Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
- Little Gay Pub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As the article creator, I am not sure that this has the required level of sustained coverage. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Feels a bit funny to vote against the author of the article who nominated their own article for AfD, but just quickly pulling up a Google news] search for it finds quite a bit of new coverage not currently in the article, including on history and expansion to Philadelphia, some sources that could be included: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. And then there also seems to be a recent hate-crime indicent against it with some vandalism - [7], [8]. Seems enough WP:SIGCOV to pass notability and much of those sources could probably be included into the article, if I find a free moment I might even do it myself as I love article rescue. Raladic (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Raladic (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per GNG and Raladic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bushrod, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is another "what did the WPA text say?" case, as Baker cites it for a founding date in spite of ample evidence that this is in fact another rail spot. What older topos and aerials show is that this was once the east end of a small yard; I found one person cited as yardmaster there. And all the relevant hits indicate this, with lots of irrelevant surname hits. There's no town here now and now place of it to have been, as the topos show nothing but trackwork and a couple of buildings. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was able to find a news article from 1959 that refers to it as a "town": [9], but it's more about the man it's named for than the place itself. A 1946 article in the Linton Daily Citizen has a little more information, but just describes it as a rail point and not a town: [10]. Undecided about whether this counts as WP:SIGCOV. As much as I hate geographic permastubs like this one, we have a little bit more (albeit conflicting) information than is typical for these "GNIS gives this name to this point" type articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can see from a 1958 aerial that there was no town there; except for the Quonset hut (which might have been a different building at the same spot) there's just a structure withing the wye of the tracks. Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Jason Patraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former cricketer. Possible redirect targets include List of Canadian first-class cricketers and List of Canada ODI cricketers. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archery at the 2023 National Games of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Xuyi High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, although it's a bit hard to tell with Chinese schools because of difficulty in searching. The one source looks like a cartoon, but I think it's a blog for alumni of the school - again, not really sure. Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable third-party sources. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Good grief: "ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on archaeological matters." Massively influential national body representing archaeology at every level of government in the UK. That's not notable? Do me a lemon! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That may well be so, but has it translated to any usable sources? I came across this article because it's been unreferenced for thirteen years—one of the few remaining unreferenced archaeology articles left, by the way—and after some time searching I couldn't rectify that. I'm happy to be corrected but without sources we can't write an article, no matter how influential the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete it may be a "massively influential national body" but where's the coverage? Google news comes up with 4 hits, 1st and 3rd being not indepth and 4th is a letter to a newspaper. There are plenty of google books hits but most seem 1 line mentions when I looked at the first few pages of results. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I added sourcing to the article, one of the strongest cases of 'presumed notability' I've seen in a long while. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, you added nine references, and: [11] has just a single sentence stating what ALGAO is; [12], [13], [14], [15] are reports and publications of ALGAO itself; [16] is a press release about a report ALGAO produced; [17] and [18] offer passing mentions in the context of a manufactured "war on woke" story; and [19] doesn't mention the subject. So we still have no significant coverage in independent sources. Notability does appear to have been presumed for the last decade, but that presumption has so far proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tapani Uitos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Enterr10 Television Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterr10 Television Network, closed as soft delete. Source #1 reads pretty much like a press release and is likely one, source #4 does not mention Enterr10 at all. Not sure about the reliability of the two others: DreamDTH (source #2) appears to have a strong editorial policy, but mentions running advertising, which I am concerned about, while source #3 is barely in-depth. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- TheoTown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page was deleted multiple times for A7 and G11 reasons, so I figure having a full deletion discussion might be worth it. The only sources given are primary: the game's website, and the Steam/App Store/Google Play pages and ratings. The only sources I could find were a self-published blog explicitly including affiliate links, and this review, whose website appears to have an editorial team but for which I'm not sure how reliable it is, as only one of the members is an accredited journalist. Still, assuming this counts as a RS, a single source isn't enough for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Premachi Goshta (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Edit war between three editors attempting to redirect and a LOUTSOCK who keeps removing. Looking at the sources, they are all unreliable as churnalism, general announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommend redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein which is the show this is based off of. Although, would also request protection of the title if that happens. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hut 33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. Prod removal not based in policy. Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Iamdikeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Simply fails WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Also fails the explanatory essay at WP:NYOUTUBER. Pieces from the sources are either WP:INDEPENDENT or unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fisayo Fosudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG or WP:ENT, and also does not pass the explanatory essay at WP:NYOUTUBER. Pieces from the sources mostly fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Awards won/nominated are not significant enough to confer inherent notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete- fails WP:GNG, and as such, WP:NYOUTUBER. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- List of ZIP Code prefixes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two years on, and every issue from the first round is still here. Again, the information from here does not agree with the list in Sectional center facility, and the latter information is correct, and this is not. Last time I pointed out that 207 was wrong, and yes, it's different, but it's still wrong: 207 has nothing to do with Silver Spring, and the actual name of the SCF is "Southern Maryland". It still doesn't step up to the issue that many SCFs serve zip codes in multiple states. If someone wants to make the listing in the SCF article into a table, I'd be fine with that, and this could be redirected there. But as it is, this is a magnet for misinformation and needs to cease to exist as it stands, and it should not be merged into the other article, because it is mostly wrong. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. I can't exactly verify the misinformation, not that that's truly a reason for deletion, but I'll just say that WP:NLIST is not met for the prefixes specifically. The
rock solid source
from last time is a primary source and doesn't count towards independence. However, I am willing to change my !vote if there are sources that say otherwise, or if there is a case that shows how a list of zip codes would be easier in this format than showing all 41,704 zip codes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Arbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable neighbourhood in Pakistan. I couldn't find any information about it on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- University of Brahmanbaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is mess, WP:NOTPROMO. It fails both WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE resulted in only few press release, appointment announcement, and navigational maps. The sources mentioned within the article do not pass WP:RS, 1 being press release statement, source 2 leads to a blank website (at least for me), source 3 is an announcement and source 4 is University's official website. — MimsMENTOR talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. — MimsMENTOR talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I have removed unsourced sourced content and added more references.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nam Suat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable watercourse in Thailand. It has no sources for 8 years. I could not find anything about it on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Couldn't find anything about the subject with a search other than this article. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine961 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Thailand. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Damian Falisiewicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-professional footballer without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only secondary source I found is Dziennik Wschodni, a brief mention in transfer announcement. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- 2024 Al-Mustariha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment:
- Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete:
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. FlalfTalk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Onais Bascome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. This article is just a list of squads he was picked for and all the cited sources are routine match reports and squad listings. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Caribbean. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New journal, indexed in some databases that are rather trivial for an OA journal, but not any selective databases as required by WP:NJournals (see MIAR). The article appears to be well-sourced, until one starts to look at the references in detail: all of them are either written by people involved with the journal, or are press releases, or source things that are only tangentially related to the journal, e.g., a reference (currently #16) to the publishing platform used but otherwise not even mentioning the journal. In short, this fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maryscott O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Every source used here is biased, either for or against her. Beyond 2006-2007, I cannot to find any notable reliable coverage of the subject. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Internet. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The second source in the article is certainly "notable reliable coverage". The Washington Post profiled her and her blog in a 2000+ word article which was, according to Fox News, published on the front page. pburka (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- List of health insurance executives in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. Even if this does stay it should be broadened to List of health insurance chief executives (Similar to Category:American_health_care_chief_executives) and be a category, not a random listicle only including the "top 50". Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, and Lists. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or extensively rework, per Jcmcc450. While there might be a place for an article with this title, it would have to have a much broader scope - including both present and past executives for said companies, expanding the number of companies discussed, and adding more information about the health insurance executives themselves such as their tenure. The sourcing would also have to be far stronger, beyond merely the pages for the health insurance companies themselves. This would likely be a rework so fudnamental that it would render the article unrecognizable, but it is the only good alternative to deletion. As it stands, considering current events, the 'Notable former executives' section, and the timing of its creation, this reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a hit list. RWall514 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Timing is very suspect and does make it much harder to search for sources under WP:NLIST, but I couldn't find anything independent of the recent shooting that mentions the CEO's as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- List of basic settlement units in Brno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This recently created list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an extremely detailed breakdown for specific purposes in a professional sphere, which goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Other European metropolises do not have a list with such a breakdown (so Brno is very random in this context). Similar lists are not found on cswiki either. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest that's quite fair. I simply wanted to make a ranking of the basic settlement units by density and population since that's what I'm usually interested in, but if others agree for the deletion I am for it too. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- comment I have to say this is largely incomprehensible without a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since there is already the article Administrative divisions of Brno would it simply be way better to move the article there? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- This does not solve the concerns I raised above. It doesn't matter if the list is stand-alone or not. FromCzech (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redout (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No matter how much work I do on this page, it will never fix the issue of there being no sources for it. Because of Wikipedia's original research and fancruft policies, I can't do anything else with this page. It simply just fails the notability requirements. Before I made my edits to it (which could honestly be considered fancruft because no one needed to know about the intricate details of all nine gamemodes), it was honestly one of the more pathetic stubs on Wikipedia. I love this game and it hurts a bit to say this, but the page just has to go. It isn't going to get any better, no one is going to do any more reporting on it. The game is dead, I've never seen more than six concurrent players on SteamCharts and online mode is a barren wasteland. Unless you guys want to keep this forever-incomplete article, then it has to go unless one of you guys can do your magic and find like 15 good sources on the gameplay, development, and reception of the game. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 12:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Just because a video game is not popular is not grounds for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @David notMD but can we really leave it like it is? I've done a lot of digging and I can't really find any good sources for anything (if Steam and Reddit threads were acceptable sources, we'd be good but no big outlets are reporting on Redout). My edits were obvious fancruft and they make up like 50% of the article now. I kind of get where you're coming from with the popularity thing, but I think the popularity is a somewhat decent indicator when it comes to sourcing. If you were a reporter for a big game journalism site, would you report on that one weird niche racing game with six people playing it that came out 8 years ago, or would you report on the big new AAA game that just came out? I highly doubt we will get any new sources to work with, and the ones we have can make a stub article at best. I think it just has to go. It wasn't a good article when I found it, and my edits didn't make it any better, no matter how hard I tried. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- David is right, popularity is also not an argument for deletion or preservation, it is also an indicator. Fan content is also not an argument for deletion because it can be corrected, I have seen the sources, they are not the best but I find that it is enough to prove admissibility, no need for a game to be in a major newspaper like The New York Times. The game was developed by an Italian company so maybe there are sources that you have not found because it would be in a foreign language. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @David notMD but can we really leave it like it is? I've done a lot of digging and I can't really find any good sources for anything (if Steam and Reddit threads were acceptable sources, we'd be good but no big outlets are reporting on Redout). My edits were obvious fancruft and they make up like 50% of the article now. I kind of get where you're coming from with the popularity thing, but I think the popularity is a somewhat decent indicator when it comes to sourcing. If you were a reporter for a big game journalism site, would you report on that one weird niche racing game with six people playing it that came out 8 years ago, or would you report on the big new AAA game that just came out? I highly doubt we will get any new sources to work with, and the ones we have can make a stub article at best. I think it just has to go. It wasn't a good article when I found it, and my edits didn't make it any better, no matter how hard I tried. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The current article is viewed over 1,000 times per month on average (Page view stats). I am not sure if that weighs on the deletion discussion directly.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gronk Oz Do you think these visitors might be those who accidentally ended up here while looking for the medical phenomena of the same name? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 14:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whether a page is viewed a lot or not can be an indication, but it is not an argument for keeping or deleting it. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SparklingBlueMoon agreed, people fall down Wikipedia rabbit holes all the time, and it doesn't record how long the visitors were on the page, so maybe these visitors were people just hopping around via inline links without actually reading or learning anything from the article. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Motorsport, and Italy. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The game appears on Nintendo Life, Push Square, Eurogamer... we can do better in sources but after seeing the sources in the article it seems to me sufficient for this page to be eligible on Wikipedia. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SparklingBlueMoon do they provide the information I need, though? I am looking for reception, development, and more detailed gameplay information. If it's just a generic announcement like "hey this game came out made by this group of adrenaline junkie Italians" then it isn't what I am looking for in a source. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Something is potentially eligible if it is covered by several independent and reliable sources, which is the case here. I understand what you are saying and I agree that there is some information missing but it is not because there is not much information that the article is not eligible, otherwise the stubs would not exist and would all be deleted. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SparklingBlueMoon do they provide the information I need, though? I am looking for reception, development, and more detailed gameplay information. If it's just a generic announcement like "hey this game came out made by this group of adrenaline junkie Italians" then it isn't what I am looking for in a source. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Battle of Ganja (1796) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced and was already draftified once. A WP:BEFORE only brings up other events of the Persian expedition of 1796, or other battles having happened in Ganja in other years, but nothing about this specific battle. This source provides an overview of the region during the time, and confirms the general situation in the year preceding the battle (with Erekle/Heraclius and Javad Khan respectively under Russian and Persian allegiance), but does not mention a battle taking place in Ganja in 1796. This excerpt from Azerbaijan's Presidential Library briefly mentions that Russia, not Georgia itself, occupied Ganja in 1796 (and links more sources, although they are all written in Azerbaijani). All in all, there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to confirm that a battle between Georgia and Azerbaijan took place, let alone to verify WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (country). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable, either OR or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - at best OR, at worst a hoax. My searches turn up nothing on 1796 (at least in English). Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:V. No improvement on Draft:Battle of Ganja (1796) and barely any improvement on Draft:Battle of Ganja. If the creator believes this to be notable, they can work on this in draft and submit to WP:AfC once sources are found. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anjana Seth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can only find routine coverage from fashion shows and brand PR, which is not enough for GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Fashion, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Legends of Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a list of random people (and weirdly some states) who may have once lived on the African continent whom the author felt were "legends". In other words, a mess of original research and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, and Africa. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to History of Africa. Many of the sections have proper sourcing and overall are well-researched, but there is no source tying them all together as "legends", making the article WP:OR as said above. The closest I could come is this childrens' book: [20], which has almost no overlap with the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Criticism of fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
POV fork, mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? It's a full article with seven different content sections. Only one of those sections is "Poor record in war". Also, why didn't you object to the spinoff when we were discussing this on the talk page before? Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I originally proposed one paragraph, and edited it to address feedback over several rounds of discussion. In my reading of the discussion, I addressed all the concerns presented, after which most editors were neutral or generally supportive, except for one editor who believed it had too much weight. As a result, I declared my intention to create a spinoff where the paragraph could be included, and there were no objections.
- As a result, over the past month I have been researching this topic in order to write a full spinoff article, in accordance with WP:Summary style and the established precedent on "Criticism" articles for ideologies (WP:CRITSP). The resulting article has three subsections derived from the main article, the one section we discussed before, and three entirely new sections written from imported content and my own research. But I suppose we can do an AfD? Sunrise (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, hence my reference to "one editor" in my previous comment (out of 7, by my count?). Regardless, I undertook to address their concerns by offering an alternative solution, and they didn't reply (nor did anyone else) so I assumed it was acceptable. Sunrise (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment per WP:POVFORK
There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork
, we have Criticism of … articles for Criticism of socialism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of Marxism
- Comment per WP:POVFORK
- Kowal2701 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is also WP:CRITSP:
For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle.
Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is also WP:CRITSP:
- True, but as pointed out above there was no consensus to create this, which came out of a decision about the war paragraph which was (explicitly) rejected for inclusion in the main article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- As above - that is not my reading of the discussion (and you didn't make any objection yourself, even though you commented). Perhaps we can get an outside view on that? Regardless, there's no such thing as "no consensus to create" for an action that has been mentioned on talk with no subsequent objection. If your issue is about that single paragraph, then AFDing the entire subarticle would seem to be the wrong venue. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as article creator, I suppose. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I don't really know what arguments will be accepted on this point. But there is a long precedent for "Criticism" articles about ideologies (WP:CRITSP, as mentioned above), with a full list at Category:Criticisms by ideology.
- Normally, I would follow the organization of WP:Summary style, making a new article when a subsection gets too large for the main article, with a summary being left behind. That is what I was doing, and it's the opposite of a POV fork. (The main article is currently desynced due to a revert, but that's a matter for talk.) Certainly there should no question over whether there's enough content for a dedicated article; for one, there's quite a few things that I haven't currently added. The fact that an editor previously raised weight concerns about some of this content being in the main article (which is reasonable, and indeed this article was created in response to that) is a further indication that a dedicated article is appropriate.
- AFAICT, I think the nomination may have been based on an error? The claim that it's
mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2
doesn't make sense, as I noted above. The nominator has acknowledged an error (diff) but I'm not really sure what it is. Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Old Grandma Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydoh8[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Aydoh8[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Zemun Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and was notability tagged for 12 years), its only current source is primary. Previous AfD went keep on the basis of several "It's notable," "It's big," and "Important games have been played there," among other illegitimate reasons. Ravenswing 09:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete zero notability established. Sole source is from the home club, their website also doesn't appear to exist anymore. Looking at the previous AfD (which you also nominated), all of the keep arguments completely violated WP:INHERIT and WP:NARENA (which some of them even used as a keep argument), and the closing admin looks to have simply done a vote count. Aydoh8[contribs] 10:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to either Zemun#Sport or FK Zemun if no coverage is found. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- 2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm a die hard Lions fan and that's a big part of my editing, but this game isn't particular special or deserving of a standalone article. The only "remarkable" part about it was a mishap regarding taking a timeout at the end, which is a mishap that happens several times a season. Does not warrant a standalone article and should be deleted.
I obviously understand there was bad clock management, there's no doubt about that, but this is barely more than what routinely happens every single season several times. Games are always cost this way, by miscommunications. There's always going to be sensationalized reporting that happens immediately after a game, that's frankly expected. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Illinois, and Michigan. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, calling this an "infamous NFL game" is absurd. EF5 21:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Alternatively, I suppose this could be redirected to Bears–Lions rivalry. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not want this page to be deleted. I want it to stay. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable enough game. Definite recency bias in this articles creation. This is not one of those games that will be mentioned as an all-timer. The Hail Mary game versus the Commanders, sure, but not this. Maybe it deserves a special mention in the Bears' and Lions' season pages, but nothing more than that. Eg224 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would rather keep this page. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, with maybe some selective merging to Matt Eberflus#Chicago Bears. Clearly a case of recentism. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Historic in numerous ways, leading to the firing of a Bears coach midseason for the first time, getting the Lions to their best start in franchise history, as well as one of the most baffling endings to a game ever, even after a comeback by the Bears. I don't think that recency is the only reason why this was created. Aardwolf68 (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
leading to the firing of a Bears coach midseason for the first time
– It's certainly not the only reason for the firing, but it is an obvious contributing factor. Let's not act like this was the only reason it was.Getting the Lions to their best start in franchise history
– This took a number of games to accomplish, this game is not special in that regard, and, simply based on team strengths of schedules and records, this game was not expected to go any other way than a Lions win by most pundits....as well as one of the most baffling endings to a game ever...
— That's certainly subjective. I'd counter by saying it's not even top 10 for the wild and wacky things that have happened to the Lions.I don't think that recency is the only reason why this was created.
– The game will only ever really be mentioned in the context of Matt Eberflus, it'd be fairly unexpected to have long term coverage.
- To be honest, the rational provided feels more like WP:ILIKEIT than anything. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: While clock management situations, and disastrous ones at that, are common place in the NFL, theres none quite like this one. 26 seconds to get a play off or call a timeout and they do neither until theres 5 seconds left, in which that is the final play of the game. Add on to that the first mid-season head coach firing in the 105 year history of the Bears and the best start in the Detroit Lions 95 year history makes for a pretty historic game. The Butt Fumble was notoriously memed and ridiculed into oblivion so much that the Wikipedia page for said play still exists, so if you take down this game, the butt fumble would deserve to be taken off this site as well. Not to mention the fact that Chicago also faced off in 2 brutal games against divison rivals Green Bay and Minnesota previous to this game, so the Bears were already known for stuff like this, but this was just absolutely mind boggling and set a precedent on how low it could go. The game was also broadcast on CBS to a nationally televised audience, with all time quotes from Nantz and Romo. With all that being said, theres no way that this play would soon be forgot like other mismanaged clock situations and i believe that this page should be kept IBeFlyin (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was deemed a miscommunication by both the QB and the coach for what it's worth, and those are fairly common, especially by inexperienced coaches and rookie quarterbacks. I don't think the standing of Detroit as a team is particularly relevant, or who Chicago played directly before the game. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this game gets memed and ridiculed over time the way the butt fumble has, then there would be a good case for creating a page about this game at that time. But for now that is WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Bears–Lions rivalry, where a special mention as a notable game can be included. As the nomination noted, there is nothing especially unique about this game. 2024 Chicago Bears season is a much better place to discuss the impact of various games over the season, while Bears–Lions rivalry is a good place to speak directly to this game and what happened. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments related to the Butt Fumble don't hold water, for obvious reasons, but also because, as the nominator noted, poor clock management and miscommunication happens all the time in the NFL. The Butt Fumble was a singularly unique play with few, if any, appropriate comparisons. Although WP:RECENT makes this difficult to judge right now, it is important to put this game in the context of what is being claimed that makes it notable. Eberflus was historically a bad coach who was likely getting fired at the end of the season either way. Although bad, this game was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the only reason for his firing. The fact that the Bears haven't fired a coach mid-season is more of a flukely TV factoid that doesn't really mean much is the grand scheme of things. And lastly, in the grand scheme of crazy endings, this was definitely absurd clock management, but otherwise was a fairly routine end to the game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and do not redirect. Non-notable regular season game. Teams miscommunicate and run out of time at the end of games multiple times a season. Likewise, midseason coaching changes are common. I doubt "2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game" or anything similar would be a reasonable search term so a WP:COSTLY redirect serves no purpose. Some content can be moved to Eberflus' article or the Bears' current season article. Frank Anchor 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This game had a historic outcome and while it’s likely Eberfleus is fired anyway, it’s not in a historical way. It was being reported as far as Laredo and San Francisco. Coaching malpractice has earned articles before- look at 2023 Georgia Tech vs. Miami football game. It was called “the worst clock management in history” by some. Absolutely historic.--38.122.245.52 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- And if we merge it to either Matt Eberflus or Bears-Lions rivalry or 2024 Chicago Bears season meaningful information would need to be cut out due to size concerns. Not to mention the Eberflus article is protected until late December. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Miami game is also nominated for deletion not a very strong example for keeping this article. The Juice14 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It’s both a historic game for the Lions (being their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years), but also a historic game for the Bears as well (for obvious reasons) and given how coaching mishaps of this magnitude are so rare, along with how widely talked about this game (and the near-unanimous calls for the firing of Eberflus after said game) about the game is, I don’t see how you can delete it at this point, though I do understand the arguments for deletion. :KDoppenheimer (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This was a historic game for both teams. For the Lions, this gave them their best ever start to a season, not to mention their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years. As for the Bears, this caused Matt Eberflus to become the first Head Coach in Bears History to be fired mid season. I see no reason we should delete this. Carson004 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention I do not see anywhere in that article that would meet deletion criteria for any WP essays, like WP:G12 for example. This never broke any copyright rules Carson004 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- It took more than this game for the Lions to have a "historic" start and it took more than one game to get Eberflus fired. Your argument doesn't really hold water. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Technically it is still historic, so YOUR argument cannot hold air Carson004 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree that if this WERE to become noteworthy and talked about like the Buttfumble in the future, then this article can be recreated and should stand. As it stands, however, this definitely feels completely reactionary. Definitely can be mentioned on the Eberflus page, but that's as far as it goes imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.135.55 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I want this page to stay since this game was historic. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Maybe over time this game will get memed like the butt fumble due to the clock management at the end of the game, at which point an article about the game would be appropriate (and at such a time the game may have accumulated a more useful nickname than the title being used here). But until then there is nothing special about it. The notion that the game is historic because its Detroit's first Thanksgiving win in 7 years is not a remotely appropriate standard. And the fact that the win gave Detroit its best start ever is not a reason for keeping either. Lots of games have given a team their best start in franchise history, and we don't have articles on them and there would be no reason to. I went to Miami for an example since that one is probably the easiest, given that they had a perfect season in their 7th year as a franchise. In 1966 they won for the first time in their 6th game, so that made for their best start ever. As the franchise's first win, that may well be notable, separate from their best start. They then won 2 more games that season so each of those wins marked the Dolphins' best start too. Then in 1967, they won their opening game, so obviously that represented their best start. Wins in weeks 9 and 10 also gave them their best start ever, so in 1967 the Dolphins had 3 wins that represented their best start ever. Then in 1968, in week 5 they earned a tie putting them at 1-5-1, which was their best start ever. Their remaining 4 wins that season also produced their best start ever, so in 1968 the Dolphins played 5 games that produced their best start ever. In 1969 they never had their best start ever. But that changed in 1970. Their win in week 3 put them at 2-1 for the season, their best start ever, and each of their remaining 8 wins for that season represented their best start ever. So they had 9 games in 1970 that represented their best start ever. In 1971 their win in week 2 put them at 1-0-1, their best start ever, and 7 of their remaining wins represented their best start ever, so they had 8 games that produced their best start ever. Then we get to 1972. They of course started 2-0, which was then their best start ever and each of their remaining 12 wins also represented their best start ever. So 13 games in 1972 produced their best start ever (now some of those games that represented the best start ever for any NFL team and especially the final game that clinched a perfect regular season may well have a claim to notability). So after their initial season, the Dolphins had 38 games where a win or tie produced their best start ever, and no one cares about or remembers most of them. And that's pretty easy one to go through since they won't have another best start ever until they start 15-0. Other teams probably have more than 38 games representing their best start ever, but even at 38, we hardly need articles about games that almost no one cares about or remembers just because they happen to represent a teams best start ever. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WALLOFTEXT 38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- More like a well thought out and explained vote that addresses the silly and non-policy based WP:ILIKEIT keep votes. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WALLOFTEXT 38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Perhaps a bit of a weak one. But there is evidence of WP:IMPACT, whether or not Eberflus was an awful coach, a 105-year first and historic season for the Lions is something. Plus sometimes the wider impact is not felt until end-of-season recaps (yes, yes, WP:CRYSTAL and all), but this is just borderline enough in terms of wider significance for me. See the AFD for Hail Murray for a similar article that editors were in a rush to delete and wound up being kept. This was nominated a day or two after its creation, seems like a bit of a rush to me. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Etzedek24: Why are you putting so much weight regarding a "historic season for the Lions" on just this one game? There were 10 other wins besides this one. If anything that sounds like information that doesn't belong in its own article. If the Lions win again next week, does that mean that should also be its own article? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- All things considered together satisfy WP:IMPACT for me. I don't particularly think one is more important than the other, it's the confluence of them that takes this over the threshold for me. I even did say that I think it is a weaker keep. No need to be hyperbolic. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not trying to be hyperbolic @Etzedek24, I'm focused on the fact that a number of people have mentioned the Lions' season as a reason for keeping, when from my perspective, it's entirely irrelevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- All things considered together satisfy WP:IMPACT for me. I don't particularly think one is more important than the other, it's the confluence of them that takes this over the threshold for me. I even did say that I think it is a weaker keep. No need to be hyperbolic. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- The game was impactful, but only really to the franchises themselves, not to the broader culture of the NFL, as all of the other games with dedicated pages are. Nothing particularly distinctive happened this game, it was memorable but poor clock management resulting in you getting less plays off than intended isn't exactly unique. Dak in the 2022 NFC Wildcard stands out in my memory; that game doesn't have it's own page, it is just described on the season pages and 2022 playoffs page. I feel like the Hail Murray is a particularly misguided equivalency because the play itself was notably distinctive; it was a highlight and a signature play with a unique name. It fits in with the other entries on Category:National Football League games, this one just does not, it stands out as the least significant unnamed event on the page. The game was primarily just impactful on the franchises. Thus, talk about the significance to the Lions' season on the Lions' season page, the significance to the Bears' season on the Bears' season page. Talk about that on the Bears–Lions rivalry page. In my opinion, this game does not warrant it's own page. TheHaft (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Etzedek24: Why are you putting so much weight regarding a "historic season for the Lions" on just this one game? There were 10 other wins besides this one. If anything that sounds like information that doesn't belong in its own article. If the Lions win again next week, does that mean that should also be its own article? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete This article is completely useless and should be deleted as soon as possible. If this article stays, why don't we have articles about other NFL games in which teams set their records?! And also, this article literally makes no sense, because it has no historical significance, Detroit set its record not only because of this match, and the fact that Detroit lifted the curse of Thanksgiving is absolutely insignificant information. According to this logic, Wikipedia should have articles about Damar Hamlin's collapse in the 2022 Bills—Benglas game and Christian Eriksen's collapse in the 2020 UEFA Denmark—Finland match. Obviously, those articles would have been much more important, since it almost took the lives of two people. 212.164.65.158 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Delete, on hold pending below discussion, is this notable as the worse NFL clock management of all time?), have been watching the discussion and am surprised at it having so many keep comments. Hey man im josh is a Lions fan so there is no bias involved, just a commonsense appraisal of this page from a standpoint of notability. Probably a redirect to the fired coach and maybe a sentence or two mention on his page should be added to cover the topic but keeping the page would lower the bar for stand-alone pages for individual NFL games. The only NFL game I ever attended was the game in which Jim McMahon took over the Bears quarterback position. I missed the first quarter and the only touchdown of this Bears-New Orleans game, a game that George Halas said was the worse football game that he ever saw in his life. I consider it a notable game for Halas' comment alone, and McMahon's beginning his reign, which I knew was significant as I watched it happen, led to a couple of great years for the Bears and was icing on the cake. I haven't attended another NFL game because I saw the worse and that's enough for me. But Wikipedia probably wouldn't accept a page about it. The clock mistakes in this 2024 game are similar, and the bottom of the barrel is sometimes only notable to those who remember being there (for three-quarters). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, This is one of the most significant games of the 2024 season. The history of it being the root cause of the Bears firing a head coach mid-season for the first time in nearly 80 years is notable in itself. Cramerwiki (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- The cause of Eberflus being firing is more than just this game. It is due to his ineffective 14–32 record overall and 4–7 record this season. In addition, the game immediately before other teams' first mid-season firing of a head coach do not have articles. Frank Anchor 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eberflus was directly fired as a result of the ending of the game. Had they won, sure, he'd be gone after the season anyways, but this is what directly led to it. This will be a significant piece of NFL History. Cramerwiki (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's pure unsubstantiated speculation. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Frank Anchor You are correct. If a coach getting fired in mid-season after a game makes the game notable then we need an article about this game (and many more), since Robert Saleh was fired after the game. Maybe there is a scenario where clearly something in that game all by itself got the coach fired, and the game thus became notable - maybe they won the Super Bowl the prior year and in the first game of the season they did something so stupid that they got fired - but even then, discussion of the game and the stupid decision would belong in the coach's article, not a separate article for the game, unless the game itself gets persistent coverage.Rlendog (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cramerwiki If the game actually does become "a significant piece of NFL History" then there will be ongoing coverage of the game to establish that, and at that time I don't think there would be much objection to recreating this article. Until then that is merely WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's pure unsubstantiated speculation. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eberflus was directly fired as a result of the ending of the game. Had they won, sure, he'd be gone after the season anyways, but this is what directly led to it. This will be a significant piece of NFL History. Cramerwiki (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- The cause of Eberflus being firing is more than just this game. It is due to his ineffective 14–32 record overall and 4–7 record this season. In addition, the game immediately before other teams' first mid-season firing of a head coach do not have articles. Frank Anchor 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Regardless of how "historic" a mid-season firing is, I see no reason why 2024 Detroit Lions season, 2024 Chicago Bears season, and Matt Eberflus can't adequately cover this. So much of the article is sheer fluff, from the background that duplicates what the season articles can cover, to the routine game summary before the failed final drive, to the wordiness and details of the aftermath and reactions. Reywas92Talk 17:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The clock management and the massive criticism make this game pass standalone GNG. Significant coverage and the consequences are monumental. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There has been some WP:BLUDGEON behavior on this page, with nominator responding to every keep vote to try to discredit their opinion. Such behavior is disruptive to the discussion and should be taken into account whilst closing. 134.204.117.34 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've replied to 4 of the 10 keeps, and to a reply someone made on a keep vote, that's certainly not replying to every keep vote as you've stated.
- If you read the WP:BLUDGEON essay I believe it's clear that my behaviour does not fit said mold. Feel free to take me to WP:ANI, but I do feel comfortable in stating I have not been bludgeoning the discussion and I resent said accusation, which in of itself, is an attempt to invalidate discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, to bludgeon the accused bludgeoner as well as DrewieStewie who says the play is "monumental", a question. Is this being called the "worse time management in NFL history" in reliable sources? I know it was a time management misplay, but has bad use of the clock and time outs occurred on this scale before? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll check the sources after work since I’m about to clock back in, but as a quick clarification, I stated that the consequences of the play have shown to be monumental, in the positive for the lions and in the negative for the Bears/Eberflus. Clock management has never been this poor at the top level of gridiron football, and the criticism has been extensive and widespread, resulting in these consequences. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. What I'm looking for is not relevance to the teams or the coach, those are of minor notability and no reason to keep, but to possible worse NFL clock management of all time. That would be a reason to keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: I'm not finding an individual incident discussed, in of itself, as being the worst of all time. I'm finding games discussed as such, particularly pointed towards YouTube, but I'm finding a difficulty in finding said coverage because, as I'm sure you know, recent stories typically end up popping up more prominently and there's always sensationalism after games to bait in the clicks. Strange because you would think there'd be lists of the worst individual clock management decisions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, there have been mentions and comments about this being one of the worse, and yes, there should be a list or Hall of Shame somewhere. This RM has been wrongly contested on the basis of team and coach history, when it seems to me it should all hang all fall on the 'worse time management' notability (where it is probably at least a contender). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Oh I'm sure it's a contender, but anecdotally speaking, I feel like we hear about this sort of thing all the time. Personally I think there have been worse mishaps than miscommunications and misunderstandings between a head coach and his rookie QB (after all, no reason Williams couldn't have called a time out). Never the less, I'll give it more of a shot again later, but a lot of the focus seemed to be on games as a whole, as opposed to an individual decision. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, there have been mentions and comments about this being one of the worse, and yes, there should be a list or Hall of Shame somewhere. This RM has been wrongly contested on the basis of team and coach history, when it seems to me it should all hang all fall on the 'worse time management' notability (where it is probably at least a contender). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: I'm not finding an individual incident discussed, in of itself, as being the worst of all time. I'm finding games discussed as such, particularly pointed towards YouTube, but I'm finding a difficulty in finding said coverage because, as I'm sure you know, recent stories typically end up popping up more prominently and there's always sensationalism after games to bait in the clicks. Strange because you would think there'd be lists of the worst individual clock management decisions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. What I'm looking for is not relevance to the teams or the coach, those are of minor notability and no reason to keep, but to possible worse NFL clock management of all time. That would be a reason to keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll check the sources after work since I’m about to clock back in, but as a quick clarification, I stated that the consequences of the play have shown to be monumental, in the positive for the lions and in the negative for the Bears/Eberflus. Clock management has never been this poor at the top level of gridiron football, and the criticism has been extensive and widespread, resulting in these consequences. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, to bludgeon the accused bludgeoner as well as DrewieStewie who says the play is "monumental", a question. Is this being called the "worse time management in NFL history" in reliable sources? I know it was a time management misplay, but has bad use of the clock and time outs occurred on this scale before? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Contested (pending discussions, previously Delete): While I do understand that this can be labeled "historic", I'm pretty sure that this is more of WP:RECENTISM than actually making it historic. However, the context that has seriously built up on this article made it pretty solid and put on some valid contention whether it stands to keep or not. (Plus it can be considered a significance among the rivalry as well)
Regardless though, I think that a game that has the significance of an example of having bad clock management, which the coach then getting fired the day after, is not enough to warrant a standalone creation. (Plus most of the context that happened in the final drive would most likely won't be talked about in much detail or mostly remembered other than the fact Detroit has the best start in franchise history and finally won a Thanksgiving game in 7 years)
Unlike what I said, Madhouse in Maryland and Miracle in Miami are good examples of something that is significant to the point where it can be talked about in detail. (Since the context in the final drives would something that can be remembered and look back into)- If this does get deleted however, I do want to see some split merges of some information to both team's appropriate articles and their rivalry page.
- Edit: After looking back in this proposal with some of the recent replies here, I decided to just put this on the contested state under the grounds of some pending discussions above this reply. Due to this, I decided to temporarily invalidate some of my sayings here. Kirbix12 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bears-Lions rivalry. This article is strongly built on WP:RECENTISM with information people may forget within a few months. It certainly does not warrant a standalone article, and should be merged or redirected.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment it would help me if some of the keeps could provide links showing the long-term notability of this game. Just a cursory search on Google right now, and I don't see much more than blog posts and other fan pages popping up that are still discussing this game. It's possible that some season recaps will touch on this in a month, but even then I am not sure that meets the notability requirements. That said, I would have no prejudice if this article is deleted/merged that it could be recreated in a year or so if long term coverage continues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No sense in keeping this article due to WP:RECENTISM. Bad plays happen all the time and coaches get fired from them. As its own article, the WP:ILIKEIT votes do not explain the "historic" aspect of this game. Any kind of historic moment could just be covered in the rivalry article, season articles, and maybe even Eberflus's article. Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Emily Prentiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prentiss is a non-lead character in a TV show, and fails WP:NFICTION, also cross-checking with WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILMCHAR. The most notable aspect of this character (outside of the show narrative itself) is that the actress who portrays the character left the show twice and returned twice. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I just realized that this is the 2nd nom, and the prior result was a merge, and it appears that @User:DocZach brought this article back to life from draft space of their own accord without resolving the concerns originally brought up at the prior AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have addressed such concerns below. DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- However, the basis of my nom had nothing to do with the prior AfD, and thus the "rewrite" is an irrelevant factor, because the principle concerned that came to my attention about this article exists in the current version. It just so happens that the question of this fictional character has come up previously, and the concerns last year happen to be the same concerns that I currently have with the current version. Rather the concern should be if an article survived a AfD/Prod/CSD and then it was hastily brought up again for the same reason. However in this case, it did not survive the first action, and there is clear contention on this relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are aware of the effort the restorer spent in improving the article, which means you know, or should know of, the timing involved. To neither mention the currency of the rewrite nor the rewrite itself in your follow up is still unreasonably inconsiderate. Not properly acknowledging such things evokes memories of bad old days' BATTLEGROUND behavior; let's not go there. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for recognizing that. I spent a lot of time researching about this character and writing this article. I have just spent the last few hours revising the article to add more sources and information, and please let me know if you think it looks better now. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree that many edits (over 17k bytes) DocZach has made which has increased the overall article size, and breadth of coverage. Even an additional 6k since this AfD was raised. Adding plenty of source material to flesh out the various sections that were added. However, size/length has never been the qualifier for inclusion -- hence why many STUBs are acceptable. Rather the question is that beyond simply being that Prentiss appears to be a well written character (ie has a specific personality, with a background, and an evolving role), couldn't be said about anyother main character of a popular TV show? For example, when you look at the main cast of the even longer running NCIS (TV series) with ~130 more episodes, of their NCIS (TV series) § Cast and characters you can see that characters with similar lengths of appearances are simply redirects to a "List Of..." page. Certainly you could fill a page with "verifiable facts" about each character, but that isn't the criteria for having a dedicated article -- that is what fandom and IMDB are for. The majority of things which seem to have received WP:SECONDARY coverage have been far more about Brewster (thus Prentiss tangentially) - for example, the impact of choosing the go grey instead of dying her hair or that she left the show so she could "return to her comedic and sitcom roots". That is real life choices of the actress impacting the character that needed to be accommodated. What might make the noteworthiness is the other way around; if the show creators wanted to make a big statement to the industry by specifically directing the actress to go gray, that then had a domino effect on the industry. Otherwise it's just a random factoid. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- With this newer rendition of the article being up for only a few days, I have made significant contributions and devoted a lot of effort to research and writing in relation to this article. After reviewing the relative policies, it is clear that Emily Prentiss, the character HERSELF, meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and deleting the article or restoring it to a simple redirect is a very ignorant and foolish idea, especially when this article is being continuously improved day-by-day.
- Emily Prentiss is a key figure in Criminal Minds, especially Season 12 and onward, when she becomes Unit Chief and later Section Chief, cementing her as one of the most important characters in the show’s 17-season run. She has been in all but three of the seasons, and has been brought back two times by fan demand. Her storylines—like her faked death to evade Ian Doyle and her leadership during high-stakes cases—are not just central to the series but have also been widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. Outlets like ScreenRant, Collider, and TVLine have provided in-depth analysis of her character, her role in the show, and her significance in cultural discussions. Many of these sources explore how Prentiss’s narrative and Paget Brewster’s portrayal have resonated with audiences and contributed to broader conversations, such as those about representation and aging in Hollywood.
- The article has expanded significantly in recent weeks (as the proposer for deletion acknowledges), with thousands of bytes of new content added to deepen its coverage of her backstory, personality, storylines, and reception. This growth reflects my effort to continue developing this article to surpass the minimum requirements set by Wikipedia for an article like this. Removing it now would dismiss that progress and deny room for future improvements. Articles are not expected to be perfect from the outset, but this one has already demonstrated substantial progress, and its continued development would benefit readers and contributors alike.
- The individuals suggesting we restore this article to a redirect have suggested that Prentiss’s article isn’t warranted because some characters from other shows, like NCIS, are treated as redirects. Firstly, I find this hypocritical because those same individuals are the ones complaining about me using the David Rossi article and the failure of deleting his article as one of the justifications for keeping Emily's article. As explained in the WP:OTHERSTUFF policy that those same individuals cited, Wikipedia evaluates articles individually, based on the notability of the subject and the availability of independent secondary coverage. However, the survival of the deletion on David Rossi's article is allowed to be used as an argument per an exception in that policy regarding outcomes of deletion proposals on related articles. And, if we are going to do comparisons to characters of other shows, I'd like to point to Grey’s Anatomy, where over a dozen characters—including multiple minor characters who are less central to the show and less notable than Prentiss—have their own articles. If those characters meet notability requirements, there is no valid reason why Emily Prentiss, a lead character who drives major storylines, should not. If they do not meet the notability requirements, then I struggle to understand the proposer's specific decision to delete this article rather than focus on other character articles that are obviously less notable, less covered, and less detailed. However, as I said before, the existence of other articles is not an argument for the existence of this article. I am just writing this paragraph to emphasize the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the opposition's argumentation.
- The real-world impact of Prentiss’s character further underscores her notability. Fan demand played a key role in Paget Brewster’s return to the series after her departure, highlighting the character’s importance to viewers. Additionally, Brewster’s decision to embrace her natural gray hair, which was written into the character, sparked cultural conversations about aging and beauty standards. These discussions were covered by major outlets like TODAY and E! Online, showing that Prentiss’s relevance extends far beyond the show.
- Deleting this article would go against Wikipedia’s principles of being an open and comprehensive encyclopedia. Emily Prentiss is clearly notable under both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and the article’s ongoing development should not be hindered by what appears to be an ignorant and abrupt attempt to discard it. Removing it now would erase a valuable resource and dismiss the ongoing effort to improve articles relating to Criminal Minds. DocZach (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree that many edits (over 17k bytes) DocZach has made which has increased the overall article size, and breadth of coverage. Even an additional 6k since this AfD was raised. Adding plenty of source material to flesh out the various sections that were added. However, size/length has never been the qualifier for inclusion -- hence why many STUBs are acceptable. Rather the question is that beyond simply being that Prentiss appears to be a well written character (ie has a specific personality, with a background, and an evolving role), couldn't be said about anyother main character of a popular TV show? For example, when you look at the main cast of the even longer running NCIS (TV series) with ~130 more episodes, of their NCIS (TV series) § Cast and characters you can see that characters with similar lengths of appearances are simply redirects to a "List Of..." page. Certainly you could fill a page with "verifiable facts" about each character, but that isn't the criteria for having a dedicated article -- that is what fandom and IMDB are for. The majority of things which seem to have received WP:SECONDARY coverage have been far more about Brewster (thus Prentiss tangentially) - for example, the impact of choosing the go grey instead of dying her hair or that she left the show so she could "return to her comedic and sitcom roots". That is real life choices of the actress impacting the character that needed to be accommodated. What might make the noteworthiness is the other way around; if the show creators wanted to make a big statement to the industry by specifically directing the actress to go gray, that then had a domino effect on the industry. Otherwise it's just a random factoid. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for recognizing that. I spent a lot of time researching about this character and writing this article. I have just spent the last few hours revising the article to add more sources and information, and please let me know if you think it looks better now. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are aware of the effort the restorer spent in improving the article, which means you know, or should know of, the timing involved. To neither mention the currency of the rewrite nor the rewrite itself in your follow up is still unreasonably inconsiderate. Not properly acknowledging such things evokes memories of bad old days' BATTLEGROUND behavior; let's not go there. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep GNG is met, and even without the VALNET sources, which are just fine in this case. This is a particularly inconsiderate nomination in that the character article has been materially expanded and sources added within the last day or two. Of all the things that need cleaning up in Wikipedia, the notability of contemporary TV show characters is probably one of the least problematic areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Restore Redirect - The article is still nothing but detailed plot summary, without any kind of reception or analysis, and the added sources that are not primary or just episode summaries are not really significant coverage on the character. Many, in fact, are just news bits about the actress that portrayed her joining/leaving/returning to the show, rather than any kind of discussion on the actual fictional character that this article is about. Searches really are not bringing much up that is about the character, rather than the actress, that goes beyond summarizing plots. I have no problem if the current article was returned to draft space to be further developed, but its current state was not ready to be moved back to the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- If an article can be improved, then you should propose ways to improve it instead of deleting it because of a reason that doesn't even match the original proposer's logic behind deleting this article. He is arguing about a lack of notability, and you are arguing about the way this article is written. Yes, this article can be improved. No, deleting or redirecting an article is not the solution to issues that can easily be fixed in an article. DocZach (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: The premise for this deletion nomination is false. Emily Prentiss is a prominent lead character in the show, and her character has gotten even more notability over the past year due to recent events she has experienced. She is the Section Chief (lead) of the BAU, and if David Rossi is going to have his own article (who is notably less present in the series than Emily Prentiss), then Emily most certainly meets the criteria to have her own as well. I will attach just a few examples of her being mentioned by reliable sources.
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
- DocZach (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, in relation to references to past failed deletions with similar reasoning, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD REMAINextraneous formatting removed, still pretty shouty though. Please don't try to use formatting to make a point in a discussion, thanks. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Emily Prentiss article satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NFIC, and WP:NFILMCHAR for fictional characters. This article and recent improvements to it address prior concerns from last year's AfD, and it demonstrates the character's significance both inside and outside of the show, Criminal Minds.
- ----
- A) Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
- The article includes multiple secondary sources that provide coverage of Emily Prentiss beyond plot summaries. Examples include:
- Looper and Collider: Discuss her leadership roles, character development, and importance to the show’s dynamics.
- ScreenRant and The List: Analyze pivotal moments in her story, such as faking her death and her return to the team.
- E! Online and TODAY.com: Highlight how her character is discussed in broader cultural contexts, such as Paget Brewster’s decision to embrace her gray hair, which has been woven into the show.
- CNN and Yahoo: Covers on her leaving and returning on the show multiple times.
- These sources go beyond simple mentions and delve into how Prentiss has been portrayed, her role in the show, and her impact on the series and viewers. I have already attached the references to both the article and this page.
- ----
- B) Prominence as a Lead Character
- Leadership Roles: Prentiss becomes Unit Chief in Season 12 and later Section Chief, making her one of the show’s most significant characters. She has been in the series since Season 2, and has been a main character throughout most of it.
- Impact on the Series: Prentiss's arc includes some of the show’s most dramatic and memorable moments (e.g., her undercover mission, faking her death, and leading the BAU). These storylines, especially her faked death, have all been covered by reliable sources numerous times.
- ----
- C) Reception and Real-World Discussion
- Fan Demand: Her return to the show was largely driven by public outcry, which indicates her importance to the audience.
- Brewster Herself: Discussions about representation in media, particularly Brewster’s portrayal and refusal to adhere to Hollywood norms, tie directly to her character’s ongoing relevance.
- This kind of real-world analysis satisfies WP:NFIC and distinguishes Emily Prentiss from lesser-known characters who belong in a list or merged article.
- ----
- D) RESPONDING TO ORIGINAL DELETION ARGUMENTS
- Claim 1: “Most sources are primary”
- This is no longer accurate. The article now cites numerous independent, secondary sources, including:
- Analytical articles (Looper, Collider, ScreenRant).
- Coverage from established entertainment outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo).
- Reviews and discussions of key storylines involving Prentiss.
- These sources show significant coverage of Emily Prentiss specifically, not just the show or Paget Brewster.
- ----
- Claim 2: “A Google search doesn’t prove individual notability”
- Recent searches reveal ample sources discussing Emily Prentiss’s character arc, leadership role, and real-world impact. The expanded article now demonstrates this with concrete examples and citations, countering this claim.
- ----
- Claim 3: “Not worth a standalone article”
- Emily Prentiss is one of the most prominent characters in Criminal Minds. Articles for similar characters, such as David Rossi (which is the other character of the series that has an article), have been maintained despite less coverage and screen presence. Prentiss’s depth, narrative significance, and real-world attention make her more than worthy of her own article.
- ----
- Claim 4: “Should redirect to a list of characters”
- Merging Emily Prentiss into a list would strip away the depth of analysis she receives in her standalone article. Her character arc and real-world significance cannot be adequately covered in a brief summary. The current article structure allows for a more nuanced exploration of her impact.
- ----
- The article meets GNG by demonstrating significant independent coverage.
- It incorporates real-world analysis, development, and reception, addressing prior critiques of being overly plot-focused.
- The character is central to Criminal Minds and its revival, with a clear legacy and cultural relevance.
- The rewritten article addresses all prior concerns and stands as a notable, well-sourced piece.
- Deleting or merging this article would undermine the depth of coverage for one of the most significant characters in Criminal Minds. The current article satisfies all criteria for notability and has been improved significantly since the original deletion request. I am also continuing to improve it regularly, and would definitely appreciate help from others to do so. Deleting the article without any suggestion or discussion of improvement seems unproductive and antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and purpose.
- ----
- DocZach (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- (e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the
"character has gotten even more notability over the past year."
What independent, reliable sources to you have to support that claim that the character's notability has significantly changed in the past year? Simply reposting all of the references from the article is not helpful, as many of them establish Brewster (actress) as notable as her life events and acting career have evolved around this show and character, but Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. Of the 14 source you provided, many of them were from 2016 and prior. Of the 4 that were published in 2024, two of them were from Screen Rant ("marginally reliable") and 1 from IMDB ("unreliable") and the Yahoo news one focused on the actress, not the character. (For clarification the reliability is based on WP:RSP.) TiggerJay (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- Per WP:RSPSS, ScreenRant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics." The "marginally reliable" attribute applies broadly because it is not recommended to use ScreenRant for "controversial statements related to living persons." DocZach (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain how NBOOK applies to this article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- But yeah, NBOOK has no relevance, so I removed that from my statement. DocZach (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- In the original nom, NBOOK specifically listed as part of a broader "cross-check" for fictional characters, since there is no direct guidelines for fictional TV characters -- instead we have simply fiction, books and films... But to show comprehensive checking for anything else policy related that might apply for a fictional character, those places were also checked since people also desire to create articles about fictional characters from other works, and those guidelines can be helpful when a direct guideline does not exist. Instead we're basically left with WP:N and WP:NFICTION. TiggerJay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- (e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the
- Let me break down for you step by step the issues with these arguments:
- To begin, Looper is unreliable. Screen Rant falls under Wikipedia:VALNET. CNN and Yahoo are just casting announcements, which are not relevant to the fictional character's notability (They would be important when covering the actress). Both CNN sources are just announcements of her casting return. The gray hair source discusses Prentiss's actress and her acceptance of her hair, rather than the character. If the character's hair was discussed, it'd be different, but this is specifically Paget's hair being discussed here. I can't access the Yahoo source, so a new link would be appreciated.
- In-universe importance is not relevant to a subject's ability to get an article. This is included in nearly every fictional character guideline in the book. If these things are important, they need reliable sourcing showing that impact to back it up (None of which is illustrated in the sources provided)
- Brewster's coverage is Brewster's coverage. Unless there is significant overlap between Prentiss and Brewster, such as an analysis article discussing how Brewster's performance greatly affected how Prentiss's character was formed, for instance, then maybe that could be viable, but all the sources provided are very clearly either about Prentiss or about Brewster, with only mentions about the other. Fan demand is relevant, but needs Wikipedia:SIGCOV to back it up. Additionally, that trivia is summarizable in a sentence or so, easily mergeable back to the character's list.
- Most of your claims here I've already responded to (A Google Search one is a weird argument and I don't think it should've applied either way) but on the character list point, the current article has entirely plot information in it. This is summarizable at a list without much being lost, and many of the sources acknowledged at this AfD don't have enough coverage to build up substantial substance in the present one, since many of them are not about Prentiss and instead about Brewster, or fall under the scope of trivial coverage. I can go into a far deeper source analysis if you want clarification, of course.
- Overall, there's a distinct lack of SIGCOV that hails from reliable sources, and the coverage doesn't really seem to exist that justifies the separation here. On the topic of Rossi, his AfD seemed to have a very inaccurate close; there was one Keep vote, and yet the AfD was closed as Keep despite two strong Merge arguments. Rossi should probably be rediscussed at a later date, since I don't believe he was discussed in-depth enough during his first AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have revised much of the article to address much of your guys' concerns. Again, I find the proposal to delete this entire article very inconsiderate when it can very easily be improved rather than deleted. DocZach (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort to improve the article, but the issue with the sources, as described throughout the AFD, is still there. Most of the sources are trivial coverage, and nearly the entirety of the sources being used in the new Reception section are about Paget Brewster, the actress, with very minimal discussion about the character. Announcements about Brewster leaving/returning to the cast or articles about Brewster not dying her hair, where the only actual coverage on the fictional character is a sentence or two saying nothing more than it being the character Brewster portrays is just not significant coverage or analysis of the fictional character of Emily Prentiss. One of the articles on her hair does not, as far I can see, even mention the character of Emily Prentiss, so trying to tie sources like that into analysis of the character is starting to drift in to WP:SYNTH territory. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- So your solution is to delete an article that you think has some issues instead of helping improve it first? DocZach (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort to improve the article, but the issue with the sources, as described throughout the AFD, is still there. Most of the sources are trivial coverage, and nearly the entirety of the sources being used in the new Reception section are about Paget Brewster, the actress, with very minimal discussion about the character. Announcements about Brewster leaving/returning to the cast or articles about Brewster not dying her hair, where the only actual coverage on the fictional character is a sentence or two saying nothing more than it being the character Brewster portrays is just not significant coverage or analysis of the fictional character of Emily Prentiss. One of the articles on her hair does not, as far I can see, even mention the character of Emily Prentiss, so trying to tie sources like that into analysis of the character is starting to drift in to WP:SYNTH territory. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have revised much of the article to address much of your guys' concerns. Again, I find the proposal to delete this entire article very inconsiderate when it can very easily be improved rather than deleted. DocZach (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Restore Redirect. Rorshacma has summed up my thoughts quite nicely above, both in terms of source analysis and on this article's current status. This article is quite literally exactly the same as it was last time, and Jclemens's above showing of page history just shows minor text alterations and nothing more. Nothing has changed that would change the outcome of the last AfD, and the BEFOREs of several editors above have turned up nothing. This has no reason to be a separate article and is better off redirected like it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The policy you are citing explicitly states:
- "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."
