Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 6

< July 05 July 07 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobley missile strike

[edit]
Dobley missile strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ederies Arendse

[edit]
Ederies Arendse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Owor

[edit]
Milton Owor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of the chair of a rotary club who is also a successful HR professional. I don’t see anything here to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be retained because of the following reasons;

Asking ourselves questions
If we were to determine notability using the criteria that you have followed then we would be asking our selves;
  • Is Denis Toussaint Lesage is also notable or not? He was a successful deputy of his time
  • What is so special about that president of a certain country as there has been more presidents before him that have done great things?
  • What makes that CEO notable as their are people who have done what he has done.As in he founded a company but their are big companies than what he founded, etc

  • Does one being a member of a certain club, association or secret organisation make that person notable?
But according to the;
He is not just a HR professional at the NSSF Uganda, not everyone can be in that position. But he also won a top HR award in Uganda for his profession. B722N (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s true that New Vision and Daily Monitor mention him, but neither piece is in depth coverage of him and does not contribute in any way to demonstrating notability. Everything else we have for sourcing us either from organisations associated with the subject, or a non-notable award. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the biggest challenges faced by African Wikipedians is getting in-depth references that talk about people they are writing about. Most of the content in the newspapers and books is just a paragraph or a sentence. Very few Ugandans have books written about them or entire newspaper pages dedicated to them.

I request that you check most of the Ugandan Wikipedia articles and check whether their references have entire pages dedicated to the people that have been written about. Most of that information comes from their personal or company websites which are mostly not written with Neutral Point of View. And then the information from those websites is backed up with those paragraphs and sentences that have been found the notable media sites and publications.

Even most of newspaper articles about the profile of a person is usually tagged as sponsored content and you know that as long as an article drives sales or generates clicks or they have been paid then they will have to publish it. And how many international media houses are going to write about the profiles of Ugandan people in depth from childhood to education to their careers. They will just write a paragraph about the career and working experience.

And for the awards, what makes the award notable?

Should we be only considering the Grammy Awards or the BET Awards as the notable awards and not the top Ugandan Awards that awards their Ugandan musicians.

Or we should only be considering the Komla Dumor Award as the only notable award for journalists and not the awards that are given by the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA) because they are not recognized anywhere apart from Uganda.

I understand that we are doing the deletions to improve the quality of content on Wikipedia and that not everybody deserves to have a Wikipedia article since it is not an advertising platform.

And also you are not tagging these articles in bad faith but it is for the greater good. But how are we going to increase the African content on Wikipedia yet the articles written with the fewer references that are harder to get are also being deleted. If the article did follow guidelines such as WP:NPOV or the Wikipedia:Notability (people) or the tone was harsh.

I suggest that this article should be retained.

And also instead of deleting the published articles, they should be moved back to the draft space where someone can wait for 6 months before even getting a reference that writes about that person in depth. But at-least it gives the editors another chance to look deeper for the reference to find the new references that have written.

These kinds of deletions demotivate new editors, they will end up losing interest in contributing to the different projects of the Wikimedia Foundation especially if they tried to follow the guidelines for writing the articles about different topics. B722N (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies of living people are one of the most challenging types of article. A lot get deleted because we have a very high threshold for notability where they're concerned. I’ve no doubt there are many articles to be written on Uganda-related topics, using ordinary newspapers and other sources, where they won’t be challenged - that’s why newer users are often advised to avoid BLPs to start with. I’ve no objection to this article being draftified if there are in fact better sources that will clearly demonstrate notability. But draftification is pointless unless those sources probably exist. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your time @Mccapra and enlightening me. All of your points have been noted. B722N (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is a WP:REFBOMB but not a single one provides WP:SIGCOV of the subject. All available sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (corporate bio pages, self-authored material) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS with a name-check or perhaps a photo caption. He seems like a terrific civic-minded local leader but there is no evidence the subject passes the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. (As for the latter, an editor up-thread appears to say that Owor is listed in the Ugandan biographical dictionary, but there is no cite to that in the article and I cannot find that such a reference exists at all, much less that Owor is in it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: HR professional and president of a rotary club with no indication of notability. Opened every single source cited in the article hoping to find reliable ones but turned out that no single one is reliable to support notability. From sources number one to ten in the article all except one are primary sources and a further look at all sources proved same. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC Ednabrenze (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Friendly's

