Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 20: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:27, 20 September 2021 editAb207 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,502 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kothaga Maa Prayanam.Tag: Twinkle← Previous edit Revision as of 16:30, 20 September 2021 edit undoDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edgar de Evia (2nd nomination).Tag: TwinkleNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__ __TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edgar de Evia (2nd nomination)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kothaga Maa Prayanam}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kothaga Maa Prayanam}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karshanam}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karshanam}}

Revision as of 16:30, 20 September 2021

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 15 (Wed)      January 14 (Tue)      January 13 (Mon)     More...

Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

< September 19 September 21 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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 keep. Eddie891 Work 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edgar de Evia

AfDs for this article:
Edgar de Evia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography for a non-notable photographer. damiens.rf 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. A simple google books search revealed multiple sources with independent significant coverage (just scroll through the first 4 or 5 pages). Clearly a competent WP:BEFORE was not done. I found a review of his work in The New York Times: See: "COLOR IN REVIEW: Popular Photography's Color Annual Surveys Medium's Current Status How Creative Is Color?" Range of Effects Color vs. Black and White". The New York Times. 19 May 1957. p. X17.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep multiple hits on Google books indicate that the subject was much discussed and there is no shortage of references about him. Mccapra (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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. ✗plicit 23:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Kothaga Maa Prayanam

Kothaga Maa Prayanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks coverage needed to meet WP:NFILM. Only one review from 123telugu is cited which is not enough. Cannot find anything else significant in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Telugu. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Karshanam

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not a single review from a notable critic. No coverage. scope_creep 14:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I searched for the Kannada name ಕರ್ಷಣಂ and added these three references: I wish we could get participation from editors who read Kannada. I can't, so I am limited to what understanding I can get using Google Translate.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. "ಕರ್ಷಣಂ: ಕೊಲೆಗಳ ಸುತ್ತಾ ಕೌತುಕದ ಕಂದೀಲು!" . cinibuzz.in (in Kannada). 24 November 2018.
  2. "'ಕರ್ಷಣಂ' ಚಿತ್ರದ ಆಡಿಯೋ ರಿಲೀಸ್". Cinisuddi (in Kannada). 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2021-09-20.
  3. vaishnavi. "ಚಿತ್ರ ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ: ಒಂಚೂರು ಆಕರ್ಷಣಂ ಒಂದಷ್ಟು ವಿ'ಕರ್ಷಣಂ'!". Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd (in Kannada). Retrieved 2021-09-20.
That first one has malware on the url. These three reference copies of IMDB. The third one is a review about 12 lines, compressed into English. They are click sites and they are really and low-quality references. Very poor. scope_creep 00:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Hello sir. Here is one more review in Prajavani . It is a big newspaper in Kannada. And, more news about film when it go to dubbing etc , . I remember even seeing more reviews in newspapers when it was released but don't know where to find them. It was a very popular movie. That's why so much news on it. Ntkn769 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC) — Ntkn769 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are mere announcements. I'm a little concerned about the reliability of this paper cutting, it was published under their "Common Supplement Edition", but looking at their website there is no such category and can't find anything in the archive. Also, this is just a regular news piece (not a review) and there is no evidence it was published in Prajavani. GSS  15:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and GSS.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Danilo Venturi

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

WP:BLP of a writer and marketing person, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for writers or marketing people. The notability claim here is essentially that he exists, with no indication of the distinctions (awards, analysis of his significance in third-party media outlets, etc.) that it takes to turn existence into notability -- and the article is referenced to a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions in the first person and his two books metaverifying their own existence on Amazon.com, none of which are notability-supporting sources. As always, notability is not a question of using primary sources to verify that he's done stuff, it's a question of the degree to which he has or hasn't received independent analysis of the stuff he's done in media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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. Ritchie333 20:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Alex Roland

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

Deprodded by Sdkb. I believe the topic fails WP:BIO. Note that, as is common in broadcast journalism (and the source of some confusion), the Emmy awards are from a state/regional chapter and are not national Emmys; I don't personally find that the awards from NATAS chapters are notable on their own. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Vishal Bhardwaj (actor)

Vishal Bhardwaj (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. A before search returns with social media links, and some vanity press and potentially unreliable source such as this. He has mostly played minor roles that is not sufficient to demonstrate notability --Creativitylove (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Creativitylove (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Creativitylove (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Frankly TNT seems like a good idea, but I can't find consensus for that option. I find no other consensus. As "no consensus" is de-facto keep, those who have made the "keep" argument are cordially invited to perform some much-needed pruning and verification. If this does not happen, I would recommend this be re-nominated after a period of time (say, two months?), as there is consensus that the article in its current state is not healthy for our encyclopedia. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Gary Braver

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

Everything is unsourced and not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Ilhamnobi (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors claiming to have found sources would do better to link them or provide an account of them. The article being poorly written ("fawning fan page") is not an argument for deleting unless this is so bad that it should have been speedy deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep While the article has no reliable sources this author has published a number of books with a large press, namely Macmillan. A quick search turned up sources which could be added to the article. So while the article does need a ton of work, it's a keep for me.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist as editors claim WP:SOURCESEXIST but haven't linked them. Pinging RomanSpa and SouthernNights.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article, but the suggestions to merge or redirect have not been entirely refuted. Ritchie333 20:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Canadian sentiment

AfDs for this article:
Anti-Canadian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PERMASTUB Not a notable subject on its own. Only item doesn't seem very notable. If someone wanted to keep the info, they could add it to Brazil–Canada relations. Funnily, the talk page for this article is huge. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles like this are legitimate only in cases like Anti-Semitism where there is a substantial body of academic, third-party literature that discusses the phenomenon as such in its entirety (as opposed to simply individual events described as "anti-X'ist"). Otherwise the synthesis of such events constitutes WP:OR. Legitimate information pertaining to individual historical situations can be integrated elsewhere, for instance in articles on "History of X" or "X-Y relations".

In addition to Allan (2009), already referenced in the article, I found two more possibly usable sources on a google books search:
  • Brunet, Michel (1969). Anti-Canadianism and Anti-Americanism in the Cultural and Political Tradition of the American and Canadian Peoples: Lecture Given at the University of Delaware ; Contemporary Canada and the Double Challenge of the United States' Continentalism and of the Quebecois' Nationalism.
  • Morissey, Ronald S. (1968). American Attitudes Toward Canada, 1815-1854. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Note that all three of these seem to focus on the US with regards to "anti-Canadianism". So far I'm not convinced there's a "substantial body" so my preference at present would be to merge notable incidents, such as the Saudi one, into bilateral relations articles, and redirect this title to foreign relations of Canada. If someone can demonstrate that there are more sources available whose primary topic is "anti-Canadianism" I may be convinced to change my vote to keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete/selective merge Almost none of this is actually a cohesive topic of anti-Canadian sentiment, just different content synthesized together. In popular culture: all complete satire of the fact that nobody actually hates Canada so it's funny when people do. Domestic section: silly that this is the longest one, and I don't think it's appropriate to conflate Quebec nationalism with First Nations criticism with political complaints about policies. Incredibly inappropriate that irrelevant nonsense like "Conservative activists Steven Crowder, David Frum, Jamie Glazov, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have repeatedly criticized Canada's policies." was restored to the article when deservedly removed. Anti-Americanism doesn't need to include domestic criticism of our own government or culture. The diplomatic issues are also isolated events that aren't tied together as deep-seated sentiment against the Canadian people. Reywas92 14:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Selective Merge per filelakeshoe. It is a WP:COATRACK but there is some valuable content here to other articles which makes merger valuable. Additionally, future sources may be found to properly recreate the article. WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP apply here.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Negative sentiments towards Canada exist. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject meets WP:GNG and the sources tell that the sentiment against Canada is indeed specific. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to try and establish consensus on an appropriate redirect/merge target or allow evidence to be presented that article meets WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Khumbu Malinga

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Google search for name brings up about 35 original results, none of which are reliable / discuss the subject in any significant way. It's basically a resume, not an article. ... discospinster talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Umut Camkiran

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

I removed a PROD under the belief that the subject satisfies GNG but after attempting to improve the article, I've realised this isn't the case. My before search in English and Turkish found mostly routine fight results. There's a large amount of coverage on this website, however, per GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails GNG and NBOX. .O. 12:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. .O. 12:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. .O. 12:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. .O. 12:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

TNTlite

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

An article that has existed since 2005 about non-notable software that has failed in that time to provide any references showing how this topic meets the criteria for notability. -- Longhair\ 08:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect: This and the related TNTmips article were created by an IP WP:SPA. The 2005 AfD seems to have fallen into a WP:ITSUSEFUL discussion. Although there are passing mentions that this cut-down version of TNTmips exists, I am not seeing evidence that it has in itself gained notability. If the main product survives its parallel AfD, then a redirect may be valid, otherwise deletion seems the appropriate outcome. AllyD (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't my content area, but I am seeing hits in google books on this topic which may or may not constitute significant coverage. Have reviewers looked at what is there?4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. There are passing reference to this subject in book references but I have not found anything substantial. Ifnord (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
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. The only delete vote post additional sources being added gave no meaningful rationale and did not address why the new sources were insufficient. SpinningSpark 16:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

TNTmips

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

An article that has existed since 2005 about non-notable software that has failed in that time to provide any references showing how this topic meets the criteria for notability. -- Longhair\ 08:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • DELETE non-notable software product from non-notable company, and an article that It isn't even clear from this infrequently edited article whether the product is still current. Just 3 edits in 8 years since 2013 surely means this is a product and page that nobody cares about / nobody will miss. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
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. ✗plicit 12:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Bob Baldwin (musician)

Bob Baldwin (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see reliable independent sources meeting WP:NBIO. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Seems a lot of WP:SPIP has been going on in the article's creation and edit history. The Dallas Weekly states that he received a Grammy nomination in 2000 and has had 5 Billboard Jazz top-10 discs. Maybe someone can find references for these. Billboard charts turn up nothing on Baldwin; even the link used in the article turns up zero results. The claims that he is a Grammy nominee also seems possibly untrue – WVAS.FM states that he co-wrote and co-produced two songs on the 2000 album "All the Man You Will Need" by Will Downing that was was nominated for a Grammy, not that Baldwin was nominated. I can't determine if he's notable or not, however. ExRat (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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 Canceled Apollo missions. ✗plicit 12:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 21

AfDs for this article:
Apollo 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

tHis should redirect to the cancelled Apollo missions page. THere's nothing substantive at all about an Apollo 21 missons, and the two sources cited don't even mention it. Ingvario (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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 Disambiguation. Once the discussion picked up the option to turn the page into a disambiguation page, consensus is pretty clear this is the best solution. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Charumitra

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@4meter4. All the reference about the person in Nepal and daughter of Ashoka are about "Charumati". I am calling Charumitra fictional because the 2 main places where the name is used (TV Serial and play by Verma) are fictional. Venkat TL (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure also. We should find her name in Hindi text. VocalIndia (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a disambiguation page. I will create an article on the play at Charumitra (play) as there is plenty of RS in academic publications on that work to pass GNG. The Dab page can link to the play, link to the TV show page where that character can be discussed, and we can also note that some books have used the name as an alternative spelling of Charumati (including some by the national government of India in google books which I didn't list earlier) on that page; all of which can be added to source the alternative spelling at the Charumati page. This should clarify the tangle of content and direct readers to the right pages. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    @VocalIndia, 4meter4 Please provide sources that establish Charumitra to be a notable play. The TV show character is not notable for their own article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
2Venkat TL Sure here are some refs below.4meter4 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • That same book is also viewable here where different pages can be seen. In that link you can see the anthology's author describe the play as a widely recognized masterpiece of Hindi theatre on page 166.
  • The play is specifically mentioned in the Drama-Hindi entry within this encyclopedia (meaning its a seminal work in Hindi drama to actually be mentioned in the broader topic): Amaresh Datta, ed. (1988). "DRAMA-HINDI". Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature, Devraj to Jyoti; Volume 2. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 1074–1076.
  • The play was translated and published in English in 1957: Dipali Ghosh (1995). Translations of Hindi Works Into English: A Bibliography. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. p. 44. ISBN 9788121506953.
  • There is a review of the play offline in "Charumitra". Hindi Review. 3 (2): 291. 1958.
  • The play is discussed in this peer reviewed journal article Narayan, Shyamala A (September 1978). "India". Journal of Commonwealth literature. 13 (2): 111–129.
  • I would imagine more sources exist in foreign languages, but this is what I was able to find in English. I think the fact that it's included in an anthology used to teach Hindi drama in survey college courses on the subject and it's mentioning in an encyclopedia entry on Hindi drama make it clear this work is a significant play deserving of an encyclopedia entry.
4meter4, thank you. Please go ahead and start the article on play. In that case this page can become disambiguation. Venkat TL (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Venkat TL Done. I knocked off a decent start to the article. Unfortunately with only an excerpt, it's a difficult to write a plot synopsis. Hopefully someone who reads Hindi can expand. Interestingly enough, we have zero coverage on Hindi language plays on the encyclopedia beyond Hindi theatre. This is the first article on a Hindi language play in the English language wiki.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Neha Yadav (activist)

Neha Yadav (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Lack of in-depth coverages. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Bapinghosh (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong delete just being a spokesperson of a political party does not give a free pass to notability. There is no evidence of satisfying WP:NPOL and almost all the sources are passing mentions and a few written by the subject. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To me this looks like a case of undisclosed paid editing, the author first hijacked the redirect at Neha Yadav and after their edits were reverted they posted this article. GSS  08:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Not the WP:NPOL but it passes WP:GNG. A complete story by Caravan Magazine on her. Another story in Punjab Kesari on life threatening attack . One more complete story on her by . There are many emerging politicians who don't qualify WP:NPOL but because of their work, they are covered and included. Hindi edition of The Print has also covered her . First I didn't even want to create this page because I thought it's WP:1E but there is coverage that is further than the Amit Shah incident. Young leading female voices of dissent should be on Misplaced Pages and that's why I want to ensure this article remains. There are other good coverages also, but the above sources are enough. Sonofstar (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sonofstar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
The first source you provided above is an interview (the second paragraph of the source reads In an interview in Delhi, Sagar, a staff writer at The Caravan, spoke to Neha Yadav), which is not a RS for a contentious fact according to WP:BLP policy and rest of them are not about her independently, they are about the same non-notable incident she was involved in so there is nothing that satisfy WP:GNG. GSS  09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per convincing source analysis by GSS. Fails GNG and NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    4meter4 This is surely not WP:NPOL but it passes WP:GNG and easily WP:BASIC. You should see similar AFD I nom . Punjab Kesari can work for WP:BASIC smoothly. But, Amar Ujala story and The Print story are complete coverages about her in detail. There is perspective of both the sides. Journalists are talking about what she is saying and what the college administration is saying. It is not a one-sided story and is independently written. Coverages can be of non-notable events. There is a further follow up story at The Quint that has independently analyzed the situation. There is also more written about this at Scroll . I found one more coverage that is further talking about her relationship with the party and what happened next . She has been covered and written about by journalists for a long time and in detail, right from the time she showed the black flag to Amit Shah, which is a notable incident considering how much controversy and media it attracted. Even if you think GNG is not achieved, WP:BASIC is achieved for sure. Sonofstar (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sonofstar, as I pointed out above, almost all the sources you are providing are linked to the same non-notable event (including these new sources) and if you cite thousands of such sources they will be counted as one and reference bombing not going to help with notability. She was only in the news for showing a black flag to Amit Shah which is not at all a notable event. In India such incidents happen on regular basis so there is no big deal with it. GSS  05:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@GSS, Its not just about the Amit Shah incident. There are multiple incidents also if you check the sources properly which is helping for WP:Basic Smoothly. Also, Even for Amit Shah Incident, it has coverage of 2018 as well as in 2019. I guess, it is because that might be one of the major events for her as she was imprisoned for 2 months and the media might be trying to connect old dots. Calling the event nonnotable can't be fair entirel, its aa part of gang rape event. You need to agree with me that this event happens during a notable event Hathras Gang Rape, so practically this is not possible that this event can become bigger than Hathras event itself where strong people like Amit Shah is involved. You should also check this which is not related to Amit Shah Event at all, so WP:Basic is crystal clear. (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea how many times I have to repeat so let me repeat one more time and for the last time, none of those sources discussing the subject independently. Almost all the sources are of those minor event(s) she was involved in and most of the sources are just passing mentions such as the BBC piece you provided above. By the way, can you explain what was her role in the Hathras Gang Rape? how she was involved in that case? and how rest of the so events are independently notable? such as showing a black flag to Amit Shah? GSS  07:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
GSS Let's talk one by one as perWP:BASIC we don't need indepth coverage. So Are you counting BBC news for it? Sonofstar (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sonofstar At this point, you are persisting in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Please stop a fruitless back and forth. Your failure to seriously consider and address the concerns raised by GSS with a cogent counter argument, and your dogged persistence in ignoring them speaks volumes in favor of the accuracy and truth of GSS's analysis. 4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@4meter4 Do me a favor, please close this afd as delete. Sonofstar (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Fitindia I am curious, Do you think it is failing WP:GNG & WP:BASIC also ? Sonofstar (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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. Consensus that article passes WP:SIGCOV based on Chinese languages sources discussed during the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle 18:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Fan Rong

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

Fails WP:MMANOT for having no fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as coverage for fights are routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡ 11:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Mx. Granger I'm sorry, but my computer security settings block the first and third of your references. Of the other two, one is promoting an upcoming OneFC fight card in Shanghai in 2019 and the other is highlighting the best Chinese fighter performances in the 2019 OneFC events in Beijing and Shanghai. Do you have some better examples of significant coverage? That's important because he clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete He has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. My search did not find anything to show me that there is enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Fightmatrix says his highest ranking ever was 140th, which is not close to showing WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I crossed out my vote. While I'm not convinced by the sources given, the fact that I'm unable to access all of them means the coverage may be better than I can see. Papaursa (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 黄业 (2019-06-03). ""金刚战警"樊荣:争取展现中国大级别拳手的实力" . 北京千龙新闻网络传播有限责任公司 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-09-06. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

      From Google Translate: "Fan Rong has a strong physique, not only has huge muscles, but also has clear lines, and his beautiful abdominal muscles are not lost to small-level fighters. He has practiced javelin, discus and shot put since he was a child and is an excellent track and field athlete. After being admitted to the Sports Training Department of Harbin Institute of Physical Education in 2009, he began to understand and get in touch with mixed martial arts. ... In the arena, he played a good record of 11 wins and 2 losses. It is worth mentioning that Fan Rong also represented the Chinese national team in the MMA Asian Championships. With two surrenders and one TKO, he defeated three powerful enemies and won the 93 kg gold medal."

    2. "樊荣:中国大级别选手之光 期待ONE上海站迎来爆发" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2019-05-24. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

      From Google Translate: "Fan Rong, previously a special police officer, officially entered the professional mixed martial arts competition in early 2016. In just over two years, he has won ten consecutive victories in domestic competitions, including four surrenders and five KO end victories. ... At the beginning of 2019, Fan Rong continued to pursue his dream of mixed martial arts, successfully completed the signing of the ONE Championship, and successfully entered the international arena. ... In his debut at Manila this year, Fan Rong challenged Reinier De Ridder, a Dutch athlete who is 193 cm tall. In the first round of the competition, the Dutch used perfect Jiu-Jitsu skills to create unprecedented pressure on Fan Rong. While ending Fan Rong's ten-game winning streak, he improved his record to 10 wins and 0 losses."

    3. 格斗迷 (2020-11-12). "明晚ONE新加坡开打，我国大级别选手"战警"樊荣出战" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

      From Google Translate: "At present, the best middleweight player in my country's mixed martial arts should be the "war police" Fan Rong. He is 185 cm tall and weighs about 85 kg. He has a current record of 11 wins and 2 losses. He has a very good body and is also very good at surrendering opponents. There are not many domestic athletes who can compare with him, so in the future, Fan Rong will mainly challenge Russian and European and American players. It is conceivable that the difficulty is very large. Fan Rong’s opponent this time is Brazilian Yuri Simmons, who currently has no mixed martial arts record and has won the championship of innocent jiu-jitsu."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fan Rong (Chinese: 樊荣) to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to allow time for additional input regarding sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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. North America 08:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Good The Bad

The Good The Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC RF23 (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. due to lack of further participation; WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Invisible Mom

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing. The Film Creator (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep 2 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and a third review at TV Guide DonaldD23 talk to me 23:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:NF IMHO. Kolma8 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: The actual criterion of WP:NFO regarding critics is "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" which it fails as this was a direct to cable/video movie. I would also argue that it doesn't meet NFO criterion #2: "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" - articles suggests something far more in depth than just a review. None of the other NFO criteria apply. Plus NFO lists indicative criteria of likely notability, and does not override GNG. HydroniumHydroxide 02:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment Can you expand on how a film released "direct to cable/video" (which reaches millions of viewers) is different from a film released today "direct to streaming" (ie. Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime, etc.) which also reaches millions of viewers? Are you saying that those films are not notable either? If so, Misplaced Pages is about to get purged of a lot of films! Being released to the audience in ways other than theatrical release does NOT automatically make it non-notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Shouldn’t WP:NTV be the relevant SNG as it’s the only guideline that addresses cable tv programming? NFO is really more about movie theatre releases as opposed to films made for tv.4meter4 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like this was released direct to video. It aired frequently on TV afterwards, but it wasn't made for TV from what I can see. Now as far as the widely distributed part goes of NFILM, I need to note that the term is not defined on the page. As such, we can take widely distributed to mean anything from released to theaters to released to home video to even released directly to YouTube. Now what we should be looking at is whether or not the reviews for the film are from reliable sources. I can't access either one on RT, but the TV Guide one would be reliable. The review is also pretty in-depth, especially for a TV Guide review. Emanuel Levy is a RS, but the one that gives me pause is the Juicy Cerebellum one. The site is gone as far as I can tell, so we have to try and see if it's been used as a source by RS. It's referenced in this academic press book, as well as this one which is a good sign that it's probably usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found two more reviews offline which were published years after the film's release. I also found a third reference source with an entry on the film (last of the three given below). These with the other critical reviews above pass WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Mick Martin, Marsha Porter (2001). "Invisible Mom". Video Movie Guide 2002. Random House Publishing Group. p. 554. ISBN 9780345421005. independent review
  • Martin Connors, Jim Craddock (1999). "Invisible Mom". VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever 1999. Visible Ink Press. p. 462. ISBN 9781578590414. independent review
  • Robert A. Nowlan, Gwendolyn L. Nowlan, Gwendolyn Wright Nowlan (2001). "Invisible Mom". The Films of the Nineties: A Complete, Qualitative Filmography of Over 3000 Feature-length English Language Films, Theatrical and Video-only, Released Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1999. McFarland & Company. p. 284. ISBN 9780786409747.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) reference work entry with details on film
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 12:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Felix Levine

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

WP:G11 territory with the writing and the sourcing, and I can't locate anything online. Fails WP:GNG, unless there are specialised podcasting WP:RSes that I am unaware of where he's had coverage. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

CFosSpeed

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

Native advertising for non-notable traffic-shaping software reffed almost entirely to primary sources, with the lone exception mentioning the subject only in passing. Prodded and deleted five years ago and contested after the fact on the flimsy strength of three reviews: one user-submitted, and two self-published (by the same author, on his blog). Readily googles, but if there's anything reliable out there I haven't been able to find it amongst the mountains of decade-old SEO of which this article was part. —Cryptic 06:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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. North America 06:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Browning

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

Autobiography of a non-notable person. Mottezen (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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 - WP:CSD#A7. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Mohd Shariq

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

No indication of importance. Actually some sort of conflict of interest. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —twotwofourtysix 06:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghan frozen assets

Afghan frozen assets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term used by some media outlets to describe unspecified "assets" (military weapons I'm thinking). This looks like it could be merged into a section within an existing article, as I don't think this term justifies its own article which will likely not expand beyond one sentence. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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. Ritchie333 20:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Matt Allison (record producer)

AfDs for this article:
Matt Allison (record producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record producer, fails GNG. No sources establish notability. First AfD ended with soft deletion. See the minimal undeletion request. Mottezen (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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 04:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

DigiBLAST

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

Procedural nomination per Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_6#DigiBlast. It has been asserted that this article's subject does not meet GNG. signed, Rosguill 04:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill 04:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill 04:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I find the list of newspaper sources unconvincing since the coverage in each is trivial (like a caption identifying Lawson in a group photo) and the sum of several zeros is still zero. However, there is more merit in the paragraph from the Charles Francis book. It is debatable how much weight this should be given, but the majority of the participants here have considered it sufficient to be a basis for non-trivial coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Walter I. Lawson

Walter I. Lawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio) and dePRODed. Sources 1 and 2 are from CAF a User contribution site so not RS. 3) his mother's obit isn't linked so have no idea what it says. 4) is a very brief mention in a local paper. 5) is RS but is a mere listing. 6) is about the crash in which he died. 7) and 8) are an author's blog with just a passing mentions of him. The sources accordingly do not meet WP:GNG as they don't amount to significant coverage as they don't address the topic directly and in detail WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members. A Google search reveals nothing of note. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Francis, Charles E. (1997). The Tuskegee airmen: the men who changed a nation (4th, rev., up-dated, and enl ed.). Boston: Branden Pub. p. 278. ISBN 9780828320290. CPT Lawson was another pioneer of the 99th, who received very little credit for the part he played in carrying the battle to the enemy. .... Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th. In combat he distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots.
The Congressional Gold Medal only confers notability if only awarded directly to an individual and does not do so for groups. For WWII service alone, Congress has awarded Gold Medals to Chinese-American servicemen (up to 20,000 members), members of the Civil Air Patrol (200,000 members) and the Montford Point Marines (20,000+), among others. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom are the highest civilian awards in the United States but we also have a N pass per WP:NEXIST and for this Airmen's historic contribution to the integration of the US Army Air Force. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED applies, belonging to a notable organization does not confer notability on individual members. A unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen does not satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay not a policy. WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are actual policies we can apply here. Lightburst (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED is a WP:COMMONSENSE essay developed from numerous deletion discussions. You have already stated elsewhere that "One day I hope we can create an article for every last one of these heroes." so your !vote is not based on policy but WP:ILIKEIT. Mztourist (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
More essays and more WP:ADHOM ? Lets let some other editors have a say. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to let other Users have a say, but cannot accept you repeatedly misrepresenting the Congressional Gold Medal as satisfying #1 of ANYBIO or just being a member of the Tuskegee Airmen as satisfying #2 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
You poisoned the well with the first sentence of your rationale. See I too can repeat myself over and over. It seems you cannot resist attacking a rationale that differs from your own interpretation. Be confident in your prods and AfDs. It is likely that a few more editors will be along soon. This back and forth is useless and mind numbing. Lightburst (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
No wells poisoned by a completely factual statement. I am perfectly confident in my PRODs and AFDs. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Throwing around Nexist, Atd, Preserve, and Anybio without demonstrating their applicability is no substitute to providing reliable sources and significant coverage. With regards to Anybio, there are no RSs showing that an award granted after the subject's death and not to him specifically (he is not mentioned by name on the award) makes him notable. As for the rest, the few RSs available seem to contain only a handful of sentences outlining WP:ROUTINE job and career developments. The rest are just image galleries or unreliable sources like CAF. Avilich (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Per Suriname0 Keep. Fulfils WP:BASIC. That source does say that he "distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots". In combination with the other references and the Congressional Gold Medal, I see no good reason to delete this. Behindthekeys (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If Francis is such a great source, why hasn't it been added to the article? The main sources used are still non-RS (CAF being the primary offender), and many of the links to the American Air Museum in Britain aren't supported by the site itself. The squadron information hosted by that site is also a direct port from Misplaced Pages, and content also appears to be user-submitted as well. Intothatdarkness 18:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Suriname0. Passes WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Suriname0. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per explanation of Suriname0, this passes WP:BASIC. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - the purpose behind BASIC is "can we write a factual, neutrally-written article that contains enough encyclopedic information to inform a reader about the topic?" Upon reading the article and reviewing the citations, the answer is "yes." I agree that being part of a large group of medal recipeints does not necessarily meet ANYBIO absent other indications of notability, but this honor, combined with BASIC, indicates that Misplaced Pages is improved by the inclusion of this article, and would be lessened by its absence. If the information contained in this article were controversial and unsourced by reasonable standards, then I would feel differently, but this has not been demonstrated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." if you actually look at the sources it is clear that those requirements are not met. Mztourist (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frankly, WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE are often invoked in contexts where they make little sense. It could be said, for example, that sources pertaining to Franklin Pierce are simple routine run-of-the-mill coverage from newspapers and books that report on every President of the United States. It might be true, even -- but it would be irrelevant to notability. Like the concurrent nomination of Willie H. Fuller, there isn't a really cogent argument against the best sources presented (i.e. the ones given earlier in this discussion). Surely, some of the sources are not so good, and surely the article can be rewritten to avoid them. I am not seeing a real issue with that. jp×g 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The cogent argument is BASIC which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." requirements that are not met for Lawson or Fuller. Mztourist (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
You keep selectively quoting BASIC. It's fine you don't believe the first bullet point is applicable in this case, but some of the rest of us believe that it applies. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more (or less, for that matter) true. See WP:BLUDGEON. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be reasonable dispute whether the provided sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Given the discussion on this aspect is essentially assertions to two contrary positions (and since discussions are not votes, so comments asserting "per X" when X's arguments are not convincing or have been disputed are not considered), and there is no analysis of each individual source (see Template:source assess); it seems most prudent to relist, because, to me, the discussion "seems to be lacking (convincing) arguments based on policy".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment With regards to Suriname's source, which seems to be the sole reason everyone is voting keep, this is the extent of the coverage it offers about the subject's career as an Airman: Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th. In combat he distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots. That's it: his unit number and some rhetorical flair. The other sources that have been made available to the moment are as follows.
  • CAF, website with user-submitted content, unreliable
  • A tiny newspaper entry with a passing mention of his name among others, reporting their enrollment as trainees: trivial coverage
  • A museum database, with only a portrait, dates of birth and death, and unit number: trivial coverage
  • Congress resolution awarding medal to the airmen: primary source, no actual coverage, fails 'not inherited'
  • Aviation Safety Network database entry of the airplane in which Lawson died: no coverage at all
  • Aircraft-themed website, used only for that digression on footnote A and does not mention the subject at all
  • 'Liberty Lady Book' website: coverage amounts to the same as Suriname's source, adding that he died in an air crash
  • Dryden 2005 ref, apparently a first-hand account of a colleague of his: most of the subject's mentions are passing, usually just outlining his presence in some random event or recollection – run-of-the-mill and superficial coverage

It's not too inaccurate to say that the coverage so far is quite unsatisfactory. The length of the 'Military career' section is kind of a dead giveaway already. Avilich (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the thrust of this comment. I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I voted "Weak" Keep based on a simple source I found in a few minutes of searching. Other Keep voters would be well-served to identify additional WP:SIGCOV in the many book sources that may discuss Lawson, or to bring the academic mentions of Lawson's actions during the war into this discussion so that those can be discussed substantively. (To be clear, I DO think the two-sentence "rhetorical" flair constitutes significant coverage, but it's certainly not enough to write an article around; we need the rest of the passing mentions in other sources for that. All the unit affiliation and congressional medal stuff is a red herring imo, and doesn't really influence my consideration of whether Lawson meets WP:GNG, which I think they do.) Suriname0 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I must confess to not even slightly understand what "rhetorical flair" is supposed to mean here. There was information about the man, specific to him, but it doesn't count as information because it had rhetorical flair? jp×g 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur with Avilich. Like many of these articles there is an over-reliance on non-RS sources (CAF being one), inherited notability based on unit affiliation, and what often amount to namechecks with some rhetoric thrown in (the Francis source, which hasn't even been added to the article as of the time of this post). The American Air Museum source sounds impressive until (as I pointed out before) you dig into it and discover it's based on user-submitted content (including elements ported directly from Misplaced Pages). This is a problem with many of these articles, not just this one. Strident defenses and poorly-chosen comparisons (found in another AfD for Tuskegee Airmen) don't change the fact that the sourcing for these articles is incredibly weak in many cases and often circular. Intothatdarkness 00:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sadly, Avilich's analysis is on the money, most of the info about this guy is sourced to websites of dubious reliability, with wikifunctions or otherwise relying on usersubmitted content. I have no idea what the "Lillian Lawson Obituary" actually refers to, since there is no provided weblink or even a name and date of a newspaper edition in which it might have been published. The substance of the Francis book mention is that "Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th". The bulk of the sources (and arguments for keep) here seem to lay on the fact that he belonged to a group of 922 people and that the group was important. The Lady Liberty Book and site are WP:SELFPUBLISHed (therefore not reliable): The author's Linked-in page says that Beaver's Spur Publishing is "A single member Limited Liability Company formed by author Pat DiGeorge to publish her book LIBERTY LADY: A True Story of Love and Espionage in WWII Sweden." -Indy beetle (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I figured that, after this many bytes of verbal combat, someone surely would have bothered to do a newspapers search. Apparently this was not the case; I am currently going through about fifty results for Lawson and incorporating relevant ones as references to the article. jp×g 21:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I have managed to come up with a couple newspaper references about Lawson. They include significant coverage of him, his career, his family, and the events described in the article. Oh, did I say "a couple"? I meant "twenty-three". It's baffling that this AfD could plod on for sixteen days, with nobody on either side doing basic literature search. Pinging previous participants who expressed concerns about quality of sourcing (@Peacemaker67:, @Intothatdarkness:, @GPL93:, @Avilich:, @Indy beetle:, @Mztourist:): here's what you were looking for. jp×g 21:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the provision of the newspaper sources. These are mostly sporadic mentions or simply "here is a photo of some Tuskegee Airmen, Lawson is one of them". -Indy beetle (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. "Cleo Lawson, 76, Widow of Tuskegee Airman". Newsday. Suffolk Edition (Melville, New York. 1994-02-22. p. 81.
  2. "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.
  3. "8 Cadets Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 1.
  4. "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.
  5. "Fourth Class Starts Tuskegee Air Course". The Selma Times-Journal. Selma, Alabama. 1941-12-12. p. 2.
  6. "2 Area Airmen Among 12 Hurt in B-50 Crash". Sioux City Journal. Sioux City, Iowa. 1952-02-28. p. 8.
  7. "Release Names In Omaha Crash". The Beatrice Times. Beatrice, Nebraska. 1952-02-28. p. 10.
  8. "Dead In Crash Of B50 Bomber Are Identified". The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, California. 1952-02-27. p. 27.
  9. "Airmen killed in crash are named". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Fort Worth, Texas. 1952-02-27. p. 4.
  10. "Wrecked B-50 Ramey Plane". Tucson Daily Citizen. Tucson, Arizona. 1952-02-27. p. 13.
  11. "Victims Identified In Crash Of B-50". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1952-02-27. p. 2.
  12. "Air Force Shift Now Under Way; 66 Moved". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1949-06-18. p. 4.
  13. "Five Pilots of the History-Making 99th Return to the United States". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-11-06. p. 5.
  14. "Nose Dive Of Plane Into River Ends Graduation Hopes Of Youthful Cadet". The Detroit Tribune. Detroit, Michigan. 1942-06-13. p. 1.
  15. "Cadet Killed In Army Plane Crash". The Tuskegee News. Tuskegee, Alabama. 1942-06-11. p. 1.
  16. "Two Plane Accidents Kill Three White, One Negro Army Aviators". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 12.
  17. "Negro Flier Killed As Plane Falls in River". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1942-06-09. p. 5.
  18. "Negro Flying Cadet Killed". The Decatur Daily. Decatur, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 2.
  19. "Power Line Cut By Plane Crash". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1942-06-08. p. 1.
  20. "Five Hampton Students Named Air Corps Cadets". Hartford Courant. Hartford, Connecticut. 1941-01-29. p. 12.
  21. "Select Five For Training". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. 1941-01-29. p. 9.
  22. "McLurkin-Lawson". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1967-03-26. p. 76.
  23. "Join 99th Air Squad". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-01-24. p. 13.
  • Comment none of this is in-depth or particularly significant coverage. The vast majority simply name the subject amongst people who joined the AAF/graduated flight school or those who were involved in plane crashes. I mean, sources 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 are literally the exact same AP report listing Lawson among the victims of the 1952 crash with no additional personal information included. One is his wife's obit and another is a paid-for engagement announcement. @JPxG: which of these actually go into depth? Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • These are all plane crash reports, obituaries of relatives, graduation lists, or plain photo captions. Of course plane crashes are interesting events in their immediate aftermath, whence the media coverage; should the other victims ("Two Plane Accidents Kill Three White, One Negro Army Aviators") have wikipedia articles as well? Lawson is gets no more coverage in any of these sources than in those already provided. Instead of WP:REFBOMBING, can you give WP:THREE sources definitely showing that he stands out enough among his colleagues that he in particular deserves an encyclopedia entry? Dying in a plane crash, having relatives who died, graduating and serving in a notable unit are not evidence for that. Avilich (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: I'll write this as a response to @GPL93: as well. Essentially, what I have is what I've given you here, which is indeed as you describe it. If you don't think the addition of these references warrants changing your opinion, I respect that, and I won't press the issue; I appreciate you having taken the time to read through them, at any rate. jp×g 11:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mztourist (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Maceo Conrad Martin

Maceo Conrad Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio) and dePRODed. Sources are largely about his family and their Bank or the WP:1E of a 1948 civil rights lawsuit in which he was involved. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation or family does not confer notability on all its members Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator Mztourist (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. The article has been extensively edited during the AFD and after the relisting the current versionthere is a clear majority who feel that the current sourcing is of sufficient quality. Not everyone is convinced, but it is clear that there is no consensus for deletion exists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Willie H. Fuller

Willie H. Fuller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio). First 2 sources are CAF Rise Above, a user contributed site so not RS. 3) is just a passing mention in a photo caption. 4) Aviation Online magazine is of questionable reliability and doesn't seem to have been updated since 2017. 5) Troup County sounds reliable but no link or title was given and I can't find anything on searching the site. 6) Getty Images is just a photo. Finally Christian Science Monitor is RS but this is not substantial coverage and just based on an interview with the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members. A Google search shows his name in a few Tuskegee Airmen books but these are just photo captions or lists with no in depth detail Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Congressional Gold Medals awarded to groups do not confer notability for individuals. By that logic each of the 200,000 WWII era members of the Civil Air Patrol would merit an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - being a member of the Tuskegee Airmen is laudable and honorable, but not notable. Currently, none of the keep arguments are actually based on policy. Onel5969 12:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Your position should be based on a review of the sources which you notably haven't done. As you know WP:N is a guideline, do you really think it shouldn't be followed? There is no IDONTLIKEIT in my nomination or any of the other deletion arguments. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment The deletion rationale fails to outline a policy reason for deletion: WP:NOTINHERITED is not based on policy - it is an essay. Policies include: WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Additionally the fact that the author was "indeffed for copyvio" has nothing to do with the notability of this subject. The information is only provided in the rationale to Poison the well. For my own keep rationale: I refer to the notability guideline WP:ANYBIO and I see that the subject passes 1 and 2 easily. 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor ✅, or has been nominated for such an award several times; 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field ✅ Lightburst (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
A unit award does not satisfy #1 of ANYBIO which is for individual awards. He was one of a group that made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, so #2 of ANYBIO isn't satisfied either. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that WP:NOTINHERITED should be ignored, and that notability can be inherited?
NOTINHERITED is a long-respected summary of policies that have a long-standing consensus. If your position depends on ignoring it, that's not a strong position. ApLundell (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
ApLundell Read the five pillars WP:5Ps - not one single mention of essays. And then look at WP:N which is the guideline we apply. Here is what our project says about WP:ESSAYS: Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Misplaced Pages community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. Regarding established consensus see WP:CCC (also a policy) - consensus can change. I am following the guidelines regarding this subject, please have another look at the article - I did work on it. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
As you know notability is determined by sourcing which this page lacks. Explain your whataboutism and Ad hominem comments. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
As you know, notability is not determined by the sourcing on the page. here. And this is not the article it was when proposed for deletion, either.
First black flight instructor at Tuskegee Airmen.7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not regard the references that you have added as substantial, generally they are passing mentions at most 1-2 sentences. You haven't explained your whataboutism and Ad hominem comments. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)\
"Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio)" If you can't figure it out, explaining it further won't work either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
So just a distraction to avoid addressing the lack of sourcing then, got it. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
You are the one who interjected fallacious irrelevancies (in your lead), just to confuse the real issues. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"Keep because notable" is not much of an argument either. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Ironically, we have been through an infinite number of soldiers who were the namesake of destroyers. And the argument is that there accomplishments mattered naught. Meets WP:GNG. That is a WP:Notability argument. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
All those soldiers were deleted because they failed BASIC and having a minor ship named for you in WWII isn't a basis for notability. The same applies here, this Tuskegee Airman fails BASIV and is not individually notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Selective Merge into Tuskegee Airmen. The nominator's analysis of the sources is correct, of course, and shows that the subject isn't covered in depth in reliable secondary sources. I think the one sentence about Fuller facing racism from a bigoted hotel manager is a good example that could be incorporated into the Tuskegee Airmen section about racism. But there's nothing else keepable in any form. Reyk YO! 19:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to get enough coverage in independent reliable sources. The CAF is by its own description "a 501 (c) 3 Texas non-profit organization dedicated to flying and restoring World War II aircraft," and while well-intentioned seems rather dubious for historical information - it's declared specialty is basically acting as a hobbyists club. Some of the websites ain't worth much (Aviation Online looks rather amateurish, and WW2 multimedia datatbase looks like a passion project of a guy who has befriended some history professors but hasn't actually gotten them to write for him), and the sporadic single mentions in things like the CS Monitor or the inclusion of his name in a caption in the Getty Images database hardly count for anything. The book on LaGrange actually has a fair blurb on him, but the Legendary Locals of Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina book (also Arcadia Publishing) basically says the same about him but less. I think for the purposes of notability we can only count Arcadia books as one source of notability in instances where they are repeating their own info; I have a lot of experience with this series (own some, they like to do historical series on various localities in the US) and they do have a tendency to mirror information when there is crossover in the subject matter of each book (such as when they do one book on a county and another on a major town within that county). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I addressed that reference in my nom: "Aviation Online magazine is of questionable reliability and doesn't seem to have been updated since 2017". Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as Willie died in 1995, I cannot imagine why this would be relevant to a magazine article about things that happened in the 1940s. Moreover, I am not aware of any guidelines saying that sources must be updated on a yearly basis in order to be reliable; this seems like a non sequitur at best. jp×g 00:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the pure votes and other similar arguments; the keep arguments are not convincing (since many commentators note that notability is not inherited), or fail to recognise that even if it applies (there is controversy over whether a group award counts for this purpose), ANYBIO is not an absolute. The arguments for deletion or merging are more convincing, but there is no consensus (yet) as to whether deletion or merging should be preferred, so I cannot impose one option above the other. Relisting in the hope of a positive outcome (especially given the "merge" option was proposed only by some of the alter comments and does not seem to have been fully discussed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The general rule is if it is controversial - leave it to an admin. You are an editor and you are not elected to preside over any contested decisions - especially when you extended your comments acting as if you are Solomon. You are not are even allowed to close a contested AfD discussion - yet you say... I cannot impose one option above the other. You will need to either have the community elect you as an admin, or stick to WP:SNOW keeps and deletes. This was a controversial relist - but it may not have been without your extended comments and pontification. I will be done commenting on this AfD now. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, your interpretation of that is fundamentally at odds with WP:NOBIGDEAL (the mere fact of "being an admin" does not grant anyone additional prestige or authority in matters which do not require admin tools, such as relisting or closing an AfD when the result is not "delete") and usual practice (i.e. not being an admin does not restrict anybody to SNOW closes - there are plenty of examples in AfD logs of discussions which are controversial to some extant closed by non-admins; and here I didn't even close it, I just relisted, since this was a few days already beyond the point which it should have been relisted or closed, nobody had bothered to do it, and there was no clear outcome). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:NACPIT point 4 suggests non-admins are not barred from relisting discussions. Reyk YO! 10:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Those interested in the ultimate result of the above side-discussion can look at Special:Permalink/1047863194#RandomCanadian_administrative_actions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Those interested can also look here at your overturned BADNAC. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lightburst: Whether or not RC made a somewhat-silly NAC on an unrelated AfD doesn't seem particularly germane, and this whole line of inquiry seems a little nasty. Can't we just discuss the article about Willie H. Fuller? jp×g 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Having read over some of the discussion listed at list of Military-related deletion discussions the author appears to be very focused on deleting articles about Tuskegee Airmen. The format seems to be: Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen followed by any type of issue that could lead the article being deleted. With so many articles needing attention, the active drive to only focus on deleting articles is concerning. Adam MLIS (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    Nominating an article for deletion because it has an "issue that could lead to the article being deleted" seems fairly regular operating procedure. If the article can be improved; by addressing the nominator's concerns; that would be a very strong argument for keeping, and will probably lead to the next person who wants to close this discussion in a week's time having a far easier job than me. Merely being concerned that there is a "drive to only focus on deleting articles" is not a particularly good reason, nor does it address the concerns about the suitability of this article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    Adam MLIS by "author appears to be very focused on deleting articles about Tuskegee Airmen" I assume that you are referring to me. I am very focussed on deleting pages where the subject fails BASIC. If you look at all the pages created by the User:Bluecountrymutt, you will see that I have gone through all of them, cleaned up and improved many of them and identified those that I believe fail BASIC and then PRODed and/or AFDed those. Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    Hey Adam MLIS, a very gentle reminder to WP:AGF. The nominator has contributed substantively to the Tuskegee Airmen page and to pages on individual airmen; let's keep the discussion focused on whether the article subject has received WP:SIGCOV, a topic on which reasonable people working in good faith can disagree. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment These articles came from a CCI investigation, which I've linked to before in the hopes of generating some cleanup interest: Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Bluecountrymutt. Oddly, slugging it out at AfD seems to be much more interesting for many. These articles often share common issues: copyright violations, reliance on a handful of poor (and often non-RS) sources (CAF and related sites being the most common), and inherited notability (the person is assumed to be notable because they belonged to a notable unit). The question of reliance on non-RS sources is often dodged. Some of these individuals are notable, and their articles have been kept. Others are not once you get past the unit affiliation issue. Intothatdarkness 00:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
darkness Read it again please. It is not the article it was when nominated. I hope you take another look - I and others have spent much time updating the article with RS. The person has significance. However, I have really said enough in this AfD - and rather than do a drive-by or slug it out at AfD I have been working on the article daily. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I have looked at the article...not less than an hour ago in fact. I don't agree that it's improved significantly, but that's not due to a lack of work and effort on your part (and others). It's because there simply isn't much to work with. If there was, we wouldn't need to rely on CAF at all...yet it still lingers in the article. And I still think it's better to get to these articles before they reach AfD...which is why I keep posting the CCI list link and have worked some of those articles myself. Intothatdarkness 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
And I just corrected misattributed information in the article lede...which was part of the original article as created by the banned CCI individual. THIS is why it's better to hit these articles as part of the CCI cleanup as opposed to now. You have to check pretty much every existing source in addition to adding new ones (if they exist). Intothatdarkness 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Finally having time to look at this article, I believe the subject meets WP:GNG, with sigcov in the Cooper book and the Christian Science Monitor article (both cited), in addition to other scattered mentions. Contrary to the nom, the CSM article looks like significant coverage to me, and it appears that editorial oversight and selective quoting were applied (i.e. it's not "just an interview" and should be treated as a secondary source). Suriname0 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The content from CSM and Boy's Life is almost identical. Fuller's coverage in CSM amounts to three brief paragraphs including a single generic post-war anecdote, none of which in my view establish him as being notable beyond being a Tuskegee Airman. His individual military notability still appears to be based solely on Tuskegee. Intothatdarkness 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • For any discussion readers, I want to explicitly affirm that I still find the sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. A source with "three brief paragraphs" devoted to the subject is actually pretty good! (The essay at WP:NERROR suggests "two or more paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue" as a rule of thumb, which is about where we are with this source.) In fact, relative to other sources used to establish used to establish notability in the AfD WP:BIO-related Keeps I've been involved in, I think the CSM article is well above the line as far as WP:SIGCOV goes. (I've complained before that WP:SIGCOV is the most ambiguous policy on Misplaced Pages, and absent firmer policy guidance we're forced to interpret by our own standards, which is why I lean on AfD precedent. If the precedent for sourcing standards are higher for soldiers specifically than for other article subjects, as is true for e.g. corporations, I would hope to see that reflected in a notability guideline somewhere, but I'd be happy to be informed by someone more familiar with soldier-related articles. It's an open secret that vastly different standards apply to articles depending on topic area, so to some degree I do want to defer to soldier-specific norms if they exist. My point is that if this were a bio of a living person, the existing sourcing would generally be sufficient to keep the article.) Regarding content overlap, I think it's generally a good thing when we see similar content appear in multiple reliable sources; I don't see any indication that one sources draws exclusively from the other, so I conclude the sources are independent of each other. Suriname0 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • CSM isn't SIGCOV by any standard, be it for corporations or soldiers. And Sigcov by itself isn't sufficient, you have to demonstrate that the content belongs to an encyclopedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, an actual policy as opposed to sigcov, a guideline). Significant coverage alone doesn't establish notability, especially if it's all run-of-the-mill content like Cooper 1996 (it just describes his career, but does not indicate why his career makes him notable in a way that others are not). And that's the best source that has been found so far. Avilich (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yes, this is sufficient sourcing to pass WP:N. The keep voters are providing a more convincing argument. For many years, he was the only black flight instructor in his field, and he was recognized for his services both contemporaneously and in recent decades. Patiodweller (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment None of the sources presented so far are particularly impressive. The ubiquitous CAF with its user-submitted content continues to feature here, as do image galleries like Getty and that WW2 database (there's also a Youtube video). Several sources can be readily dismissed for providing only the briefest and most trivial coverage, such as Fleming 2013 (only says he served on 76 missions, without any commentary), Boys' Life 1994 (one single quotation, not independent), Jet 1993 (his name among several others in a minor honoring ceremony), and CSM (a single post-war anecdote, as Intothatdarkness explained above, and not strictly independent since it has direct quotes with no substantial commentary). The websites AviationOnline and LogicalThinker are probably unreliable, as is certainly Find A Grave. Cooper 1996, the only source to possess anything substantial, fails WP:ROUTINE. The entire article in its current form also fails ROUTINE. So, based on the current state of the sourcing, there's little to indicate that stands out particularly notably from the rest of the Airmen. Avilich (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: deleting things to favor your desire for deletion is poor form. I see you also deleted a photo of Willie Fuller with Lena Horne. The photo is referenced and I have reinstated it in the article. Regarding FAGrave, There is literally a photo of the subject's grave marker on the link. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/182577495/willie-howell-fuller Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The photo was legitimately deleted because its copyright status is unclear. Indy beetle deleted it, you reinstated it, I deleted it, you reinstated it, that's edit-warring. There is clear consensus that it should not be there until its copyright status is resolved. I have now nominated it for deletion. Find a Grave is not a Reliable Source. Adding photos of unclear copyright status is the poor form here. Mztourist (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have asked you allow others to participate here without refuting every keep argument. Deleting a reference which includes a photo of the actual grave marker of fuller seems exteme, but ok - the information can be verified elsewhere. Deleting a public domain publicity photo also seems extreme. My offer on your talk page stands. This is a consensus based encyclopedia and all depends on who shows up. My fear is that they will be hesitant to participate in what has become a tendentious debate - each keep ivote has a refutation - it is a bit much. I acknowledge my over-participation as well. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Lightburst, you are lying about the the copyright status of a photo, that's the height of intellectual dishonesty here and could expose us to copyright vio claims. Neither the LaGrange book nor the HuffPost article identify it as a US Gov photo, and yet you repeatedly claim it is. It may very well be, but that is not certain. It was also incredibly misleading of you to originally label that photo with the note "There is not commercial interest in this photo" when it was published in a book by a publishing company (Arcadia) that basically makes all of its money on books of photo collections and when it was the centrepiece of a HuffPost article. If you find a reliable source which indicates its origins as PD then I will happily drop my efforts here. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, Lightburst you are asserting without any evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Its clear that you uploaded it and are trying to keep it in order to inflate this poorly referenced page and claim that just because he appeared in a photo with someone famous he's notable. If you want the photo to stay then it is your responsibility to prove that it is in the public domain. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Public Domain- do a reverse google search. Why do you suppose the military took photos of stars with military? To sell them? There are three of you and your desire to erase this article is about the most incredible tendentious behavior I have seen on the project, since the Bachelor Lake AfD. I improved the article, and then moved on, but you three are gardening this deletion. Meanwhile I am editing the Harold Brown (Tuskegee Airman) article. I am not even following this food fight anymore. I only noticed because indy erased the photo again. Take this concern to WP:FFD. Or diminish the article to favor deletion. I am not going to edit war, or continue this tit for tat. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
And what does your "reverse google search" show? It shows that the photo appears on various websites, but it does not in any way confirm that it is in the public domain. You keep stating without any evidence that the military took it, well PROVEIT, because unless you can show it was taken by the US Government or has otherwise been released from copyright it is not public domain. Delighted that you're improving other notable Tuskegee Airmen pages that are infected with the creator's copyright abuse, but you should not be creating more CCIs by adding photos such as this. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
A photo being reproduced a lot on the internet in no way indicates it’s in the public domain. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The status of the picture has YTBD.
And yet Major Captain Fuller is surely buried in that cemetery. Your repeated insistence on 'policy' that Find a grave is "not a reliable source" may be true, but it really doesn't negate the underlying fact.
To be sure, the national VA burial lookup doesn't include him. We have verified his service, of course. And I have been unable to find any other source on line.
However, gutting the article's contents while an extended and contentious WP:AFD is pending looks like deck stacking. But you know that already. YMMV. But I'll WP:AGF and move along. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Fuller left the service as a Captain, not a Major. Intothatdarkness 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, if you want to challenge the standing consensus of 6 discussions regarding the reliability of Find A Grave (the last of which was conducted earlier this year), go right ahead. Also, in regards to but it really doesn't negate the underlying fact, we rest on the policy of WP:VERIFY, not truth. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
You are right about his rank. I confabulate him with another. But he is buried where he is buried. Find a grave is right. Unless you have imagined a contrary source and result, that is. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
If you're implying I'm imagining sources, I'd suggest you take a step back. I've already had to correct at least three instances of imagination in this article (all related to inaccurate use of sources). And let's ask the difficult question: would Fuller be getting an article if he wasn't inheriting notability from his unit? Without that cache, would the sources be considered reliable and sufficient? I tend to think he wouldn't based on source evaluation. Can anyone demonstrate that the former Confederate Air Force site is reliable? I've found too many errors in their articles to believe they are. What RS there is all stems from his unit affiliation. Maybe someone could find something in his career with the Boy Scouts to bolster his notability (I did a quick search and didn't find anything, but it could be out there). But if the only claim to notability rests with his military career...it just isn't there once you take the unit away. Intothatdarkness 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Okay, well, forget about all those sources for a minute: I have found some new good ones. As with the other Tuskegee AfD, a very half-assed newspaper search brought me no less than eight usable references, which on their own seem to support nearly all of the article's content. I've added them, incorporated information into the article, and copyedited it some as well. I think that this renders irrelevant most of the previous kerfluffu over CAF Rise Above (CRA) and Find-A-Grave (which I will not abbreviate). I do not understand how arguments over the merits of sourcing can rage for weeks without anyone having done this. I'll ping previous participants who expressed concerns about sourcing quality to have another look: @Mztourist:, @Peacemaker67:, @Intothatdarkness:, @Avilich:, @GPL93:, @Onel5969:, @Reyk:, @Indy beetle:, @4meter4:, @RandomCanadian: jp×g 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The sources in question are these: jp×g 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. "Exhibit Honors 'Lonely Eagles'". The Times Recorder. Zanesville, Ohio. 1985-01-06. p. 19.
  2. "Cadet Officers Receive Awards". The Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery, Alabama. 1940-05-21. p. 10.
  3. "Willie Howell Fuller". The Miami Herald. Miami, Florida. 1995-01-04. p. 22.
  4. "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.
  5. "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.
  6. "'Lonely Eagles' flew to fight color barrier". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1984-12-25. p. 38.
  7. "Untitled Clipping". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-06-19. p. 4.
  8. "'Capt. Roberts First Negro Squad Commander'——Rouzeau". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-10-09. p. 13.
  • Comment - Since I sometimes find it confusing when presented with a list of refs of mixed relevance, I'll save the trouble for other discussion readers: and are the same syndicated news story, is a bylined obit. The rest are passing mentions. Certainly the obit constitutes WP:SIGCOV and is appreciated for further meeting WP:GNG. (Of course, the other sources may be useful for replacing lower-quality sources in the article as well, but not for establishing notability.) Suriname0 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Great work jp. I feel silly now that I did not access my newspaper account until today. I only did it to search the 1945 photo of Fuller and Horne. But more exists as the editor above has noted.
1985 Florida
1943 Mississippi
When he got his wings
etc.
And so on. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The first one is a photo caption with zero coverage, and last one doesn't even mention the subject apparently...? Do you have a minimum of diligence while doing your research, or do you just WP:NOTEBOMB in the hope that someone (FeydHuxtable below) will be swayed by quantity rather than quality of the sources? All of yours and jpg's sources miserably fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE ("Per Misplaced Pages policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article"). Finding a picture, his name in a graduation or casualty roster, or a brief quote in an interview does not prove he was anything out of the ordinary. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment more WP:REFBOMBING. 1 and 6 are the same AP story with just a quote by him. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are namechecks only. The only story of any substance is 3, a short obituary that just confirms the existing page content. While we now have ref overkill of various mundane details, we still do not have a reliable source that he was a flight instructor which several Users above argue is a claim to his notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused by the suggestion that an article citing sources for its claims is "ref overkill", as this seems to conflict directly with WP:V. The statements made by an article should be supported by references -- there is really no two ways about it. His status as a flight instructor is mentioned in the third reference here (I don't have access to the print sources that were used to write the article before I edited it, so I can't cite them about whether he did so while in the military). jp×g 08:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Ref overkill means that multiple refs are given to support the same claim eg. 2nd para of lede with 6 refs, 2nd para of body with 5 refs, 1st sentence of 3rd para of body with 4 refs. The Miami Herald obit says that he was a flying instructor after the war, but the lede states that "He was the only black flight instructor until December 1944" with the unreliable CAF as the only reference for this. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
That's not what ref overkill means. jp×g 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Really? Then you explain it. You're avoiding addressing that there is no RS that "He was the only black flight instructor until December 1944" Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an explanation for content that other people put in the article prior to my edits, as I do not own the page. If you have concerns about the way the article's written, the talk page would be a great place to bring them up. jp×g 11:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Noteable airman & trailblazer. Unconvinced by the delete analyses of the WP:RS. Improvements by Lightburst & JPxG are impressive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Moderately/somewhat notable member of very notable group. Yeah, it's not great, and the sourcing is not great, but I don't care: the sourcing indicates well enough that this man did things that would have been all over the press if the press at the time had cared a bit more. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Not great" sourcing would seem to indicate a lack of individual notability. Once again, if you take away unit membership you have a rather average pilot with a rather average and short career. I've also seen no evidence of notability from his time with with Boy Scouts. If there was, that might raise him above the bar in my view. But even the laudatory obits don't say much about it. Intothatdarkness 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • You admit that the sourcing is nothing out of the ordinary, but you 'don't care' and base your keep on a speculation that this might not have been the case in some unimaginable alternate scenario. This is of course no argument for keeping, but it's the most honest one yet, since it's the only one to grapple with the arguments brought against the current referencing, instead of ignoring/dismissing them altogether. Avilich (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hilarity is fly specking as an argument. Stop picking flyshit out of pepper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Good thing you made this edit: , really adds to your argument. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Mztourist Such animosity. One would think you would correct the error in the article before you dissect the edits of an editor on an AfD - After all we are building an encyclopedia. I just checked back to see if the tone here changed. Nope. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Rich coming from you User:Lightburst. I note you have no problem with User:7&6=thirteen's comments, telling. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Fortunately, it is not up to you. Incessant repetition only exposes the weakness of your position. I WP:AGF, but enough already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what repetition? Dege31 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Dege31 I was not referring to you. It's like being in a hall of mirrors. It does not add to anyone's understanding, and is unconvincing by virtue of the repetition repetition repetition ... ad nauseum. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Funny considering your 'keep' rationale that doesn't address sourcing issues or notability in any way at all. I was agreeing with Dege31's idea about merging content into a list. And you don't have the authority to tell anyone 'enough already.' Intothatdarkness 20:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Res ipsa loquitur 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This nomination was made twenty-eight days ago, so I think any potential humor has long since been drained from the subject; is there really nothing better for us to do than camp out here and argue? jp×g 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Myself and Avilich have both requested a close, so hopefully it happens soon. Personally, I have said everything I think needs to be said (if it convinces people, I'll be glad, and if it doesn't convince people, I'll still be glad we could talk about it). jp×g 12:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Seleucus (son of Ablabius). Content can be merged from history, but it seems that all that's known about her is already there. Sandstein 11:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Olympias (sister of Praetorian prefect Seleucus)

Olympias (sister of Praetorian prefect Seleucus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with empty reasoning as usual. I couldn't find anything even remotely constituting significant coverage. She lacks an entry even in the basic PLRE (she doesn't even appear on the family tree in p. 1132), and it's hard to find anything at all since search results are all about her aunt, Saint Olympias, or her great-aunt, Olympias of Armenia. She does seem to have existed, but even the article creator himself had trouble finding anything good, to judge by his edit summary ("new article and unfortunately couldn't find anymore information on her"). I admittedly cannot access the sources in the article, but they presumably go no further than simply stating family relationships (failing WP:NOTGENEALOGY). Finally, the article itself asserts its subject's non-notability: "Unfortunately little is known of the life of Olympias". The title itself seems an implausible redirect or search term. Avilich (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; this is a period of remote history in which record-keeping was patchy. That someone's name is even remembered 1500 years later suggests they may have had some importance in their time. We can either help our readers by summarising honestly the current state of knowledge, or we can wash our hands of it, declaring that what little there is to know, is not worth knowing. I think the former approach more helpful. And I also think it's bad practice to delete articles where sources exist, but no one involved in the deletion process has actually looked at them. Elemimele (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I did find some sources aside from those in the article, and they go no further than including the subject in a family tree or stating the family relationship in the text. See also wp:burden WP:ONUS. Avilich (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN is not relevant here, as we are not arguing about whether the subject is verifiable; that has been conceded. This is a deletion discussion, and the question is what to do with the contents of the article. As a matter of professionalism, however, one should not first determine that reliable sources exist, and then attempt to shift the burden onto other editors to identify, locate, and incorporate them into the article in order to prevent you from deleting it. Strictly speaking you do not have to add them yourself, but if you know that reliable sources exist, then you cannot justifiably delete the article because they have not been added to it. You can, however, merge the article into others and change this title into a redirect if there does not appear to be a compelling reason to keep it as a stand-alone article. That would be much faster, and avoid the need to have this discussion in the first place. If anyone objected, they could of course start such a discussion or re-create the article, but I don't imagine that would tend to happen in articles such as this, provided that the subject is adequately covered elsewhere and can be readily located. P Aculeius (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
As the nominator I'm supposed to do a reasonably diligent WP:BEFORE, which is what I did. BURDEN is the wrong one, I should've posted WP:ONUS. Avilich (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge into the articles about the notable persons to whom she's related. The argument that anyone from antiquity about whose name has been passed down to us remains strong, and the fact that notable persons from antiquity had families we know about is relevant to their own articles. If there's nothing further notable about the subject, however, there's no point in a stand-alone article. The merging process involves only a couple of steps and can be done easily: 1) make sure that the subject is mentioned and adequately sourced in the related articles about notable persons, where one would expect her to be mentioned; 2) change this article into a redirect for the most appropriate location, perhaps the Seleucus referred to. That preserves the page history should anyone need to see what was done here in the past, including this discussion. In the event that the article is recreated in the future, there will be a record to examine. Possibly the redirect could be moved to a better title, i.e. "Olympias (sister of Praetorian prefect Seleucus)" that would make it easier for people to find the right article. P Aculeius (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect to Seleceus. I see nothing about her that is notable. No doubt there is (or should be) a disambiguation page which will need to be altered point to this seleuceus. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect to Seleceus. 4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Seleucus (son of Ablabius). "Unfortunately little is known of the life of Olympias." Except she was related to someone who was notable - but notability is not inherited. Ifnord (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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 14:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Bikash Lamichhane

