your opinion and not what is actually expressed regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines you referenced. Then again, I would expect you to know that if you weren't so busy engaging in personal attacks against the opinions of others.

• Keep: User @ BottleOfChocolateMilk should note that the "Granite State Poll" result they removed from 2024 New Hampshire Gubernatorial is currently included on the articles for the same gubernatorial race in 2022 and 2020. In this poll, Kiper was included and received 16%---more than candidate Volinsky received in the same poll in 2020.

Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @ BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)

From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiple journalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)

In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not--- Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.

Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.

Kiper article satisfies the criteria for notability. RainbowPanda420 ( talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)\ reply

@ BottleOfChocolateMilk: It's the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone of personal attacks and then claim their opinion is "stupid". I hope that the closing administrator here can take that into account when assessing this user's viewpoints in this discussion. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

lol BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete candidates are not notable just for being candidates, that is long standing consensus on this site, and he doesn't meet the exception (that their candidacy is LASTING). He would not be otherwise notable, so deletion is the correct result, and easily so. SportingFlyer T· C 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep He's received coverage from various outlets and he's also received coverage for his non-political work. There are plenty of other individuals on Wikipedia who have done far less and achieved notability and his notability is going to grow over the next several months as he campaigns. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  That's an argument for deletion unfortunately - political candidates are deleted unless they are otherwise notable, as they always receive a certain level of coverage and are rarely notable after the campaign finishes. If the campaign itself had sustained coverage that's a different story, but that is incredibly rare at this level of election. The coverage of his restaurant isn't coverage of him and would not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia if he hadn't ran for office, either. SportingFlyer T· C 21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. WP:NPOL is the relevant guideline and I don't believe the subject meets this standard so he would have to meet GNG. A source analysis would be helpful here. There are two other points, the previous AFD closed as a Redirect, not a Deletion. Secondly, there is subpar behavior on the part of several participants which are snide remarks. If this continues, I will block editors from particpating in this AFD during its duration. Please, this is not how experienced editors talk to each other. Very disappointing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment For the record, I would absolutely be in favor of a redirect. As for the question about sources, as has been mentioned previously by several voters, nearly every article cited on the page is WP:ROTM coverage of either the campaign or Kiper's restaurant (and, as others pointed out, coverage of Kiper's restaurant helps establish the notability of the restaurant, not Kiper himself). BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply