The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable biography that lists no sources that can verify that this person existed. All the references come from a school that he is alleged to have created back in 1965. I could find nothing outside of Apex University results from a quick Google search. This article clearly fails GNG and the user who created it, HariSinghw, is creating nothing but a mess on Wikipedia where he creates articles with no intention to improve them later on. He is not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines even after multiple notices on his talk page which list a massive amount of notices of AFD, CFD, TFD, articles moving into draft space, etc. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:25, 11 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.
This does not seem to fall into any criteria for notability. College board of trustee members are not inherently notable, nor are chiefs of staff to generals, no matter how famous the general. BD2412T23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lieutenant General is quite a senior rank, but searching Google and Google books doesn't return any particularly useful sources, with coverage being largely limited to military publications. This appears to be a good example of why the Military History Wikiproject recently decided to drop the assumption that generals are automatically notable as part of retiring WP:SOLDIER - many generals do not have a public profile. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting to keep per Mztourist's good work here. I still don't think that this general was particularly notable, but the obits get him across the WP:BIO threshold. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement appears to be substantial. There is a discrepency between the still-unsourced claim of his founding of the Korean Military Academy in 1954, and the linked article's description of that entity having been founded in 1946. I'll have a deeper look at the rest of the article tomorrow. BD2412T05:42, 11 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.
Keep. I think reaching the top 20 of an important musical chart (US mainstream rock) is prima facie evidence of notability. I didn't find it difficult to google up plenty of references, and even after ignoring duplicates from an obvious PR campaign, there was enough to easily meet our criteria. We have included other "supergroups" as separate pages in Wikipedia in the past. RomanSpa (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Per WP:BAND, "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Indeed. They appear to meet criteria 1, 6 and 10 (enough reporting that's not press releases, notable members, and they're performing a track that's been used as a TV show theme). RomanSpa (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that they haven't done too much yet, but the charting single certainly helps with notability requirements at WP:NBAND, and they have been covered in these additional reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Those sources and others can be added if/when the article survives this process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:29, 13 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.
Delete, fails NFILM and even GNG. The current citations do not satisfy NFILM as IMDb is an unreliable source and Entertainment Weekly, Bustle, The Manifest-Station and Ranker are only passing mentions. I could not find anything better from my research either outside of a single tv listing and further comprehensive film databases. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:13, 13 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG, the reception section barely exists and what is there is a trivial mention. The only serious mentions of Mudkip in media is related to the meme, but it doesn't seem like the meme is notable enough for an article, either. The meme can be mentioned on the List of Pokemon. ZXCVBNM (TALK)23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: A supplementary explanation on the notability guideline page makes it clear that notability is not a temporary attribute, and I quote: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.WP:BEFORE on the search engine suggests that the subject is still being discussed on occasion by video game media on a non-trivial basis. Not having a standalone article for the meme on Wikipedia does not mean it is an auto-fail for the subject to have a standalone article as well. Haleth (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The meme is part of what makes Mudkip notable. You can't just say the coverage is trivial and then ignore the one thing that it's most well known for. Mlb96 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree precisely. If the meme is notable, then absolutely make an article about the meme. This is not that article, and moving it to be about the meme would be too much of a change in scope.ZXCVBNM (TALK)12:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it's the only thing it's known for. Regardless, as Haleth stated above, it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Mlb96 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Generation III Pokémon. Being a meme is not enough to establish reception, as has been proven with other Pokémon species and the Team Rocket Trio itself, which does not have enough notability for a stand-alone article. The meme can perfectly be mentioned in Mudkip's section in the list. --LoЯd۞pεth21:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haleth. If it's being discussed in video game media on a non-trivial basis, then it's objectively notable. Mlb96 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is purely WP:SOURCESEXIST unless the supposed "non-trivial" sources are posted and vetted. They sure are not in the article now. I would gladly withdraw this AFD immediately if that is proven with evidence.ZXCVBNM (TALK)03:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of generation III Pokémon#Mudkip. Not much here to work with, really, very little coverage outside the usual game guides. Still, I'd strongly advise merge over a simple redirect; some content can enrich the target list whose entry is as often not much more than plot summary; merging reception there would be a win-win IMHO. In this case the list has zero valuable or reference content, so merge is highly recommended. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here13:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge - per above - The fictional creature itself is not notable outside of it being used as the basis for the meme, and even that "notability" is about two sentences worth of content which can be mentioned in its entry at the List of Generation III Pokémon rather than a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 17 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.
Borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable “media strategist” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP: GNG. A before search links me to self published and user generated sources, all of which are not considered reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR heads for universities are almost never notable. I see nothing that suggests Ssememda is one of the extremely rare exceptions to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 13 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.
Delete: A Google search only returned Wikipedia mirrors. No sources exist for a search of "Sudbury Augustinian Priory", and a search for "Sudbury Priory" only returned information regarding Sudbury Priory, which is a Dominican priory as opposed to this Augustinian one. The author, who was blocked way back in 2010 for sockpuppetry, seemed to be running a bot program or something, as their talk page suggests they created hundreds or thousands of these unsourced stubs. Perhaps this was just a scribal error, and the author actually meant to create the article on the Dominican priory. Curbon7 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I followed a different strategy in trying to work out whether there was an Augustinian priory at Sudbury, by looking at other religious institutions in Sudbury. In particular, there seems to have been one, and quite possibly two, religious hospitals in Sudbury. One of these appears contemporary with Archbishop Simon Sudbury, who is on record as having intervened in the affairs of the Austin (Augustinian) friars in London. However, there's no evidence that any Sudbury hospital was explicitly linked with the Augustinians, so I think we have to say that this is also a dead-end. With this in mind, I think we're better to delete this article. If better references can be found in the future, it can always be re-created. RomanSpa (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should perhaps be kept as a reminder of a time when Wikipedia articles could include only one sentence of content and no references. TSventon (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with thanks to Alansplodge for careful work in disentangling a group of sources that all trace back to a single source, whose author probably made an error. @TSventon:, I would create an article Short unreferenced articles consisting of the (unreferenced) sentence, Short unreferenced articles consist of only one sentence, and were once popular within Wikipedia., but I don't want to get banned. Elemimele (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deprodded this because what I saw on a quick google indicated that more than a cursory examination was required to determine whether this place existed and if so whether it was notable. It seems that although there was no Augustinian priory at Sudbury, the Dominican priory has been incorrectly referred to as such and Clare Priory (which is an Augustinian institution) imprecisely called this. Given that I wondering whether there is cause for a Sudbury Priory disambiguation) page that notes this and links to Clare Priory, Sudbury Priory and Sudbury Benedictine Priory. If so this title should redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 12 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.
Strong keep, maybe rename. I found several sources on this disaster, but sometimes under a different name (Hunza-Pattan earthquake, Pattan earthquake). It seems like a significant event historically and from a seismology perspective:
Very strong keep Very notable event. It surely needs better sources and expansion but that shouldn't be a reason why it should be deleted. CactusTaron (Nopen't) 15:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator It may well be a notable event, but I haven't been able to access or find many sources for it. If sources could be found I would be able to expand the article. If someone could find 2-3 easily accessible sources for it , it would be possible for me to expand it and cite it sufficiently. RealKnockout (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG when searching for sources on newspapers.com. Plenty of worldwide coverage on an ongoing basis, not only about the initial event but the ongoing relief and rescue efforts afterward. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:58, 13 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. Happy to undelete and draftify on request should someone be able to demonstrate further significant coverage that occurs after this date. Daniel (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was already deleted one year ago on the grounds of not satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. While Beigl has since made one appearance in the USL Championship, he still doesn't pass GNG. I can only find passing mentions of him (such as here). Nehme149921:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: why would you SALT a player who has just made his first pro appearance? SALTing at this point says "I don't expect this player to become notable within the next years". —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree for a retired player, but notability can easily change over time, especially near the beginning of a professional career (as is the case here). Salting prevents the article from being created when deemed notable. —Kusma (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as the sources shown are trivial mentions, primary sources or statistical database sites. Regarding his appearance in the USL, WP:NFOOTBALL does not supersede WP:GNG, so all subjects must have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG regardless of professional appearances. The FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORT, which WP:NFOOTBALL is part of, makes that very clear. Alvaldi (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NFOOTY with his appearance, and has over 27 appearances on the bench for pro games as a substitute keeper, notable enough for me.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:38, 12 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.