[edit]
Pet Friendly's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, no secondary sources. This article has no sources that suggest notability, but only references to the subject's own website/blog. If we compare the name of the account that created the article, Cathalmoylan, with the name of one of the founders of the business, Cathal Moylan (mentioned in the article), it becomes obvious that there is a WP:COI. Even so, the article is not written in a promotional way, so it can't be speedied per G11. However, it's clearly not a notable business. Bishonen | tålk 22:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hacktivity

[edit]
Hacktivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this conference. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granita (restaurant)

[edit]
Granita (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL defunct restaurant whose claim for inclusion is a WP:1E situation: the restaurant was known only for being the site of the Blair–Brown deal, an event in British political history which has nothing to do with the restaurant as such. Nothing else about the restaurant is in any way remarkable or notable. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blimus

[edit]
Blimus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is quite old, band seems to be long-since defunct. No real evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. No hits, no awards, no label, etc. None of the links are archived on archive.org, two are just listings on the programme for a festival. The BBC interview is the most promising but an interview alone wouldn't support an article, and looking at the URL it seems like it was actually a promotional listing for that same festival, rather than a journalistic interview. Googling around it seems to mostly be Wikipedia mirrors at this point. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw. Most of the Keep views focused on the amount of news coverage the topic received, and its political importance. Both are valid factors when determining journalistic importance, but not in establishing encyclopedic notability. Claiming notability comes from this being an unprecedented event is also not supported by our P&G.

Some participants called for waiting until November before we decide. Such an a posteriori determination of notability goes against our guidelines, as some here correctly noted. In the event that this topic gains notability in the future, nothing stops us from restoring the article from under the redirect. Discarding the !votes not based on P&G, we're left with a rough consensus to redirect.

There was a separate consensus since the AfD was opened to move the Calls for Biden to step aside section in both 2024 United States presidential election and 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries to Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign, so I picked the latter as the target most likely to reflect the intention of the Redirect views. That shouldn't prevent any editor from selectively merging content to the two other articles (or to List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign), or if consensus exists, changing the target of this redirect. Owen× ☎ 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

[edit]
Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable topic. This is an extended news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. It's also too likely to devolve into a WP:POVFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely important part of the 2024 election cycle that will 100% be relevant in 10 years time, no matter if he stays in or not. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it won’t. If he drops, the main article would be Joe Biden’s suspended 2024 United States presidential campaign if anything; people “calling” on him to drop out would be less relevant than the actual action of him dropping out. If he continues to be the nominee and even wins, nobody will care and an article would seem unnecessary. Same as when people called for Trump to drop out in 2016, but he ended up winning; we don’t have an article for that. Prcc27 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't have the massive revolt against a sitting president after a primary season which he effortlessly won in 2016. Of course people were calling on Trump to drop out in 2016, he had a bunch of primary opponents and disapproval from past Republicans like the Bushes. The Biden situation is far different, significant, and has nearly no precedent- except for LBJ in 1968, which could easily use an article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait / Weak Keep -I think original nominator suggests likely to devolve into WP:POVFORK as a reason to delete. Likely to devolve into WP:POVFORK should not be an argument to avoid documenting on wikipedia. I also think that its unlikely any of us has the political foresight OR neutrality to properly comment on this topic until at least a month or so after the debate. A fair amount of supporter for Biden seem to be voting to delete, and supporters of removing biden suggest keep. I think notability of this as a lasting event or just another news cycle will depend deeply on time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Democrats opposed to Joe Biden's campaign; maybe make a segment for non-Democrats and/or rename the page to "List of those opposed to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. EPBeatles (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is widely covered and there's no reason to believe that it won't continue to grow in notability. Swinub (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCBT-LD

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
KCBT-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This television station does not contain the necessaryWP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. This subject did survive a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today, and a AfD earlier this year closed as non consensus due to low participation. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHF-LD

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
KVHF-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Facility records and FCC licenses don't cut it, and a search didn't come up with much more. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracthyr

[edit]
Dracthyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with "there are no reliable sources" "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.
    I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ketterer

[edit]
Franz Ketterer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an obscure subject that does not seem to be notable outside of some (likely incorrect) mentions that he invented the cuckoo clock. I cannot find sufficient sourcing to improve the article. Mbdfar (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Most sources online are clock stores and blogs which are not reliable. There are quite a few hits on Google books that claim he did indeed invent the cuckoo clock, some written in in the 1800s, so I do not entirely believe it is a myth that has just propagated around the internet. The article is obviously WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it would have to be rewritten and appropriately sourced. I believe the subject probably is notable if he did invent the cuckoo clock, I just don't think there's enough coverage to write an article claiming he did without WP:OR. With the coverage that I have found, the article would amount to nothing more than a short stub stating something like "Franz Ketterer was a German clockmaker who may have invented the cuckoo clock." If someone does look through Google books or elsewhere and finds even a bit more in-depth coverage, I will change my vote to keep. C F A 💬 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Thanks to Cielquiparle for improving the article.
  • Keep and keep improving. Article was in dismal shape so have performed WP:TNT and rewritten with citations. Meets WP:GNG although the article is more about the historiography rather than a biography per se (not uncommon, the further back in history you go). While not every history mystery is worthy of a Wikipedia article, this one is because the village of Schönwald and other entities continue to promote the Franz Ketterer story. Good article to have flagged for cleanup, now we can keep improving. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Karl of Hesse

[edit]
Prince Karl of Hesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources include passing mentions in a couple of books about other people and a self-published fansite. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only item that get somehow significant coverage was his marriage. Therefore this is a case for WP:ONEEVENT and this only got attention because of the attending guests, not the couple itself. So, no notability. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The several book notices of the subject pass WP:Basic. Axisstroke (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how you come to "serveral" book notices? 2 of the 4 books (with one listed double) are simple name directories, one is covering his father (with one trivial mention, that his father choosed the name "Adolf" for him to honor Adolf Hitler). I was not able to get access to the fourth book but given the sourced information and the title of the book, his coverage there is not substantial either. So, there is at maximum one book, which is very clearly about a differnt person. How can this add up to "significant coverage"? --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets at least WP:Basic. The fact that the wedding was attended by notable people is an indication of societal notability which also attracted media attention. And being cited in multiple books is an indication of notability even if he is not the subject of those books. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Arsène Lupin#Overview. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Balsamo

[edit]
Josephine Balsamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview, where she is briefly mentioned. The current article is completely unsourced, and searching is not bringing up anything but brief mentions in plot summaries, such as in the book discussed above. Since there is no "character list" for the Lupin series, and the original story she appeared in does not seem to have its own article, redirecting to the main page where she is briefly mentioned appears to be the best viable target. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messhof

[edit]
Messhof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability for a biography. See talk page for prior discussion, I think anything relevant here is feasible to merge into the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Messhof is a single game dev, so the article passes the subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. He "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". He has several independently notable games, and Ghost Bike is also likely to be notable upon release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "single game dev" exception seems arbitrary. What specifically, a collective body of work? I can see Nidhogg as a two part series but Ghostbike would appear independent and WP:TOOSOON. I would create a category with the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for "Mark Essen" instead of "Messhof" I have found dozens of articles about how he has been one of the few game devs to be recognized as an artist by the art establishment with his games being placed in various art galleries. This also passes the criteria "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Messhof get significant coverage at those exhibitions? "Recognition" would fit for Video games as an art form but I don't think they pass the criteria. IgelRM (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IgelRM, the rule of thumb we typically use for creators is "two or more independently notable works". Basically, if there's only one notable work, we could easily add the biographical detail to that article rather than having a separate creator article. If there's more than one, or there's just so much coverage about both creator and work, then it makes more sense to have multiple authors. Since we have Nidhogg (video game), Nidhogg 2, and Flywrench, it's more convenient to have a separate article for the creator. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With that role of thumb, I think e.g. every game director at Nintendo would be notable. IgelRM (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If every game director at Nintendo was a solo game dev, yes, they would be. However, they are not. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, source 3 is two photos and captions, nothing extensive. Source 7 is mainly an interview with this person; rest used in the article are only mentions of this person... Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't find anything else about this person that isn't already in the article, and the sources aren't all about this person, or are trivial coverage. Just not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject's works are clearly the focus of multiple, reliable, independent sources, passing the general notability guideline as a creator. Our articles on his works (Nidhogg (video game), Flywrench, Nidhogg 2) each have sources covering his role in creating them. Additionally, reliable sources have also covered his other works not independently notable, such as Punishment 2[4] and Ghost Bike[5][6]. There is enough reliable source coverage of these other games that they wouldn't fit in an existing article and so the developer's own article is a natural place to cover them. czar 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czar. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pro forma note that Czar is the article creator. What I get out of the rockpapershotgun article is that Messhof created freeware games prior to Nidhogg with a similar aesthetic. IgelRM (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wrote the GA for Nidhogg (video game). Yes, the detail of those freeware games and the background on what became his most notable games are what justifies an independent article to house those details. czar 04:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah; I guess I am being bold here, you have more editing experience than me. Right now, the details are basically only the game names, not even release years.
Edit: Hhm, if it wasn't structured as a bio and incorporated Flywrench, maybe it would make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuckle Brothers

[edit]
Nuckle Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's the 50 words in the OC Weekly article that's linked already, and there are mentions in student newspapers like the Daily Titan ([7], [8], [9]), but they can't establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kinross

[edit]
Robin Kinross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this even pass WP:GNG? The current references are certainly nowhere near up to scratch. One hit on Google News. Uhooep (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract differential geometry

[edit]
Abstract differential geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR: All this stub is based on 4 primary sources that have the same first author

WP:ORPHAN: All incoming links from the main space are in "See also" sections or in a stand-alone list. Apparrently, the only reason of these links is de-orphanization. D.Lazard (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would lightly support deletion. On Google Scholar, the "Geometry of vector sheaves" book has been cited 137 times, although the majority appear to be self-citations or citations of the form "for work on this related topic, see the book Geometry of vector sheaves". As far as I can tell (but without confidence), the topic is not of major research interest. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you did not find any reliable WP:secondary source that discusses the subject. D.Lazard (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to say anything definitive yet, but a first pass through the citations to both books has an anomalously high level of dubious sources: MDPI journals, unreviewed preprints, etc. In any case, this stub has been functionally abandoned since 2009, and the creator has not edited since 2010, so working on it doesn't seem to be anyone's top priority. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cebu. Content is there should anyone wish to Merge any of it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Cebu

[edit]
Outline of Cebu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd blank and redirect, but it seems an unlikely search term. I simply fail to see what pupose this article serves; there is already an article on Cebu. TheLongTone (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cebu. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Audiovisual archive. Owen× ☎ 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video logging

[edit]
Video logging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bereft of encylopedic content, while the term is cleary genuine it's also pretty self explanatory (that video logging is the logging of video, thank you wikipedia). Reads somewhere between a how to guide and veichle for spam. Article isn't serving any purpose not met by Digital asset management, Content management etc. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tišťan

[edit]
Martin Tišťan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics because I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. The only decent source I found is Netky where he was disqualified, but it looks nowhere near significant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics#Men. Doesn't meet WP:NATH and WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Neither of the two Keep views successfully countered the deficiency in sourcing. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fermor (Russian nobility)

[edit]
Fermor (Russian nobility) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. BAsically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) -- Update: The article creator now added many references, but none of them speaks about family, only about individual members. - Altenmann >talk 17:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update the noble Russian family Count Fermor is displayed in beautiful portraits in the State Russian museum: daughter and son of General Wiliam Fermor (see gallery of the entry). The daughter Sarah Eleanore Fermor of General Wiliam Fermor is considered to be Ivan Vishnyakov most beautiful portraits. The display of this family portraits already underlines the notability of the russian Fermor family.
Members of the noble family have several historic reference: An aide du camp of the Polish Governor got shot by revolutionists in 1906 during the Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907), a count donated a Mammoth to the National Museum of Natural History, France[1] and held important Russian military and civil position. The count title gives enough notability to deserve the article. Moreover the family is referenced in several Russian genealogy books.
Furthermore US press considers Count Fermor to be "a member of one of the most aristocratic Russian families"[2] and a a "descendant of the first Russian dynasty".
sidenote: In contrast to false User:Altenmann claims the history of the article in question shows well that I am not the creator of it, just merely improving it now and pointing out the importance of the Fermor (Russian nobility). Axisstroke (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"descendant of the first Russian dynasty" and "one of the most aristocratic Russian families" are nonsense newspaper hype that cannot be taken seriously as proof of notability. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hype is usual in US newspaper. Nevertheless good hype based on that family members gave their life for the Russia Empire. Axisstroke (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep stands. (And no this is not a second vote just a reiteration based on the updated article on the noble Counts Fermor).
Axisstroke (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. More sources would still be needed for a more definite statement. Updated 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Delete unless references about the family, not individual members, are found. Are there no family entries in any Russian-language encyclopedias, or is it just that this family is not covered? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The counts of Fermor are covered in the first three references. Why do you claim they are not covered?
    Moreover in the update above is indicated that the family is covered by special portraits in the Russian State museum: Daughter and Son of the General Count Fermor. How can the son and daughter not count as family members?
    How does the grand daughter who was one of the richest female entrepreneurs not count as family member? The claims by the initiator of the delete request that the Counts are not covered is not true.
    Moreover you seem to ignore the visit of the ambassador of Bismarck, which stayed at the family home in St Petersburg, when he was German Ambassador in Russia and got Russian lessons by the family of the counts of Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the confusion stems that the German nobility title given to General Wiliam Fermor got recognized by the Russian emperor directly afterwards. So it is a German title for a Russian family in the Russian Empire (including baltic states). Axisstroke (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the exact pages in e.g. Baltisches Wappenbuch? I also don't see an entry for Fermor family in Titled nobility of Europe. Please provide quotes if the Google Books snippet search is not accurate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added google books links for the first references to help to clarify. The pages to the Reichsgraf title are on page 32[3] "Reichs Graf 12. 6.1758" and on page 37 of the additional text to the book[4] "1759 Graf Fermor, Wilhelm Senateur zu Nitau, Mahrzen, Muehlgraben" (Baltic property of the family).
    First of all the title of the page is "Fermor (Russian nobility)". The title given by Maria Theresia to General Wiliam Fermor is Reichsgraf as referenced. Reichsgraf is a high noble title so notability of the nobility is given. The title is hereditary hence any descendant got it.
    Second of all the portraits of his son and daughter are high class portraits by one of the best painter. At the time this was not done for peasants and the Russian state museum portraits underline the notability of the family. I am quite puzzled why this portraits would not count in the referenced notability of the Count Fermor's.
    Third of all the family is referenced in the two other secondary books. Axisstroke (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The titled nobility book picks up the female Fermor descendant line, see page 1396 where Count Fermor becomes hereditary Count Stenbock Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify what kind of entries are sought, here's an example from Swedish biographical dictionary for House of Bjälbo: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/mobil/Artikel/14301 That entry discusses the family itself, not only the individuals. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "General Fermor, whose origin is unknown to me, signalized himself in the Seven Years' war, and was created Count in the year 1788, June 12th. His name passed to a branch of the Counts of Stenbock, an illoustrous family in the records of Sweden"[5]
    Summarizing the son (portrait 2) of the General has no known descendants, his daughter Sarah (portrait 3) marries a count Stenbock and their son (grand-son of the General) becomes count Stenbock Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above, and this reference gives information about the Stenbock-Fermor line at least. Here's a somewhat more substantial reference contributing to notability of the Fermor name: Российская родословная книга, Том 2 (p. 259, or search for Fermor) The translated and annotated version currently present in the article does not contain as much information. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed this is a great reference and information which is not present in any either language [ru, uk] Fermor entry. I will add shortly. Thank you. Axisstroke (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Morfill 1902: A history of Russia, from the birth of Peter the Great to Nicholas II mentions that William Fermor was of English extraction, and connected with the same family which claimed the famous Arabella, the heroine of the "Rape of the Lock. This is such a brief mention that I don't consider it contributing to notability (which I still find borderline) but may nevertheless be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right there is also a funny conspiracy theory involving a count Steinbock Fermor plotting the Death of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, see section "Suicide ordered by "court of honor". I won't include these speculations. Axisstroke (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't yet included the full info from the russian book, will do over next days. Axisstroke (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mnhn.fr/fr/mammouth-laineux
  2. ^ https://books.google.nl/books?id=cXY-AAAAIBAJ&lpg=PA2&dq=%22Fermor%22%20Russian%20count&hl=nl&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q=fermor&f=false
  3. ^ https://www.digar.ee/viewer/et/nlib-digar:46148/18062/page/35
  4. ^ https://www.digar.ee/viewer/et/nlib-digar:46148/18062/page/176
  5. ^ https://books.google.nl/books?id=MJsBAAAAQAAJ&vq=fermor&hl=nl&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I don’t see how any other editor can’t see the numerous issues with this page and think that it’s anything more than a very poorly translated and formatted article. If this family were really famous, they would have many more sources, and at least some editors would fix it. Right now, this is looking like many hours of editing. Even assuming, arguendo, that this passes barely, it’s a hot mess, as the kids say. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first four and the sixth references in the intro show the relevance of the family. There were none when this procedure started. The references on the Fermor nobility are in German, Russian and English, so if there is any doubt on them that be good to hear. At this point as referenced article it is on the initiator or endorser to show that the references would not bear notability.
    Besides the nuclear option, any constructive advice. Axisstroke (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded intro and fixed to have the first five important references as the relevant ones. Axisstroke (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no references that discuss the family in reasonable depth, only mention it or describe its members. - Altenmann >talk 01:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true: The coat of arms is for the family as it's hereditary title. The book references speak about both the family and it's individuals, as a family is the sum of it's members. The Ivan Vishnyakov portraits are quite notable, plus there are both Russian and Ukraine entries of the Fermor nobility. Axisstroke (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The portraits contribute nothing towards notability. They do not illustrate many generations of family, it's just William Fermor's children. Wikipedia entries also do not count since they are not considered reliable. Coat of arms is something to be discussed in the article, but notability is determined from textual material. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that each Wikipedia has it's own rules. Nevertheless if the family would not have Russian and Ukranian entries that would point to a lack of notability. Axisstroke (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Argument as a placeholder. There is unanimous agreement not to keep this article, but no consensus as to the best redirect target. Any editor is welcome to replace with a better target, or carry out a page-swap. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