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

WP:TOOSOON at best. Aside from this SIGCOV, even mere mentions are not found in online portals of reputed reliable sources. The thing about that WP:SIGCOV, aside from being promotional which almost all Nepali entertainment coverage is, is that its clone is found here in another WP:RS. It was posted two days later and credits the piece to "Annapurna", calling it news which it isn't. That raises question about both reliability and independence; one SIGCOV isn't enough anyway. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I agree with the nominator's analysis overall, my only hesitation to voting delete is the claimed award wins which the nominator did not address in the source analysis. @Usedtobecool is there a reason why we should not count these awards towards notability?4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you 4meter4! I did not mention them because the sources are trash and the awards wouldn't otherwise be enough for notability. I have never heard of the last two awards. I don't follow the field closely but when I've seen awards listed on other musician bios, I've at least been able to say that I've heard of them. They are sourced to an English site; I think you'll be able to tell the site is spam and not acceptable. It mentions the Young Mind Award but not the Everest Award. Searching for "Everest Music Award" on google gives exactly two results: this article and one mirror. My best guess is, Everest Award is a hoax ("Sagarmatha" is the Nepali word for Mt. Everest). For Young Minds Award, Google goes directly to the UK, even though I am searching from Nepal. That leaves "Sagarmath Music Award" which I have seen listed on other bios on Misplaced Pages but it does not have an article and it can't be used to presume notability. I found an RS about the award. It says there are 44 categories. The cited nonRS gives the list which has four different categories for "Best Male Model". I don't know why models would have different categories per genre, except to increase the number of recipients. The RS also says the awards are presented based on "sms voting and jury judgement". It does not even bother to list all the categories and winners. So, the newsworthy bit with the event was that a minister was present and one artist got a lifetime achievement award and a few journalists were recognised; I think if winning here meant anything, the news would start with who won best singer, composer, song, album, etc. What help is an award list without a verifying RS alongside it? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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. ✗plicit 04:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yrjö Aaltonen

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

No significant coverage per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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. There is a clear consensus that the subject is sufficiently notable relative to the time period from which she came. BD2412 T 05:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian)

Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I can find nothing worthwhile in secondary sources other than confirmation of the name, and the article is just a restatement of genealogical trivia already covered elsewhere. Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not seeing here any demonstration of how 'she does have importance' or any guideline-based reason for keeping, just some drive-by copycatting of Peterkingiron's vote, which itself only calls for ignoring WP:NOTGENEALOGY without any reason. The subject here supposedly died before Trajan became emperor, meaning she was never part of the imperial family, so it's not like she gets automatic notability like some members of royal families. Avilich (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
If you study my contributions you will see I don't do "drive-by copycat" votes and I think you need to get some perspective on this matter. It is a discussion among interested editors, not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to climb onto and air your grievances against anyone who disagrees with you. My comment was that I agree with Peter because I consider the subject to have importance in Roman history. As for WP:NOTGENEALOGY, that is inapplicable here because it says: "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". That would apply to articles like Trajan or Hadrian if someone should add a substantial piece about Ulpia to those – it does not apply here because most of the available information about Ulpia concerns her relationships. You say Ulpia wasn't a patrician and was never a member of the imperial family. She was Hadrian's grandmother and Trajan's aunt. As Spinningspark has rightly pointed out, a significant person in the ancient world must not be treated in the same way as some 21st century "celeb" about whom little is known. Ulpia's importance in Roman history is her family relationship to important people and she meets not only WP:GNG but also WP:COMMONSENSE. You don't build an encyclopaedia by deleting information about notable people who lived in places and times about which relatively little is known. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You don't build an encyclopedia by adding content indiscriminately, down to the smallest of trivia about someone's distant relative. Someone's importance in history is measured by coverage in historical sources, not by retrojecting a conjectural 'celeb' status to someone in the past. Relatives of 'celebs' are usually notable because their relationship already causes them to have coverage anyway. The only thing that matters is sources, how much you think is enough doesn't matter because you have none. Avilich (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Last time I looked, the article cited eight sources with a direct quote about Ulpia in each citation. The article has not been created discriminately, unlike this AfD. You create an encyclopaedia using sources (eight of them so far in this article) and WP:COMMONSENSE. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't be purposely obtuse, I already told you that sources go no further than restating family relationships and name, none of which establishes notability. And whoever added these sources did not think to look carefully (it's no more than a WP:NOTEBOMB if we're being honest), since apparently at least one of them is about a different person. Avilich (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not at all interested in what you may have "already told me". You are not an editor that deserves respect. That much is clear from a cursory glance at your talk page. You are clearly obsessed with notability but let me remind you that the second G in GNG means guideline. As I have already told you, editors must use WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:EDITDISC instead of blindly following this rule and that rule and the other rule. As it says in WP:COMMONSENSE: "Why isn't 'use common sense' an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy". You do not build an encyclopaedia by deleting information about topics that are so obviously useful. You build an encyclopaedia by developing articles about topics that readers may find useful – a student of Roman history would certainly find Ulpia's article useful. I have nothing further to say here. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT... Avilich (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cobbling together an article from weak sources for a person from the ancient world is an entirely different matter from doing that for a modern person and we should not treat them equivalently. In our time, that can be done for almost any nobody (and frequently is which is why CSD And AFD are so busy). On the other hand, there are a very limited number of people we even know the names of from the ancient world. Ulpia comes from an important patrician family and if she were alive today she would have a biography written, the papers would be full of stories about her, and she might make the cover of Forbes or Vogue. SpinningSpark 22:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I never said she was in the imperial family. And ok, not strictly a patrician (that's only men anyway), but her family is of senatorial rank and the distinction between that and patrician by her time was no longer of any real significance. SpinningSpark 09:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
So what? As Spinningspark said, no longer of any real significance. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
exactly Avilich (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that we should be particularly careful when assessing notability for historical figures (per WP:NEXIST etc.), but that doesn't mean giving them a free pass either. The sources that we have don't tell us anything about Ulpia beyond her name and her relatives, and that's not significant coverage. Counterfactual speculation about what would happen if she were a "modern person" doesn't strike me as helpful: we can't write an article based on sources that don't exist. (If we try to, serious original research problems immediately present themselves, as the present form of this article shows.) WP:NOTGENEALOGY makes this even clearer. Unless there's some sort of non-trivial coverage that I'm missing, she isn't notable. I'm not averse to a redirect, but I don't think it would be particularly helpful: this is an unlikely search term, and there's no single logical target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, important as a historical figureJackattack1597 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
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. Essentially, no arguments were put forward for definitely keeping the article. Ritchie333 21:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Zehra (singer)

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

The subject is clearly not notable and the coverage in online sources is not sufficient. The page on Turkish Misplaced Pages was also deleted following a discussion back in May. Keivan.f 01:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Question. @Keivan.f: The article refers to "her 2020 single named "Cennetten Çiçek", which became a popular hit in Turkey." Does Turkey have a recognized music chart, and if so what position did that single reach? Did any of her others songs chart? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
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 Xavier Institute students and staff. Consensus is that the consent is insufficiently sourced to justify a content merge and redirection was generally better favoured, even by the sole delete !vote as per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Bungle 18:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Rubbermaid (comics)

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG. No reliable sources discuss the character. TTN (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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/Redirect to List of Marvel Comics Characters. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Artie Maddicks

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

Fails WP:GNG. Other than a singular Portuguese scholar source, there doesn't seem to be any particular coverage of the character. TTN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: E. Eddie891 Work 12:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Emplate

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. No particular coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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. ✗plicit 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Volkan Çolpan

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

The subject does not appear to be notable and has very few acting credits. I was not able to find anything about him online either. Keivan.f 00:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Brighten A Day

Brighten A Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this should have been accepted, despite the references. This is trivial human interest, published for the customary human interest reasons of being connected with attractive young people doing something t interesting at an unusually early age. That's enoughfor a newspaper, but not an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep This organization received a significant amount of media coverage from multiple large news outlets (abiding by WP:ORG) across a period of more than a year. Also, the organization has a global impact serving seniors and frontline workers according to the news stories. There is also more recent media coverage about the work as well. Juyster (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
the "global impact" consists of " sent out hundreds of thousands of cards to nursing homes and hospitals". This is not a basis for notability . What it is a basis for, is tabloid-style human interest coverage. The basic policy here is NOT TABLOID, the fundamental WP policy for what gets included and what does not. Exaggerating the importance of the trivial is the stock in trade of newspapers. it is not part of encyclopedias. The GNG is a guideline for what usually gets included, but it's based on WP:NOT, the policy, and if there's an apparent incongruity or conflitct, w go by the policy. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The nonprofit did not receive trivial tabloid-style media coverage. Its work and impact were covered extensively on highly reputable news sources like CNN, The Washington Post, CBS This Morning, ABC, and NBC, with not just passing mentions but full articles and news segments. There are more media links beyond those included in the citations of the page, such as this CNN article from May 2020 and Fox News from April 2020. This coverage was extended over a period of more than a year, so it was not a one-time tabloid-like coverage. Also, there are similar organizations with no/little media coverage/recognition (see here - and the Misplaced Pages page for this organization's founder here - and another organization here) with articles on Misplaced Pages. The Impact section can be trimmed if needed to improve the article quality. Juyster (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially a human interest story that drew national attention during the Covid pandemic. While the organization has gotten significant press coverage, the topic is lacking sustained coverage. In order to prove notability for an encyclopedia we need to show more coverage across time (as in over several years). I would also be ok with draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

*Keep (DOUBLE VOTE) The media coverage was not one-event news as discussed in WP:SUSTAINED. The organization did receive extensive sustained global media coverage from April 2020 (see this Fox News article) to September 2021 (see this article). There was coverage across different months in this time period. Also, there are other similar organizations on Misplaced Pages with little or no significant media coverage: see here for one organization, here for the previous organization's founder, and here for another similar organization. The organization being discussed here received more significant and sustained press coverage than these organizations. Some media links not included as references are this Good Morning America link, LITE Breakfast Podcast, and this CNN Brazil article. There are also other links on the web. Juyster (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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. Geschichte (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Stadlbauer

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

Not relevant, never played on a professional level. --XaviYuahanda (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
Category:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 20: Difference between revisions Add topic