Businessman whose notability is not established by the cited sources. They are either not about him but about the companies he was involved with (such as his robot pizza business Zume), or not independent from him, or otherwise not reliable, such as press releases. A search finds similar passing mentions or coverage about his businesses. This could possibly be redirected to Zume or another of the businesses he worked at. The article was created in 2005, when we had much more vague notions of notability. Sandstein 20:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Sandstein, I honestly can’t stress this enough, sources discussing events the subject featured in and not referencing the subject of the article per se equals non notability. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 11 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.
Does not meet WP:GNG. This article reads like a personal essay and not an encyclopedia article. It just describes an idea someone came up with and a name for it, but does not cite any sources or provide reliable third-pary coverage. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just someone's idea, which sounds good, but lacks the sources to stick around. Searches also didn't show anything about it. AdoTang (talk) 16:51, 12 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.
Delete — move warring other than passing the article through afc is a major tale sign of possible conflict of interest editing. Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 00:25, 11 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.
An unsourced biography that does not contain any claim of significance. A BEFORE search only turned up results from Wikipedia mirror sites. M4DU7 (talk) 18:17, 10 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.
This article is strictly about a non-notable ethnic intersection that goes against the wikipedia policy that it is not a directory. The topic of the article isn't notable as Aethiopes are even described in the article as "rare in Rome" inside the article. It also includes those born in the African section of the Roman Empire like Septimus Severus who would not be considered as black today. Originalcola (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: A preposterous nomination based on a misreading of policy. The article is fine by all metrics. Could it use some expanding? Of course. However, there is no significant issue that warranted bringing to AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well referenced. For the sake of notability, it doesn't matter if the subject is described as "rare". Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:28, 10 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.
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including two full reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 13 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.
Does not meet WP:GNG. I only found one source that only dedicates two very short paragraphs to the subject. Without another source I don't think this topic has significant coverage because "multiple sources are generally expected." The majority of the article is also currently made up of direct quotes. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the website itself, it looks like there are only 5 seasons which ended in 2019, and has been discontinued. I agree it doesn't quite meet WP:GNG, though it comes close. This article might be better served as a mentiontion/sentance on the Firefox page. Tautomers (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only refs currently in the article are from Mozilla itself or from blogs/Twitter. Nothing else can be found except passing mentions. I agree it could be mentioned in like one sentence in the Firefox article. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:04, 10 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.
Delete a search turned up sketchy sources (e.g. blogspot) and not much else. I am more than happy to sign onto the "Guiness World Records mean nothing" policy movement, so ping me when we move to deprecate that 'award'. --- Possibly☎03:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not the Guiness Book of World Records. We do not create articles on things that are just silly, unless they receive the actual level of independent coverage to make them notable. As explain above these world records books are often not indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 13 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.
Keep This article was created by a new user who seems to have got into a bit of a mess and as the nominator says, used references that don’t seem to have anything to do with the subject (I can’t get the Forbes piece to load). The ar.wiki article isn’t much help either, as it has a single source, an archived elcinema.com profile which I think is like an Arabic IMDB. Nevertheless I was able to find coverage of him at 1, 2 and 3, 4 so I’m satisfied he is actually notable. Mccapra (talk) 01:18, 10 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.
Deleted back in 2015, with concerns about whether or not it had any use, since the award was discontinued in 1945. Now, 6 years later those concerns apply even more, and frankly I'm wondering if the current list with one entry might be comprehensive. -- AsarteaTalk|Contribs12:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is one that will soon have nothing to list and, considering the amount of other List of Knight's Cross recipients, entirely superfluous. –♠Vami_IV†♠13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see the point of having a separate article which is a list of living people (person?) which is intended to eventually dwindle down to zero people. Besides that, there are no sources provided. --Metropolitan90(talk)18:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm skeptical of the entire Category:Lists of living people. Wikipedia is not an almanac and we shouldn't be maintaining lists that require constant ongoing maintenance, especially where such maintenance is likely to rely on primary sources. pburka (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While WP:NOTPAPER says that we can certainly have things that are more up-to-date than printed encyclopaedias, like the things in Category:Lists of living people (List of living cardinals is something we clearly should have and keep updated), a list with a single entry is utterly pointless. Wherever you would link to this list, just mention the one member instead. —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is mostly that many lists require constant updates, and that this is fine. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief when List of members of the 19th Bundestag will finally stop requiring updates in about two months (it probably isn't fully up to date now). For the cardinals, the update problem doesn't massively differ between the current and your suggested scope of the article. —Kusma (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Since cardinal is almost always an appointment for life the difference in scope in that case is miniscule. pburka (talk) 23:11, 16 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 Leadership in the Boy Scouts of America#Commissioner Service. There is a general consensus that there is not a sufficient amount of sourcing about this subject that is reliable, independent, and substantial suitable to have an article about it. As there is a good deal of interest in a merge, article history will be left intact to allow for that if any editor wishes to do so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of many BSA articles outlining (well) one of the many organizational functions within Boy Scouts of America--articles on subjects that have no real-world importance whatsoever. Evrik just reverted my removal of blatantly unencyclopedic material, including, ahem, a section on the "wreath of service", sourced to the BSA website. Please look at the sources: it is ALL primary, it is ALL Boy Scouts. There are no secondary sources, and none can be found. This kind of content is just not acceptable--NOTWEBHOST would almost apply. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before I address the merits of the AfD, I want to say that this nomination is clearly an act retaliation, and a prime example of Wikipedia:Sour grapes or being disruptive just to make a point. After Drmies made a major deletion of content, I reverted it and indicated that the change should be discussed on the talk page. Drmies went to the talk page and started name calling and making allegations. Right after that, he went and nominated the article for deletion. I'll address the merits of the deletion debate later, but this nomination is not in good faith. The tone of the posts on the talk page, and the retaliatory nature of this nomination are not in keeping with the standards of behavior expected of an admin. --evrik(talk)02:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think assuming good faith is warranted here. Opening an AFD and expressing an opinion is, in a way, starting a discussion that you advised in an edit summary he do. Ultimately, the concerns he raised, if valid (and I tend to think they are), do cast serious doubt on whether this article belongs on Wikipedia at all. GoPhightins!02:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the comments made on the talk page, it's difficult to AGF. Also, if one is acting in good faith they keep the discussion on the talk page and don't elevate to an AfD. The tone of the posts on the talk page, and the retaliatory nature of this nomination are not in keeping with the standards of behavior expected of an admin. --evrik(talk)03:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go Phightins!, Eagle Scout? Bravo! My daughter is next in line. Thanks for the comment. What's happening here I think is that thing where if you're inside an organization, everything that happens in that organization has to be important and notable to everyone else. I have that with Wikipedia, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Congrats to her! The creation of "girl troops" can only be a positive for the organization, as far as I'm concerned (although a better name than "girl troops" would certainly be welcome lol). Anyway, I think you're right on with this article ... having known some unit commissioners over the years, I doubt even they would ascribe independent importance to the role outside the broader context of the organization (which is, of course, not particularly relevant except that it affirms the idea that this is not a particularly notable subject for an encyclopedia). As an aside, Scout Commissioner probably ought not be an article of its own either. GoPhightins!09:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an article about the position? You could that make argument about any position within an organization, i.e. an umpire or First baseman in baseball or CEO, COO, or CIO at a company. The national commissioner is not only is a key corporate officer, but that role is repeated throughout the organization. As for being inside an organization, why then do we have WikiProjects or rely on subject matter experts? Discounting people because they are part of an organization discounts their expertise. --evrik(talk)15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, as I said earlier, I did revert the deletion. Much of the content was sourced. It's easy to say the content is unencyclopedic, but this should be discussed - not randomly deleted. Also, there are ways to tag the content for improvement.
Second, whether or not the content content has importance in the real-world is hardly subjective. Commissioners in the BSA are one of the most important positions in the organization. In fact, last I checked more than 50 articles linked to it. The position is part of the Key 3 along with the Scout Executive and the president. Internationally, there are Scout Commissioners in most countries. The wreath of service section was not only cited, but explains the significance of the laurel wreath in Scouting.