[edit]
Disagreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to any of the above choices. This article exists because nobody could what???????? 🤔
jp×g🗯️ 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Leap Motion. Debate about switching the redirect target to Torch (company) can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buckwald

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Michael Buckwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should add that I did the usual G-search and found no significant independent sources. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I lean towards trimming the page and leaving the basic information. Redirecting to another page is not optimal either. The person has a basic level of notable media coverage and is generally notable. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CKM NSS Senior Secondary School

[edit]
CKM NSS Senior Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV found anywhere and the sources used are entirely primary sources. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nikhil Nanda#Personal life. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agastya Nanda

[edit]
Agastya Nanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited–being a member of a notable family is not an exception, infact, it is the true definition. Having asserted above, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR because he only started in one or two films, and not multiple. Infact, most of the sources were about the family, and not this young actor. In regards to that, there is more to draftifying and marking as promised because this is a clear issue of WP:TOOSOON. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Iranian films of the 2000s. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue (film)

[edit]
The Blue (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the current state of the article, it is clear it doesn't meet WP:NFILM; no critical review from reliable sources or rating in any film rating platform. If sources are found, ping me. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BigID

[edit]
BigID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Sources are _almost entirely_ related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Christopher Evans

[edit]
D. Christopher Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Payne

[edit]
Sebastian Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of the individual is questionable, and as I've noted before his article is written like a resume. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish musicians

[edit]
List of Spanish musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SALAT, the scope of the list is too broad. There are more than 2300 pages in Category:Spanish musicians, this list is useless without further subdivision. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Spain. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be subdivided alphabetically when needed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Musicians by country shows these articles are common, wouldn't make sense to have one country not on the list. Being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete any article, nor is the arguments "its useless". If there was a bot someone could run to grab basic information from the infoboxes of the articles linked to, and add that to table formation, years active, what type of music they play, etc, it'd be more useful. Dream Focus 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is not that the list is incomplete. A list of 2300 entries would be far too wieldy, and the potential entries that do not yet have a Wikipedia article are even more. According to WP:SALAT Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections, hence my comment about the usefulness of the list. In particular, I am concerned by having an endless and incomplete list of blue links, with no additional information, and no curation. The argument "these articles are common" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of these lists were created in the early years of Wikipedia (when they maybe contained only a handful of entries) and have been kept per status quo, but now have no reason to exist. Broc (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The size of a list is never a valid reason for deletion. Many list simply break off into smaller list when they get too large. List of aircraft, Lists_of_stars#By_proximity, etc. Dream Focus 00:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRIT -- more specifically, poorly defined inclusion criteria -- what does originating from Spain mean? If a person is born in Spain but moves to another country at an early age, does that count? Or vice versa? What about at a later age? What about citizenship change? What about very old entries where "Spain" then wasn't the same as "Spain" now? Using modern political boundaries as a subdivider is inherently problematic, which brings to my next point -- this is also an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the different combination of ways you could subdivide. Is this using "musician" to subdivide a "list of Spaniards", or is it using "Spanish" to subdivide a "list of musicians"? Why not by style/genre instead? Or birth year? Or alphabetical? This sort of random intersection of properties is best left for Wikidata. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This debate is probably going to end with "no consensus" due to conflicting WP policies. This list of Spanish musicians probably violates WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT because it's just a poorly-defined and never-ending pile of blue links. On the other hand, different WP policies would support this article's existence because of many similar list articles found at Template:Musicians by country. But if you browse all the other country lists, most of them have the exact same problems as this one. I submit that this is a bigger policy challenge beyond assessing the usefulness of this list about Spain, but an AfD discussion almost never results in deeper discussions of larger policy conflicts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520 I do not see any conflicting policy. I see WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT showing that this stand-alone list should not exist because too broad in coverage and with no clear inclusion criterion. I even see troubles with WP:NLIST as I could not find a single source that publishes a full list of Spanish musicians. I see many entries in Template:Musicians by country that could possibly deleted under the same arguments. Those lists have varied levels of curation and subcategorization, hence might deserve separate discussions. What would you suggest is the right forum for discussion, if not AfD? Broc (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Broc - I agree with your assessment, but look at the "Keep" votes here which are also based on policy. I've seen this happen many times before and it will happen again. Here people will argue about this individual article and nobody will address bigger issues, probably not even the Admin who is guaranteed to say "No Consensus" at the end. Meanwhile, there are folks who discuss policies for lists and others who discuss policies for categories and others who discuss policies for templates etc. etc. etc. Just imagine getting them coordinated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standard list for a topic notable as a set, with a clear defining criteria.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sher Bengali

[edit]
Ali Sher Bengali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilangkattuvalasu

[edit]
Vilangkattuvalasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search