- The David Rossi article has already received a deletion proposal over a year ago as well for the same reason. The article survived.
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rossi DocZach (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- To quote Rorshacma, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're missing a key part of that sentence: "If you reference such a past debate". While you have eventually mentioned the prior AfD for Rossi, that was not included in your initial statements regarding the character. You can use the Rossi article to discuss specific points, but the fact that the Rossi article exists is not a good argument. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am not solely referencing the fact that the Rossi article exists. I am referencing the fact that there was a deletion attempt on the Rossi article for the SAME reason, and that deletion attempt failed. Under the policy you referenced, that's an appropriate argument. DocZach (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rossi honestly should undergo revaluation. His discussion was closed as Keep with only one detailed Keep and two detailed Merge votes, which doesn't seem to be a proper consensus, especially given the low discussion turnout of that AfD. Besides, similar characters being kept is nowhere precedent. Even though I slightly disagree with the outcome, Vislor Turlough was kept at AfD as a Doctor Who companion, yet other Doctor Who companions (Such as Katarina, Kamelion, and Dan Lewis) were merged into other articles despite similar arguments and backgrounds. Consensus for notability of a subject is very much on a case-by-case basis, and having articles of similar backgrounds does not instantly guarantee that the same argument applies to another subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- At the time I mentioned OTHERSTUFF, you hadn't mentioned the other deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- A few thoughts on the Rossi:
- While Rossi did survive an AfD, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "caution should be used..." because most do not receive wide participation -- and that could be said of Rossi. His AfD received little attention, with only 5 other people !vote. But moreover with an even split 3/3 keep versus merge -- the decision that there was consensus is somewhat questionable.
- Of the top four characters by number of appearances per IMDB (whereby Prentiss is 7th).[21] only half of them have an actual article, while two of them have redirects. Of those with redirects they still have over 100 more episodes each compares to Prentiss.
- And looking at the current List of Criminal Minds characters the top two listings here as well are simply redirects. Those redirects were previously articles as well that were merged and deleted per GNG in 2023.
- Interest in show and characters is falling significantly (WP:RECITISM), the page views for Criminal Minds alone has dropped off 50% and 70% for the characters of Reid, Prentiss, Jareau, Garcia and Rossi [22].
- But all of that simply speaks to the dangers of introducing WP:WAX. It is a slippery slope to introduce the existence of other things (surviving AfD) as there are also other examples of other things were deleted with arguably more significance. This is really what the essay expresses, and instead the arguments should focus on why Prentiss (what the essay expresses as individual merit), not some of the common notability fallacies. TiggerJay (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, I find it inconsistent and hypocritical that you are arguing against comparing articles while continuing to do just that. The argument that similar characters in other shows have been merged or redirected does not negate Emily Prentiss’s notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFICTION. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis, and Prentiss clearly meets the criteria. She has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as ScreenRant, Collider, CNN, and TODAY, which analyze her pivotal role as Unit Chief and Section Chief, as well as her cultural impact and importance to the show. These sources go beyond plot summaries to discuss real-world factors like fan campaigns that brought Paget Brewster back to the series and the broader conversations about aging and representation sparked by the decision to integrate Brewster’s gray hair into the character. There's even articles about her romances within the show. These are not trivial mentions; they are substantial discussions about her relevance both within and beyond the show.
- Wikipedia evaluates notability based on reliable secondary coverage, not arbitrary metrics like episode counts. Her role as a lead character in major story arcs and as the head of the BAU from Season 12 onward makes her far more central to the narrative than some characters who have been redirected. And potentially, articles for other Criminal Minds may also warrant creation, and I would not be opposed to such a decision.
- Please read over WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Firstly, I reject the argument that declining page views signal reduced relevance. Secondly, notability is not temporary, and the character remains central to the currently airing Criminal Minds: Evolution. Interest naturally fluctuates, but revivals and major developments have historically reignited attention on Prentiss and the series. DocZach (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am not solely referencing the fact that the Rossi article exists. I am referencing the fact that there was a deletion attempt on the Rossi article for the SAME reason, and that deletion attempt failed. Under the policy you referenced, that's an appropriate argument. DocZach (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're missing a key part of that sentence: "If you reference such a past debate". While you have eventually mentioned the prior AfD for Rossi, that was not included in your initial statements regarding the character. You can use the Rossi article to discuss specific points, but the fact that the Rossi article exists is not a good argument. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- There have been many changes since the last AfD. There are many more secondary sources from established outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo), there has been more news coverage in relation to events on the series (faked death, gray hair, departures and returns, relationships, and changes in series structure). The article itself carries (and has the potential to carry much more) information that is valuable and useful to many readers, especially those who wish to learn about Emily Prentiss from Criminal Minds. Redirecting her character once again to the list of characters would result in an obnoxiously long description of her, and anything short of that would not do justice to the coverage, notability, and attention this character has received. DocZach (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- While I would agree that there have made "many changes" since the last AfD, and there have been more secondary sources added, that does not itself equate to the requirements of independently reliable sources which establishing notability. There is enough source to verify that this fictional character exists, and that most of what is presented in the article is verify that they did occur. You mention a character arc, but I don't seen any reliable sources (through independent research or those provided in the article) which go to any depth to talk about anything significant about a character arc. Instead most focus on "she use to be X and now she is Y" or trivial other mentions about why something has changed, or that she went from a reoccurring role to being a regular on the show due to "fan demand". Those are facts more about the actress and not the character who was basically beholden to the whims of real life, instead of the character imposing it on the real people. Those are great for the Brewster article. TiggerJay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're misrepresenting the sources. Reliable, independent sources like ScreenRant, TODAY, and Collider do more than verify her existence—they analyze key aspects of her character, including her leadership as Unit Chief, her faked death arc, her multiple departures and re-appearances, her special appearances, her romances, and her role in sparking broader cultural conversations about representation and aging. Just because some of Paget Brewster’s decisions shaped some of the narrative doesn't erase the fact that the focus of these sources is also on Prentiss’s impact as a character and her resonance with audiences. These discussions are not trivial mentions—they demonstrate the significance of her character within and beyond the show, meeting both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. This article is 100% warranted on its own. DocZach (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- While I would agree that there have made "many changes" since the last AfD, and there have been more secondary sources added, that does not itself equate to the requirements of independently reliable sources which establishing notability. There is enough source to verify that this fictional character exists, and that most of what is presented in the article is verify that they did occur. You mention a character arc, but I don't seen any reliable sources (through independent research or those provided in the article) which go to any depth to talk about anything significant about a character arc. Instead most focus on "she use to be X and now she is Y" or trivial other mentions about why something has changed, or that she went from a reoccurring role to being a regular on the show due to "fan demand". Those are facts more about the actress and not the character who was basically beholden to the whims of real life, instead of the character imposing it on the real people. Those are great for the Brewster article. TiggerJay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, notable in fiction, plentiful sources. Not going to write a long-winded defense. It is what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Current main characters. Appears to be mostly, if not entirely trivial coverage of the character. No objection to a split later if significant coverage can be found, but people here appear to be confused about the definition of WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- So you think we should merge an entire article-length coverage with over 30 sources of a character into another article that already has a long list of characters? Did you even take the time to read any of the sources provided in this article? DocZach (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that address the subject in detail, not just in passing. Sources like ScreenRant, Collider, and TODAY provide in-depth analysis of Emily Prentiss’s narrative arcs, including her faked death, her return as Unit Chief due to fan demand, her romances, her appearance, and her evolution as a leader in the show. This is precisely the type of sustained, independent coverage that WP:SIGCOV defines as significant, and it establishes Prentiss’s clear notability as a standalone topic, making a merge inappropriate. DocZach (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see strong arguments on both sides, with no consensus forming. @DocZach: I strongly advise you to review WP:BLUDGEONING before you continue. Your lengthy, persistent, repetitive responses to every opposing view will not help sway the outcome your way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)- Understood. DocZach (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore Redirect per Rorshacma. There are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs here, which fall short of WP:SIGCOV. I don't see enough substantially new source material to change the consensus from the previous AFD. I would support a merge as an WP:ATD, per Zxcvbnm. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I didn't read any of the commentary on this page, only the article. I compared it to the discussion of Catherine Willows a while back. I think there is enough coverage of the character's cultural impact outside of the show and that that coverage is properly sourced. It's not the strongest I've ever seen, but the question "Is it enough?" gets "Yes." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore Redirect Οἶδα (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Current main characters. Despite the passionate arguing from fans the coverage here is all highly trivial. I found nothing in google books or scholar, and the best we have is plot synopsis and tabloid press. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are a total of 744 articles, books, and other sources involving Emily Prentiss on Google Scholar.