Finally, does the article need work, perhaps some expansion, and better sourcing? Sure. I'm sure that better sourcing can be found. Of the fourteen citations, half were from the BSA. Others were from related sites. However, it has to be kept for it to be improved. This nomination isn't about the quality of the article, or the work that needs to be done. This nomination about someone getting upset because their fly-by deletions were challenged, and being very WP:Pointy. --evrik(talk)03:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are no secondary sources, not in the article and not on the internet, and that's because in the real world this position just doesn't matter. No, the content you reverted was not sourced--unless your standard is Wikia. There is no secondary sourcing here; I looked. Whether this is important inside the organization is completely irrelevant; my BSA-certified wife tells me it means something, sure, but so what? And seriously, the laurel wreath? That's clutching at straws. Before you go on, show secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The central point of this nomination is that the subject is not notable. I'm puzzled by the fixation on laurel wreaths. Earlier, I noted that more than fifty other articles link to the article, so that shows the central importance of the position within the organization. No one has challenged that. The sole issue for Drmies nomination was on the sourcing. First of all, Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE allows for the use of primary sources on "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." I agree that sourcing this page is an issue, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. I disagree with the statement there are no secondary sources. Let me break down the sources:
Anything from the scouting.org is clearly primary sources. However, the BSA has three magazines, and 300 plus local councils. The magazines in particular give context and interpretation to the BSA issued documents. It stretches credulity to say all the magazines, and all 300 plus of the councils can't be a secondary source. --evrik(talk)19:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources that mention commissioners, or someone in the role of commissioner
I can keep going. Finally, the article also has a historic listing of all the national commissioners. This too should be kept. --evrik(talk)15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Just to be clear, my argument supporting deletion is based on the nom and my own failure to find any non-primary sources, not any kind of "lived experience" that I brought up mostly in an attempt to be collegial and own any possible bias I bring to the conversation. Just didn't want that to get confused in some of the "side conversations" (that admittedly I suppose belong on a talk page ... meh). GoPhightins!09:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: I would not go so far as to say the position "doesn't matter in the real world", as it is one of the Key 3 roles in the Scouting movement. For the BSA's millions of members, the position is an important and well-respected one. From the standpoint of GNG, however, I too checked everywhere, including JSTOR, ProQuest, and newspapers.com, and can't find any independent secondary sources that have more than passing mentions of BSA Commissioner. So I believe the best solution is to merge its content to the "Organization" section of Scout councils (Boy Scouts of America)Scout Commissioner#Boy Scouts of America, leaving a redirect. JGHowes talk15:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:JGHowes, that is just fine with me. My notion of "real world" is based on the lack of secondary sourcing--it's a Wikipedia-inflected version of the real world. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p. 115 of the University of Michigan book strikes me as one secondary source that is useful to promoting notability. None of the other books seem to be anything more than passing mentions, at best. GoPhightins!20:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some good Google books sleuthing there by evrik. I agree with Go Phightins! that Michigan U's A Study of Boy Scouts and Their Scoutmasters: A Report of Four National Surveys is the kind of independent, analytical examination of the office that supports the subject's notability (although digging into the data presented in the Michigan study, it appears that the Commissioner is often viewed as not the most helpful resource, in the opinion of troop leadership!). JGHowes talk22:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: So far the only thing I've said is that being a BSA related source does not make the source primary, and it was responding to such a statement above. The criteria in your new post has additional criteria, alluding to that of a GNG-establishing source. Happy to discuss further if you could clarify. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, you said "good sourcing", below, and it follows evrik's list, so I assume that's included in the good sources. I looked at the article again--where is the "good sourcing"? A BSA article is of course primary; your comparison is off. We have articles on ballet dancers where the sourcing isn't written by balled dancers. And a BSA article is certainly not independent. The article's sources right now--where is the secondary sourcing that helps it satisfy the GNG? An article in Forbes could do that, if it discussed what the position was and what it meant--but what we get is this, a set of fluffy CEO bios where for one guy it says he "served as the national commissioner of the BSA". Now, it verifies this one guy had the position, so that's fine, but the only secondary source that says anything at all about the position and what it is is this, one single paragraph--that's it. What you are saying means that in any organization, any position (or office, or institutional strategy, or marketing campaign, or product) is notable if the organization itself has said enough about it. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think Drmies's analysis is right here. As I said above, p. 115 from that old book would be one source that in my mind "counts" towards GNG, but that's really the only one I see that is relevant. The rest are passing mentions, at best. GoPhightins!01:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a moving target. The first complaint was that the article was all primary sources. Now, the complaint is whether the secondary sources are adequate. At this point we have moved from whether the article should be kept, and onto how to best source the content that is there. It would have been more productive to tag the article, and its passages, where it needed improvement - but that's not what the AfD was about in the first place. --evrik(talk)15:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good useful encyclopedic content, good sourcing. One note about sourcing arguments. Aside from, as noted, clearly secondary sourcing is provided, BSA is a large, decentralized organization with many facets to it. It is not correct to say that a publication having some connection to BSA makes it a primary source. That's like saying that for an article on the human race, any article written by a human is a primary source. It's also not correct to say that because is not so broad as to cover the broader world that that is a reason for deletion. That's not a wikipedia criteria; by that standard we'd delete about 90% of the articles in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to that, this can be viewed as a sub-article to the BSA article. This is a set of roles that (an educated guess) perhaps 600,000 people have served in the history of BSA. We'd be doing a poor job if we didn't cover it. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might be helpful if someone could explain what's going on here. The Talk page, where I would hope to find some discussion about the article's content has already been deleted, and from the deletion review, I can't work out whether the previous decision was delete, overturn-delete, or no consensus. My personal feeling is that you could embed the information from this article in the main Boy Scouts of America article, but it wouldn't sit easily, as it's much more thorough than any of the paragraphs in the main article's section on organization. I am not a scout, never was, but believe scouting is a sufficiently important organisation that I have no problem with multiple articles on facets of the movement. Elemimele (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to Leadership in the Boy Scouts of America. The sources in the article are mostly WP:PRIMARY and/or fail WP:INDEPENDENT because they are in some way associated with the BSA. Some fail WP:RS; a facebook post, really? Of the high-quality sources I looked at (Forbes, NY Times), those are all just passing mentions in biographies of past office holders. Most of the content is puffery and/or trivia. This is already covered in Leadership in the Boy Scouts of America#Commissioner Service. I could see expanding that section somewhat by incorporating a small amount of the most significant and best-sourced material from here. I could also see breaking out the "List of National Commissioners" section as a stand-alone list (but the Olmstead entry needs sourcing). -- RoySmith(talk)14:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll just note that this is simply not true. There is no secondary sourcing that explains what the position is and what it mentions, and the sourcing is extraordinarily poor, and includes resumes and vanity biographies that mention that this or that person was a commissioner, besides primary material from the BSA, which cannot possibly add weight to the matter of notability. bTW, you already said "keep". No need to do it twice. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a selective merge to another scouting article if someone wants to. I don't see much of a case that the subject meets the general notability guideline, which expects significant coverage of the subject in third-party reliable sources. The sources cited in the article and those listed in the AfD are either written/published by the Boy Scouts of America or an affiliated organisation (not independent) or only mention the subject in passing, usually in a piece about a commissioner (not significant coverage). This is important, if a subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline then it's very hard to write a substantial article on it without running into big problems. The reliance on non-independent sources does really show in the prose. Hut 8.516:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable article that meets criteria for inclusion, and is well sourced. Meets the same criteria for inclusion as articles for Scoutmaster, Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokgamen (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble being, of course, that it's not well-sourced and the issues haven't been resolved at all. But this article is clearly someone's pride and joy, and it's not an advert, and in this encyclopaedia where we aren't allowed to delete articles about individual A-roads in Wales, or people who once played professional cricket for 15 minutes in 1973, or townships in Where the Hick, Utah (pop. 83), or that article about the precognitive octopus, it is simply irrational to spend this much effort on deleting it. "Merge" is the policy-based, ATD-compliant outcome, but the problem is finding someone who's willing and able to put in the hard, patient work of performing the merge in the face of the probable opposition. I'm saying that volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limiting resource, and, the person who spent countless hours writing this might write something massively encyclopaedic such as Flora of France or Geography of Borneo, if we don't delete their goodwill along with their contribution. I think deleting this is simply too expensive to contemplate and we should leave it.—S MarshallT/C23:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@S Marshall What's frustrating here is that people seem to be treating this like a popularity contest, with a large helping of COI mixed in (Mokgamen's user page says he's a BSA employee; Sweet68camaro lists scouting as one of their hobbies). I have nothing against scouting. I was a scout myself and it was a very positive experience. But, if your goal is to improve our coverage of scouting, the way to do it is to write good articles, not to write lots of low-grade articles and then defend them to the death. -- RoySmith(talk)02:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although we don't encourage people to write articles about their employers, I'm not fully convinced that it's a COI for a scout to write articles about scouting. It wouldn't be a COI for a musician to write articles about music, for example. People write about their interests and passions. You're clearly right to say that these users are treating the discussion as a popularity contest: I view their assertions in this debate as inaccurate and counterfactual. But the subject article isn't selling anything, and it isn't hurting anyone, and there's no intent to mislead or hype. I put it to you that the users resisting its deletion are entirely in good faith. I'd be inclined to let them keep it.—S MarshallT/C10:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that COI was a poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to imply that there was a "pay for editing" type of relationship. And, yes, you are certainly correct that people write about their interests and passions. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just that when you are closely associated with a subject, it can be difficult to step back and be truly impartial. -- RoySmith(talk)13:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is so detailed that it is only of interest to insiders in the BSA and the information should be in .BSA sources. Other articles such as Scoutmaster, Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America, etc mention above should also be in BSA material. Wikipedia is not here to give information to insiders. There is enough information on Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America) elsewhere.--Bduke (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Quite a few new sources have been presented here. The question is, do any meet WP:SIGCOV? Which of those discuss this concept in depth (let's say, a dedicated paragraph), or contain claims of significance, saying something like "the Commissioner Service is a significant" etc.? I'll ping User:Cunard who is good at dealing with lists of sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JGHowes, simply stated, there is relation between all three articles but to fully explain this subject deserves it’s own page also by merging it with those other pages and then on balances the other pages referenced and makes it very heavy on this one subject. This is particularly notable because the scout commissioner article is international and scope. The leader ship article covers About 20 other positions. --evrik(talk)12:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leadership in the Boy Scouts of America#Commissioner Service. Despite the lengthy lists of sources presented above, I have yet to find anything that both provides significant coverage and is independent of the Boy Scouts: each non-Boy Scout source provides nothing more than a trivial, often single-sentence mention. The topic thus fails the GNG. There's no need to merge anything: all of the relevant encyclopedic content is already found in the article I linked above. Redirecting ensures that readers reach relevant content, the lack of notability notwithstanding. (It's also cheap.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has gotten complicated. The AFD sequence spans the various vintages of this article. And now there are sort of two different questions / situation blended. One of the AFD itself, the other the general one on the best way to approach this topic. Maybe the following outcome would be good. The AFD gets closed as no consensus and then at the talk page of the article we decide how best to cover this topic, with the possibilities including a re-direct/ merge. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that any fair reading of the thread would have to indicate that the one thing there is consensus not to do is keep a standalone article on this topic. The crux of the issue seems to be whether there is anything here that can be merged, and although everyone keeps sort of suggesting that as a drive-by option, no one has actually taken any steps—either while the article was in user space or now—to effectuate that or even articulate how that would work, probably because there's not actually much worth merging. But if people are interested in a merge, we don't really need an AFD to get permission for that. GoPhightins!03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The commissioner is a key position in USA Scouting. Alongside the Scouting professional and the District Chairman, they run each district in Scouting, meaning the position is notable. There is sufficient sources to support the article. — btphelps(talk to me) (what I've done)07:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have just had a good look to see how Commissioners as a whole are treated in wikipedia for Scouting in the United Kingdom and Scouting in Australia, the two countries I know most about. There are no articles specifically about Commissioners. Commissioners in those countries are just as much a key position as they are in the US. They simply are not notable in the sense that wikipedia uses that term. Are there details sources, independant of the Scout Movement, that talk about Commissioners anywhere in the world? --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that this should will clearly need to be closed as "no consensus", (and my position here remains as "keep") I think that the discussion will need to continue (and I'll commit to doing that) at the article talk page. I'm likely to support that option at that later point. WP:Notability is a messy ecosystem, with SNG bypasses for topics that are 20 times less suitable for an article than this. One thing that emereges from the ecosystem (probably what you could call a mild invocation of WP:IAR) is that in reality informative enclyclopedic sub-articles that don't meet the strictest interpretation of GNG are routinely let in. Particularly if it is a big encyclopedic complex portion of the topic where unrelated secondary sources haven't made and covered the specific criteria for that divided portion. The BSA article (covering something like 80,000,000 people over more than 100 years) has too broad of a scope for that. Maybe Leadership in the Boy Scouts of America would be a good mid-level article to contain all of this. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 Notability is simple; if there aren't any "unrelated secondary sources", then it's not notable. It only becomes messy when people stray away from that basic concept, as with the absurdly defective SNGs which exist in some topic areas. -- RoySmith(talk)14:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how different people read things differently. I see a clear "merge" consensus, which is even supported by most "delete" voters and in contrast to most "keep" !votes usually is policy-based. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge. Despite three months of discussion, multiple people adding sources, and a DRV relist, the article is still very bad. Extremely bad; apart from this being a bureaucracy I have no idea what the group actually does (other than acting "direct") or why it is important. It is certainly Leadership in the Boy Scouts of America, which is a fine merge target. Expanding that 2-paragraph section to 4 paragraphs should be enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The consensus of the DRV was to overturn the deletion (exact words "this DRV's consensus to "overturn, but we don't know to what"), so the discussion to have now seems to be whether this page should be plain kept or merged. The delete !votes are a bit distracting. I think this discussion would be better had at WP:PAM than here, since the big deletion banner at the top, which has been up for 4 months (far too long) is harmful to the project. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A shorter version of my comment above: Close this as "no consensus" and then I'll re-open a discussion on the article's talk page about a possible merge. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 20 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable street. Per WP:GEOROAD (emphasis added), local roads, streets [...] are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage, which does not appear to be the case here, although anyone able to provide reliable sources in Georgian, feel free to prove otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following related page on the same grounds:
Keep I have added content and some references and i’m working to add more. About notability: Both streets are one of the most famous and prestigious ones in Tbilisi and I think there must be pages about them in wikipedia --Welaskesi (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions added so far are unpersuasive because they do not cite the sources that establish notability for this topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:22, 10 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.
Pretty sure article fails WP:GNG, and any other notability criteria. Isn't particularly notable enough for a page in my opinion, only really became a recent meme in the MMA community. RafaelHP (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TikTok/Instagram meme but not one of the many sources is RS. The coverage available in the article and in searches is exactly the type of clickbait shallow stuff viral "stars" produce in a short period and speculation of future coverage is WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON at best. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)12:13, 14 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.
Comment: I can see why the WP:FUTUREALBUM applies, but not so much the WP:CRYSTAL, in that I'm not "predicting" or making any assumptions, the album is effectively slated for release in 2021 and the singer has already released 2 singles. Yes, it is still unnamed and has no official date, which is why the WP:FUTUREALBUM applies, but I wouldn't say I'm predicting this album when the singer herself has announced it.
Per WP:CRYSTAL, articles about anticipated events are appropriate if they are verifiable and the subject matter is of sufficiently wide interest, i.e. significant coverage by reliable sources. Here, coverage is far from significant. Throast (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is simply not enough coverage to meet GNG, and of course no chart listing to help show that via an alternative method. OhioShmyo (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the album had a name right now, it wouldn't pass notability standards. I feel like this needs to be clarified because editors shouldn't take away from this that, as soon as the album gets a name while coverage remains insufficient, they can go ahead and recreate the article. Throast (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the policy-based reasons given by voters above. The fact that the singer is planning an album sometime in the near future can be mentioned at her main article for now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 13 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.
Keep as standalone article - Considering Islam's unique understanding of Messiah, this should be a page of its own. As such, the page should be renamed as "Messiah in Islam". Maqdisi117 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christ (title) - "Masih" is literally just the Arabic translation of the Hebrew Mašíaḥ or the Greek Khristós ("anointed", whence the English "Christ"). The Arabic ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ just literally means "Jesus the Anointed" (i.e., Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Messiah). Scholars refer to this concept in English as "Messiah". Per wp:commonname, an article on that topic should be called Messiah in Islam, just like we have Messiah in Judaism. This is currently a redirect to the section on Islam in Messiah, but could perhaps be developed into a separate article on that topic (though the overlap with Jesus in Islam would probably be too great, since in Islam as in Christianity, al-Masīḥ/Christ is just another name for Jesus). Regardless, the article currently under discussion rather is of the nature of a dictionary definition, and it would be more helpful to redirect to the article we already have that actually explains the concept. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)05:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that since SharqHabib has edited the article as announced below, it is not just a dictionary definition anymore, but effectively a redundant content fork of Christ (title); as they themselves say: "literally the same articles". It's not about Messiah nor about Messiah in Islam, but about Jesus' title Khristós/al-Masīḥ ("the Anointed"), the Islamic usage of which should properly be covered in Christ (title). ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)03:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just rewrote the article so as to be based on reliable sources and to make it clearer that al-Masīḥ is merely the Arabic equivalent of "Christ". Though mostly a dictionary definition again, the article now also contains some info on the creative/wrong interpretations of the word by Quranic exegetes. I guess that this material, limited as it is, makes the subject notable (if only barely). It may still be better of merged into Christ (title), but as Andrew Davidson notes below, such a decision is perhaps better left to ordinary editing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)10:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Masih" is a title used by Muslims and this article is very similar to the Christ"). I improved the article a lot and added things just like in the Christ. If this article will be deleted, the Christ article should be deleted too since they both are literally the same articles, the only difference is Christ is a Christian title and it also means Messiah while Masih is a Muslim title which means Messiah too. SharqHabib23:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend backup: are you aware of the fact that in Arabic, the word al-Masīḥ is tied to the name ʿĪsā much like in English, the word Christ is tied to the name Jesus? There's absolutely nothing Islamic about it: the Quran is just referring to Jesus like Christians do, as "Jesus Christ" (Īsā al-Masīḥ), or simply as "Christ" (al-Masīḥ). So when our article states that the word Masih has been used 11 times in the Quran to refer to Jesus, it's really saying that the Quran refers 11 times to Jesus as Christ, which is a completely un-notable triviality. The only Islam-specific content in the article is the creative/wrong etymology of the word masīḥ given by al-Qadi al-Nu'man: this was copied from Messiah#Islam, and it certainly has its place there, but it is by far not enough to base a separate article on. Islam has its own concept of a Messiah, the Mahdi, as well as an Anti-Christ (al-Masih ad-Dajjal), but the word al-Masīḥ/Christ itself never refers to anything else but Jesus, exactly like in Christianity. That's also why you won't find any sources dealing with the title Masih/Christ in Arabic as an independently notable subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉) 23:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC) This comment has become obsolete now that I've rewritten the article; see my comment above. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)10:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:REDUNDANTFORK states that "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." and so deletion is not appropriate. As this page is several years old and there are numerous other pages covering similar material, such as Jesus in Islam, the choice of merge target is not obvious and so the matter should be left as a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:09, 10 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.
Article fails to establish either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, which are the criteria listed at WP:NSCHOOL. Has only two secondary citations and they are both focused on individuals linked to the school rather than the school itself. Meticulo (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell the only usable source for this is the Guardian article. Unless you count the one from Lincolnshire Life, but it looks like a blog post and doesn't discuss the school in an in-depth, direct way anyway. Outside of those two there's just some brief name drops in things about other stuff. Including a book about a sandy abandoned shoe. Which I can't really say makes the school notable. Unless someone want's the article to be made out of COVID-19, prom dresses, and dirty shoe stories. Personally, I don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already has plenty of good sources, detail and history. It's an easy pass of WP:GNG. As a comment many UK schools do a namechange as they transition into academies. Here the CofE comp was already an outstanding school so exempt from section 5 inspection. The 2009 inspection reference to is a 10 page long detailed secondary source. Exceeds our GNG. All state funded UK school will have something similar.ClemRutter (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely rock solid independent. To find out more look into our article on Ofsted and inspection. Particularly read the sources, there are links to the inspection hand books. The nomination has now been withdrawn but I would like to continue the conversation on my talk page, as your views are interesting, and reset slightly could be useful on Help Pages. ClemRutter (talk) 11:05, 14 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.
Non notable actor. With the exception of this [8], all the references are only passing in regards to Jenkins; the provided source does go a little more into depth on him, but it is singular, brief, and focused on a work he produced, not on him.
A search for additional sources reveals nothing, and he also fails WP:NACTOR; the closest he comes to meeting that is with #1, having had a significant role in just one potentially notable production, Stormworld, and missing the rest entirely. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Oh man, this is another one of THOSE cases, where an actor has multiple supporting roles and one lead role in various notable shows but is never interviewed or discussed by literature and the press for it. Those are pretty difficult ones. I'd say the best solution would be to find reviews of these shows that give opinions on his performances and WP:REFBOMB the article with those, but TV shows normally aren't reviewed by the press and if they are, only the first two episodes are reviewed. Yeah, this is gonna be a weird one. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:53, 10 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.
Apparent hoax, or at least misinterpretation of the sources. "Nlaza" is not a person; when records indicate that someone was the son of Nlaza, this meant membership to a specific social order. See p. 110 of this article. I can find no other attestation to this Nlaza existing. Urve (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - It was surprisingly difficult, but I finally found some attestation for someone proximal to the dynasty named Nlaza. The fact that Nlaza is at once not a name according to Kongo royal scholars and it also is... they need to sort something out. Anyway, withdraw per this source. Thornton, John K. (November 2006). "Elite women in the kingdom of Kongo: Historical perspectives on women's political power". The Journal of African History. 47 (3): 437–460. doi:10.1017/S0021853706001812. Urve (talk) 07:51, 12 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.
No sources are included in this article that can establish notability of the article subject. Created by a user who is just creating articles for the hell of it and is not improving any of them. He is currently a subject of an ongoing ANI discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article don't even mention this group, and a quick Google search was unable to verify its existence. If it verifiably exists, I'd consider a redirect to some article about the legal system in Rajasthan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:35, 6 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.
Keep – I certainly see where the nominator is coming from, and many of these sources may not move the needle in terms of notability. But I think that, e.g., 1, 2, and 3 are probably enough to meet WP:NCORP. They seem to be from reliable and independent sources (Livemint, the Deccan Chronicle, and VentureBeat, respectively), and they go into enough detail about the company and its actions to assuage any WP:CORPDEPTH concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:57, 11 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.
I saw one source in a search. The article was sourced to linkedin.com (since removed) and to his architecture firm. GNG fail. --- Possibly☎07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability of Alexander Yusuf or his company. Current article was cited to primary sources and a now-deleted Youtube interview. I can't find anything independent online to support an article. Sionk (talk) 12:52, 10 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.
Delete. As always, the notability test for journalists is not automatically passed just by verifying that the person exists — it requires external coverage and analysis of the significance of their work. That is, you do not demonstrate Austin Grabish's notability by citing sources where Austin Grabish was the bylined author of content about other things — you demonstrate it by citing sources where Austin Grabish was the subject of content written by other people. But that's not what these sources are: he's the author, not the subject, of a majority of them, and even the minority that were written by other people are not about him, but just namecheck his existence as a reporter who happened to have done some coverage of the topic that was actually the subject of the source, which is still not what we're looking for. And no, the "Ron Laidlaw Award" does not automatically guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia just because the article has the word "award" in it, either: if the award does not get covered by the media in order to establish its notability, such that the only source that can be found is Grabish's own employer tooting its own horn in an "our own team wins an award" piece, then people cannot be deemed notable for winning an award that isn't notable. Note also that an earlier article about him was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Grabish (reporter) — and other than the inclusion of an infobox (which is a formatting issue, not a notability test), this version is not an improvement over the first one. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bearcat, that is very helpful. Given the previous article was deleted at AfD, what do you think about me nominating this version for CSD G4? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle08:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article can't really be nominated for both CSD and AFD at the same time — it's one or the other, so you would have to withdraw this and close it if you wanted to go the other route instead. There have, conversely, been instances where the page was just immediately speedied by an administrator while the AFD discussion was still open, but since I've already commented in this discussion I can't take that step now. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 7 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.
No indication of notability. He is on the faculty of Hochschule für Musik Franz Liszt, Weimar ([9]) and has been a conductor on five albums ([10]), but none of them have charted and they're on five different labels, none of them major, so there is no evidence that he is prominent enough to have been signed to a recording deal. I don't see how he meets WP:GNG; as a professor, he does not meet WP:NACADEMIC; and as a conductor, he does not meet WP:MUSICBIO.
Keep The existing article seems promotional and uses none of the resources provided by its equivalent on de.wiki. Still, I don't think the case is as obvious as it might at first appear. I agree that he doesn't meet WP:GNG but I have my doubt about the SNGs cited by the nominator. For criterion No. 5 of WP:PROF, subjects need to be named chairs or distinguished professors. In countries were these don't exist, an equivalent position works as well. In Germany, the full Professorship is the highest academic rank and is roughly equivalent to a named chair in the US. Since this subject is a professor in the German sense, I think his article should be kept under WP:PROF. Perhaps we might want to object that his university is insignificant. This is not the case: he works at the leading institution for the study of music in the state of Thuringia. This case reminds me of this AfD, where consensus determined that a similar set of circumstances was enough to satisfy WP:PROF. With all that said, his article needs to be completely revamped, but there are a number of reliable sources available in German. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 3 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 all three, although Hardin's could be draftified if someone so desires to continue to work on. Daniel (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another batch of places that appear to be named road junctions leftover from the procedurally-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. All are sourced only to GNIS and topos only show a couple houses and a road junction for each. Searching brings up passing mentions to all three in databases, as well as for road junctions and landmarks for paving distances and such. Found some references to people living at Middletons Corner, but the sources for that seem to be referring to places elsewhere in the state.
Delete as to Hamlins Corner: I only looked at Hamlins Corner, but I agree it is an intersection with no indication of significant coverage. virginiachronicle.com shows some passing mentions of the corner in newspaper archives as a location, but that only confirms its existence. These eastern VA rural AfDs have been fascinating to me because I never knew how unpopulated this area of Virginia was, despite being near where the English first came to America over 400 years ago. Lots of places names, just not a lot of people.--Milowent • hasspoken17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As they should have been in the last AFD. The above links indicate it was a corner where Mr Hardin lived, but not that it's a notable community. Reywas92Talk14:50, 16 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.
Non-notable film. The only sources in the article are reviews, and a Google search returns no significant independent sources. Curbon7 (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A film only has to be shown to pass one criterion in NFO to be deemed notable, not all of them simultaneously. So yes, legitimate film reviews are valid and notability-supporting sources — in fact, since only a small minority of films can ever actually claim to pass points 2 through 5 (e.g. winning a notable film award, being selected for preservation in a national archive, etc.), legitimate film reviews are precisely the kind of sourcing we're actively looking for when it comes to most films. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 11 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.
Lean Delete - This is in some respects a tricky one, as at the time it got a lot of coverage as a shocking breach of security and as it initially was unclear what had been thrown, briefly caused concern as to whether it was some sort of chemical attack. Afterwards there were also some concerns that the reactions of some MPs showed a lack of awareness of what to do had this been a more serious attack. Yet I am not seeing any evidence that this led to major changes to House of Commons security procedures (possibly in part because of the fact that measures like the glass screen had been introduced not long before it). Nor did the event impact on Tony Blair's career in any lasting way. Equally I see little sign that it has become seen as an important historical event. Thus I feel while it was very news worthy at the time, it can be said that the long term implications of it were negligible, and so does not merit an article of its on. It is not currently mentioned in any of the history of parliament articles, but is mentioned at the Fathers 4 Justice article, where it is given more context as part of a wider campaign by that group, and I suspect that is where it can be covered best. Dunarc (talk) 20:21, 15 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.
Delete I did a little searching to see what I could find. All I located was a YouTube channel created on 4 Jul 2021 with one video. I do not believe this poet has enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Coopman86 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject seems to be existing, but all other info seemed to be a hoax. The diacritics on the article name (rarely used on any Philippine language) is fishy and maybe related to recent deleted articles with the same naming convention.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources used in the article even talk about the article subject. Most of them don't mention him, the others are not reliable sources. /Julle (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable, the article is terribly written with bad citations, there isn't any more information besides the poem, not even personal details, perhaps too soon to write an article. RandomEditorAAA (talk) 02:17, 11 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.
I tried but can't find significant coverage in reliable sources or evidence that satisfy WP:NFILM. Most of the sources mentioned in the previous AfD are mere announcements or are not directly about the film. The film was released back in 2017, but I can't find a single full length review. GSS💬04:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources existed online and have now been added to the article. Please do simple Google searches before you post films for deletion - in depth of coverage was quite easily available here [16] and [17]. A review from Maalai Malar is also included. Neutral Fan (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources you provided above are interviewers and WP:NFILM require full-length reviews by "two or more" nationally known critics so that single review won't help. Also, a Google news search revealed only 17 results (that's not plenty) and almost all of them are either passing mentions or announcements. GSS💬06:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent as all the material except for the questions is straight from the person. Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. and the reliability of iflicks.in is WP:QUESTIONABLE. GSS💬05:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not Q+A interviews per se - the latter seems to be an editorial article with featured quotes. As do several other sources from India's most reliable print publications. Either way, the article looks very different to how it started off. Neutral Fan (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above the reliability of iflicks.in is questionable and rest of the sources are not even close to meet WP:SIGCOV they are either passing mentions or interview kind of articles and a few unreliable sources such as filmibeat.com, simplicity.in and spotify.com. GSS💬09:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but how? Significant coverage appears on almost all the sources listed. That too from the most notable Indian newspapers... Neutral Fan (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, almost all the sources are either passing mentions or interview kind of articles. There is no such coverage that establish notability. GSS💬05:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From sources your provided above, the first one talk about the actor and his role in the film its not about the film, second one is an interview with its director again not independently about the film, the third source is about "Syed Subahan" where the name of the film is mentioned only twice and again the article is not about the film and the last one is again an interview (not independent) so they are basically useless in establishing notability. GSS💬08:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Given that IFlicks is owned by Daily Thanthi Group, it has some merit but the gossip column makes it harder to argue that it's reliable. There is no About Us or Contact Us page, so the publication process / editorial oversight is unclear to meet the standard of WP:NFSOURCES. Other Tamil-language sources should be explored. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:13, 14 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.
Fictional dog, secondary (if not tetriary) character from a famous work (but WP:NOTINHERITED. His only claim to fame is being part of the famous quote 'Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore', but that's not enough (and the quote is often used committing reference to him). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The 2001 book I, Toto is about a notable dog actor Terry (dog) who among others portrayed the role of Toto in one movie adaptation, and I was not able to find any evidence the book contains any WP:SIGCOV of Toto, the fictional dog. (it does contain some discussion of Terry's role as Toto, but that's not the same, and belongs in the article about the real dog; again, NOTINHERITED - if a notable actor portrays a certain role, that role does not become notable by the virtue of that fact). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the dog does not have to speak to be famous. he has to be present in key scenes, such as when he gets lost (at start and end of book) and when he pulls of the curtain to reveal the Wizard. Google scholar gives over 18,000 cites to scholarly books and articles with the "not in Kansas Toto" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=toto+%3Dkansas&btnG= Toto is surely one of the most famous dogs in all of literature. He has his own scholarly studies-- (1) Hsu, "Where’s Oz, Toto? Idealism and the politics of gender and race in academe." Power, race, and gender in academe (2000): 183-204. (2) Barnes, "Toto: The Dog-Gone Amazing Story of the Wizard of Oz." The School Librarian (2018); (3) in Italian: Scrivere E Rappresentare (2017): 165+. (4) "Fictional Faithful Companions." in Faces Oct2016, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p38+ features "the most popular television dogs" which are Toto, Snoopy, and Scooby Doo. (5) in USA TIME Magazine (Aug 13, 2015) includes Toto in "The Most Famous Dogs in Movies and Television". (6) in England the Daily Mail (May 30 2020)_ celebrates the Prime Minister's dog who is famous--in the same league as " Scooby Doo, Pluto, Lassie, Snoopy, Mutley, Pongo, Gnasher and Toto". (7) also in England, Neil Oliver. writes in The Sunday Times (June 28 2020) that 2020 "has been a tornado of anxieties....Like Toto, the little dog in The Wizard of Oz, we find ourselves far from home. I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more. Also like Toto, no one understands our small voices. In this incomprehensible new place, we are to be silent while others speak." -- the last point emphasizes how important it is to be a quiet observer.
Toto plays a central role in several critical points: he runs away at the beginning and end of the book and Dorothy changes plans to catch him' he pulls away the curtain to reveal the Wizard is a fake. Scholar Keri Weil analyzes the role:
Toto is the driving force behind Frank Baum’s narrative because it is Dorothy’s love for the dog that leads her to run away and escape the dreary moral landscape of Kansas and its arbiter, Miss Gulch. “It was Toto who made Dorothy laugh and saved her from growing as grey as her surroundings,” wrote Baum in the original version of the story.[1]Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
References
^Keri Weil, Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now? (Columbia University Press, 2012) p. 146.
It's good to look at sources, but you have to go beyond google hits. I see no evidence that 1) ""Where’s Oz, Toto? Idealism and the politics of gender and race in academe" contains the discussion of the dog at all. Can you present a quote from the inside of this article that proves the author did not use the dog's name solely in the title? 2) "Toto: The Dog-Gone Amazing Story of the Wizard of Oz" - this is a children book, a novel, written children novelist Michael Morpurgo. Toto is its main character, this book (being a children's book and a WP:PRIMARY source) is not a reliable, nor independent, source for establishing notability. 3) You have not presented any evidence that your third source discusses the subject 4) one-sentencers do not meet WP:SIGCOV, we need in-depth treatment of Toto, discussing his importance in paragraphs if not dedicated chapters, to meet GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article would better fit a fan wiki. I don't believe an article for Todo is needed on Wikipedia. However, the more notable facts from this article could be merged with other Oz related articles to create a more complete picture. Coopman86 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have infinite space, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Is there a fan wiki with an article on this character? Why would you want to make this information harder to find? NemesisAT (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to being one of the most famous movie characters of all time, I actually was able to find some sources analyzing Toto's role in the story, which is about as significant as coverage can get in regards to a fictional character. The quote which Rjensen cited above is one, and this article is another. Mlb96 (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an interesting investigation of the origin of the dog's name here. The article doesn't go into this yet and so we see that there's scope for improvement and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly enough, Andrew provides us with the first half-decent source, as it is actually in-depth (about Toto). Thank you. Now, is Bleeding Cool reliable? I couldn't find their about-us page, and I can't tell if they have any fact-checking or quality control; this unfortunately means that they seem to be more of a blog than a real news site. If someone can find their 'about us', please correct me, and we can of course discuss this at WP:RSN. PS. The status of BC as a blog is confirmed by our Bleeding_Cool#Awards_and_accolades - it won some awards in the blog categories. Now, it is a "good" blog, given those awards, but still, a blog is a blog is a WP:SPS... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since I am a cat person, I don't want to vote here due to an apparent conflict of interest, but most of the arguments above are of terrible quality. - GizzyCatBella🍁05:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd be surprised if it wasn't one of the most famous fictional dogs ever. If any fictional dog article should exist it would probably be this one.ZXCVBNM (TALK)12:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based mostly on common sense. Toto is clearly a well known fictional character with a huge impact on popular culture. I feel like in cases like this we can get so focused on policy and the details of finding multiple paragraphs of analyses or whatever that we can't see the forest for the trees. I don't see how deleting this article benefits readers or Wikipedia. It feels like a disservice. Rhino131 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article has attracted over 5,000 views in the past month so is clearly valued by our readers. There is evidently enough to write about here to warrant a separate article for this character. NemesisAT (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. That is, Piotrus has indeed found sufficient evidence of notability during his WP:BEFORE work in the form of ISBN978-1419709838, but has missed the point by suggesting that the title of a real-world book detailing the most famous fictional dog portrayed by the thespian canine in question would not be sufficient to establish notability. That, and per everyone else above noting the other RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Toto has been more influential in popular culture at large than in the field of literary criticism. Nonetheless I found a few literary articles that discuss him:
Money and Politics in the Land of Oz is one of those articles insisting that the whole book is an allegory, and it has a short paragraph asserting that "Toto" is a pun on "teetotaler." (This strikes me as garbage analysis, but still RS coverage.)
EXPERIENCING THE WORLD AS HOME: Reflections on Dorothy's Quest in "The Wizard of Oz" has two paragraphs interpreting Toto's importance to the story's narrative arc and returns to him near the end. "When it seems as if she cannot have both Toto and home, she chooses Toto and runs away. Yet that is not a happy choice..."; later, "Dorothy's concern for joy, expressed at first in her desire to save Toto, is grounded in a belief in the reality of joy." The idea is that Toto represents joy itself in the story. (This strikes me as "ok" coverage.)
Most of what I found was outside of literature and seemed to treat him as so notable it wasn't worth actually talking about him, e.g., two articles about nursing which use him metaphorically as a model for becoming a better nurse (12), both of which briefly recap who Toto is but clearly expect readers to already know him. Overall I can see why Toto himself seems unimportant to his main current 'claim to fame' (the "Not in Kansas anymore" quote), but especially if we also consider, e.g., sources that discuss how Toto's role was filmed, I think there is enough coverage and cultural influence for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:37, 12 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.
BLP and BLP1E concerns. I saw the Vice article when it came out, but don't think that's enough to justify an article on her separately from something on "QAnon in Canada". Other sources are basically repeating the same story. Not sure whether any redirect would work here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Launching an unregistered political party is not an automatic free notability pass in and of itself in the absence of a reason why she could credibly be claimed to pass the ten year test for enduring significance — but the referencing shown here is not adequate to do that, consisting of one Vice article and two unreliable sources that aren't valid support for notability. That just makes her a WP:BLP1E at the present time. Of course, no prejudice against recreation in the future if she ever accrues a more substantive notability claim than this, but nothing here now is the stuff of permanent enduring notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 16 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. Despite the best efforts to improve the article, the consensus in this discussion is that the subject of the article does not meet the threshold of having non-routine coverage demonstrating notability. I find Bearcat's comment at 00:19 4 July to be particularly persuasive, in combination with the consensus to delete that otherwise exists. Daniel (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have decided to expand my support for keeping this article after expanding it. She is clearly notable not only because she served as the mayor of a large city. Her development policy as the city greatly grew in population is detailed, her signing onto multiple notable statements in favor of fighting climate change and support for gay rights, and her positions in the Broward League of Cities and Florida League of Mayors are included. She was not some unimportant mayor that did nothing for sixteen years until she was defeated, but instead an active mayor out of all Floridian mayors. As AfD are not majority vote I hope whoever closes this discussion sees that this article is now up to a standard to not be deleted. Also all of the other delete opinions are from before the article's expansion. Jon698 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's more sourcing than I thought there would be. It's on the line where I get fuzzy on notabilty. So, I'm withdrawing my vote for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Miramar has over 100,000 people, it is not a large city, but one of many places in an urban area where it is not by any stretch of imagination either the most important or most populous city. We would need good sourcing to justify keeping this article, and we lack that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. No size of city confers an automatic inclusion freebie on its mayors per se — the notability test for a mayor is not passed just by verifying that she exists, but by writing and sourcing substantive content about her political significance. In other words, it isn't a matter of verifying her election results (the only kind of sourcing that's actually been offered here) per se — it's a matter of writing and sourcing content about specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Muboshgu:@Lembit Staan:@Curbon7: I have expanded the article with some information that I have gathered in a few minutes. There are over 2,000 newspaper articles including her according to Newspapers.com so if I am given enough time then I can save this article from deletion. Jon698 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The number of newspaper clips does not matter. Please read carefully the comment of Bearcat. If after that you think you can save the page, it can be restored into your user space or draft space. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lembit Staan: The amount of newspaper clips does matter. It shows that there is information about her that can be added to the article. I have greatly expanded the article and I'm not even halfway done with the newspaper articles. Jon698 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No in doesnt. Please review our notablility criteria. Only refs with considerable coverage are counted, not just mentions. Also routine press releases and announcements don't count. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Considerable" is about the depth and substance of the coverage — it's not a measure of the number of hits there are, it's a measure of the context of what each piece of coverage was given for. For example, "mayor cuts ribbon to open dog park" would be +1 on the raw number of coverage hits, but is definitely not +1 on the "is this piece actually helping to establish notability?" scale. Raw number is irrelevant — it's the context of what any given piece of coverage is about that determines whether it helps to establish a mayor's notability or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completely wrong. While searching these 2,000 newspaper articles I saw nothing as inane as what you are suggesting. Instead I found out about her political positions, her development policy, positions she held in mayoral organizations, her elections, and other important information. These 2,000 articles are clearly considerable coverage of her. Jon698 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Her political positions, her development policy, positions she held in mayoral organizations, her elections" are not notability-building things to write about. Mayoral notability is built by writing and sourcing content about specific accomplishments that she achieved, not by her committee positions or her policies or her election results per se. And I didn't say your hits were or weren't on the "dog park" level — I can't tell, because I haven't seen most of them. But the point is that the number of hits you find isn't the notability test in and of itself, precisely because coverage of the "dog park" variety will always show up in the number of hits you get for any mayor of anywhere — the notability test is in the substance of what the available hits do or don't enable you to say about her concrete achievements. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed the article and found that nothing this politician did was notable. My takeaway was she didn't like strip malls which is not notable. This feels like a they existed article. Coopman86 (talk) 04:35, 10 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.
Wrong venue/wrong thing nominated The talk page was nominated apparently by mistake instead of the article. I suggest this be speedily closed so the article can be correctly nominated. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)02:21, 10 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.
Delete - I am not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this photographer; no exhibition history, no critical reviews, or articles or books on the subject of this article. Does not pass criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The article seems to mainly have been developed by WP:SPAs with sourcing that is extremely weak. Netherzone (talk) 22:19, 10 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 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.
Lacks notability, and a lot of the Reception content is padded to give the impression of notability. I removed much of what was there that was padding, but you may look at the history to see if you feel that the removed content was valuable reception. Also lacks background info on its creation. Bryn(talk)(contributions)00:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly one of the most iconic Pokémon. I also question the wisdom of this with a new game centering around Arceus coming out. I understand wanting to axe Entei, but not Arceus. Sailor Ceres (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since @NemesisAT: removed the notability tag from the article with the reasoning "it is a well-known Pokémon", I would like to invite them to participate. Link20XX (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the ping. I restored the article because I feel there should always be discussion before an article is turned into a redirect, however, I should have left the notability tag up as I'm not too fussed whether this is kept or not. After all, it is already covered by Bulbapedia. Having played Pokemon in the past this is one of the few names I remember, this was the reason for removing the tag. I'll stay neutral here. NemesisAT (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per (Oinkers42). The CBR ones aren't very helpful to demonstrate notability, but the NME and Polygon are both reliable sources and their coverage, when analyzed in conjunction with existing cited sources, scrapes the threshold of WP:GNG for me. Haleth (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of generation IV Pokémon#Arceus. Being the mascot of an entry into the video game series has not been enough reason for stand-alone articles (as demonstrated by the lack of individual articles on Kyogre, Groudon, Ho-Oh, Dialga, etc.) The article as it currently is fails to meet Notability. --LoЯd۞pεth21:15, 12 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.
Lacks notability, and a lot of the Reception content is padded to give the impression of notability. Much of the reception also has to do with the creature's role in the film. Also lacks background info on its creation. Bryn(talk)(contributions)00:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the corresponding list. If there is any mention in a reliable secondary source, it can be added into Entei's entry in the list. --LoЯd۞pεth21:06, 12 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.
There's also the unfortunate 2017 death by Lapras incident in Singapore, which has been covered by multiple news media outlets internationally besides the one I linked. Haleth (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I don't believe most of the participants in this discussion have actually done a proper WP:BEFORE. The call for a page protection without presenting a proper argument or rationale to support it in particular is clearly a bad faith call. The subject was subject to sustained, significant coverage about this by multiple diverse sources which are not specialized video game media which started before the current COVID pandemic and continued into 2020. In summary, it has been involved with the Miyagi Prefecture administration's tourism promotional efforts since 2016 and became one of its official mascots or "tourism ambassadors" by mid-2019: 1, 2, 3, 4, 56, 7. That is besides general coverage of the character's notoriety like this: 8. When analyzed in conjunction with the existing cited sources, it unambiguously meets the WP:GNG threshold to me. Since AfD is not a vote is a position advocated by many regular AfD participants, any redirect statements in this discussion which do not properly analyze the cited sources or the extent of available sourcing not used in this article should be discarded by the closer. Haleth (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being the mascot of a prefecture is pretty cool, but like, it feels as though this is the only thing going for it. I've no prejudice against more content being added in a recreated article if it is found. - 64.235.79.240 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, the only thing going for it is the only thing that justifies the article's existence on Wikipedia per WP:GNG, as there is sustained non-trivial coverage about the character's association with Miyagi Prefecture by multiple reliable sources independent from the local prefecture government and the Pokemon Company, dating back to 2016. The current consensus on Wikipedia appears to favour coverage from a real-world perspective, and the subject has something the vast majority of Pokemon species do not have beyond in-depth coverage of their in-universe or in-game roles which is essentially most of the coverage relating to Pokemon species we can find. Haleth (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, fuck it. It's not like I want to delete the article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep - Unlike other Pokemon that definitely has "weak" sources and trivial, even on Blastoise's article has trivial, I don't think his whole reception are worthless. 180.194.130.4 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per reasons below. So sad to see one of the popular Pokemon's article to be redirected. Hoping someone can recreate him in the future, but I don't think Wikiproject Pokemon is active. 180.194.130.4 (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into the above list. There is no deep coverage by reliable secondary sources, nor any impact in the real world. --LoЯd۞pεth21:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else. There is a reason Wikipedia does not include separate articles about each individual Pokémon any more. JIP | Talk23:28, 12 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 creator of this article has move warred twice thus bringing it here is last viable option. This is a possible UPE article on a non notable gospel singer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and fulfills no criterion from WP:SINGER. Move warring rather than using the AFC method is a major indicator of COI editing. The BBC source is put there on purpose to induce a false sense of notability, it is negligible as SIGOV isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources aren’t WP:SIGCOV. Infact the second source isn’t a reliable source as they are yet to develop a reputation for fact checking. Please what reliable source expressly states her song was used in All Africa games? Furthermore books sources aren’t automatically reliable except the author is a respected authority in that field. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The subject possess the minimum notability requirement needed to have a page on Wikipedia, as there are multiple reliable sources both online and offline to demonstrate this claim. I do, however, agree that the article need some improvements. I therefore vote for Keep while the page is being improved. Omorodion1 (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Omorodion1 what minimum requirements do you speak of? What sources show they are notable? Could you be gracious enough to provide any sources that confirm her notability status? Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Not to muddy the waters nor poison the well but it’s funny both keep !voters have been indicted in less than ethical practices that led to this and tp of this one is self explanatory. The same unethical practices I tried here to inquire from the creator of this article. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 10 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.
Article lacks notability. I had removed some dubious content that appeared to be used to give the impression of notability, content which was either not reception or extremely weak. Furthermore, the article does not really have anything in the way of background information, with the section devoted to mainly in-universe elements. Bryn(talk)(contributions)00:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the corresponding list of Pokémon. I think this article fails to have deep coverage by reliable secondary sources and real impact in the popular culture to have a stand-alone article. --LoЯd۞pεth21:13, 12 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails verification. Their website is just a logo and "coming soon". There are some Youtube videos (with very minimal views) from this brand, but no evidence it is on terrestrial TV. The references are a job recruitment ad, and a broken Youtube link. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:26, 10 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.
Delete or trim and merge to Redditch, which currently does not mention the group. Unsourced (and in 10 years has never had a source) article about an apparently non-notable local group. I can find no coverage about this group, only passing mentions in local media (they gave a concert, so and so attended their concert, their director retired, etc.) Meters (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "Bel Canto Singers" is a very popular name. There are many other groups also called "Bel Canto Singers" but not from Redditch. Meters (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that merging to Redditch is a viable option. If this is not notable enough for a separate article then inclusion in the main article about a sizeable town would almost certainly be undue. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 11 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.