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,39&qsp=1&q=emily+prentiss+criminal+minds&qst=bb DocZach (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it matters, I'm not a fan of the show. I watched part of one season, and it annoyed me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:GHITS. Having a lot of hits is not an indicator of notability, especially since it's easily possible that many of those could be trivial mentions, plot recaps, or official material. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply having listings at G-Scholar isn't necessarily sufficient to establish notability and SIGCOV. The character is "mentioned" a lot, however, when looking at the quantity versus quality of information... Of the first page of results, only one might barely be considered "coverage" of Prentiss, since her actions are extensively quoted but little in the form of what would be considered secondary coverage of the character.... Beyond that, the rest includes: 1 marketing research of the shows posters, 3 are novelizations (2 books plus an article about TikTok non-cannon stories), 4 are trivial mentions (3 or less mentions in the entire article). TiggerJay (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Schwindt, Oriana (2016-07-21). "Paget Brewster Returns to 'Criminal Minds' for Multiple Episodes in Season 12". Variety. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ Gonzalez, Sandra (2016-08-30). "'Criminal Minds': Paget Brewster back for good". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ "Paget Brewster Is Returning to Criminal Minds (Yes, Again)". E! Online. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ France, Lisa Respers (2016-07-22). "Paget Brewster returning to 'Criminal Minds'". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ "Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Ending Explained: Does Emily Prentiss Survive?". IMDb. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-05-29). "Prentiss' Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Story Nods Back To Her Past, Teases Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-07-02). "Prentiss Is Hilariously High In Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Episode Clip". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ "Paget Brewster Got Nostalgic About Her 'Criminal Minds' Run Ahead of 'Evolution' Season 2". Yahoo Life. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ Mondor, Brooke (2021-05-31). "The Prentiss Scene On Criminal Minds That Went Too Far". Looper. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ Spencer, Samuel (2020-02-06). "'Criminal Minds' Season 15: Will Prentiss Break Up With Mendoza?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ "Criminal Minds' Paget Brewster Embraces Her Grays in New Photo". E! Online. 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ "'Criminal Minds' fan recap: Paget Brewster returns as Emily Prentiss". Yahoo Entertainment. 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ Mitovich, Matt Webb (2016-03-28). "Criminal Minds Boss: Prentiss' Visit Brings 'Laughs and Love' — 'The Timing Couldn't Have Been More Perfect'". TVLine. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
- ^ "Criminal Minds: Top 8 Prentiss Moments". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's difficult to see how consensus can be achieved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Antioch, Greene County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very little to go by on this one, but the presence in GMaps of a now-defunct Antioch Church a short ways to the west suggest that this is a locale named after it (Antioch being a common part of church names. No sign anywhere of a town, however. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing found, and the name Antioch doesn't appear on USGS topo maps until 2010, strongly suggesting an error: [23]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lucas Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to locate any books reviews. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Unable to find an reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated scope_creepTalk 07:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Iowa, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: One article here, but it keeps timing out [24], still not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I deprodded this, but on further investigation it looks like it has been written by a combination of SPA/IP/the subject. There's a profile in NYT (Cohen, Joyce. Away From the Hammer and Quiet Enough for Poetry: He had been thinking Brooklyn, but he found what he wanted in Queens. New York Times. 8/13/2017, Vol. 166 Issue 57688, p4), which looks to be in the property section and doesn't address his poetry more than in passing; also a Proquest copy of the article Oaktree b mentions above (Hamlet, Isaac. Iowa poet goes from pigs to pearls. Press - Citizen Iowa City, Iowa. 10 Aug 2019: A.2.); I also found one sort-of-review piece quoting him with brief bio material (Working Out What to Do in the Hamptons This Summer? Tauer, Kristen, Nordstrom, Leigh, Wally, Maxine, Women's Wear Daily (May 24, 2019): 17). Not found much else on Ebsco/Proquest that isn't just him as an agent/editor. Poetry collections are notoriously sparsely reviewed and awards are often more important in this area, but I'm not familiar with the US minor poetry awards. With three different bits of press, plus the review in the article, and the award, I'd generally be leaning keep, but in view of the promotional history here, I'm undecided, willing to be persuaded either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I normally try and keep poets and poetry articles if I can as I believe they exhibit the height of human creativity and expression, living a life in a garret and suffering to express, that all denote notability even if only spoken off. Choosing that life is an aspect as well, which is important. However it is a BLP and there must be something there. The award has been given to few very famous individuals but didn't see him listed either on Wikipedia article or the actual site and couldn't find any other Steinback award for poetry. There is a fiction award, and a fellowship award but couldn't identify him. That was reason I sent up to Afd and didn't think he was notable and still don't. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given User:Espresso Addict]'s comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hurricane Music Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails NCORP. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing more substantial than the references already used, most of which are a) listings or b) no longer accessible. (The exception is XXL, which is a Q&A with Nyzzy Nyce, who founded Hurricane Music Group. The Nyzzy Nyce article was (soft) deleted in 2022.) JSFarman (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, California, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I was completely sideswiped by source1 - the Indiana Secretary of State? Why? What? How? I still don't get the connection. The usual discogs/social stuff out there, nothing to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG even before we get to NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Duck Down Music Inc. per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I love WP:ATD in theory but I can't find any evidence of their affiliation beyond a few songs credoted to Hurricane Music Group/Duck Down. I couldn't find Hurricane Music Group on the Duck Down website, and Discogs (which I know is not a great source) only lists two releases and both are by the same artist. There is no entry on Allmusic. JSFarman (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Valid - this artist was under a distro deal with duck down / 3d and made national headlines for blogs and has millions of view due to the joint venture for indiana that’s a staple !! do not remove this !! Guiltytalent (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Adding comment from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Music Group. (JSFarman (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC))
- Two contributions to Wikipedia, the first reverted and the second being the above. Hmm. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Duck Down Music Inc. isn't a good Merge target as it is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- Delete - at this point, without any reliable sources, promo for a non-notable company. Searches turn up nothing solid. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sophie Moleta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this article because Moleta redirects here and I wanted to determine whether it should be a disambiguation or if Moleta (kgosi) should be the main subject. Searching suggests this is a run-of-the-mill musician. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and New Zealand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep -- there are four sources fully cited in this article talking about her. They appear to be reliable, secondary, and independent sources; the two I've managed to access myself provide significant coverage and I assume the others do as well, particularly the news article in The West Australian with her name in it. That's three GNG-qualifying sources right there. Quoting, GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- just because the sources in the article were not linked does not mean they do not exist. Whether a person seems "run-of-the-mill" is irrelevant as long as they pass GNG; and if you read the news articles which were cited in the article at the time of the nomination she does have a somewhat interesting style.
- I would make this a strong keep if I could track down the URL for the West Australian article, but I can't currently. Probably searches are failing because the news source does not keep archives from 2001. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relatedly I think it will likely need to be a disambiguation page -- the kgosi while arguably more historically significant is likely much more obscure. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Ref 2 is significant (partially interview based but with more than sufficient additional coverage); ref 4 is the same author in the same source a couple of months later with a cut down para about a live appearance, so I don't give that particular weight. There's basically a paragraph of review included at De Morgen[25] (the article covers releases from multiple bands/muso )- it looks like this is the same as ref 3 since it's the only mention of her in the archives. Ref 2 (GTranslated) suggests that she has had more success in France than elsewhere, however she has hardly any appearances on French sites currently. The West Australian smells like an interview and/or a festival appearance (Kulcha was WA's multicultural arts body), but would need someone with access to the archive to check. I can't see any other reviews around for her albums including via sampling archive snapshots of her website. In the absence of additional reviews -- particularly for her other work -- I think that a case can be made that her album Dive weakly meets WP:NALBUM (the Liberation and De Morgen articles, plus two of its songs were in the soundtrack for Pretty Things (2001 film)), that her albums other than Dive are clearly non-notable, and that she does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Laurence James Ludovici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hafez Bashar al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to Al-Assad family as WP:ATD. WP:NOTINHERITED. Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Of course there will be coverage in this context, but the child is not inherently notable. WP:SIGCOV is in the context of the child's comments about their parent, not about the child. Middling math accomplishments fail WP:DUE and are insignificant to establish notability. Sanctions in the context of being a tool of his father's regime. Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is an article about the daughter of kim-jung un (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ju-ae). Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Hafez's recent aquisition of a PhD in number theory seems significant enough to me. If deletion is chosen, then I also think a redirect to the family page seems best. 157.193.117.76 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep:The individual was expected to be the successor to Bashar al-Assad, having been designated as the future president. This anticipation has brought him significant media coverage from reputable news sources, as evidenced by the list of references provided, demonstrating that it meets the minimum requirement for WP:GNG.Instant History (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pump Aid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article based on 2 sources. There's 9 google news hits but on closer inspection most of these are not WP:SIGCOV that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep several citations with non-trivial coverage referenced within the article, including press and academic journals. This WP:NONPROFIT has provided water to c. 1.2 million people. I see no issues with the subject meeting WP:GNG. ResonantDistortion 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Chris Marsden (Socialist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable politician. All sources are from his party, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Some sources related to him:
- Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The editor who created this has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. — Maile (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Martin Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This disambiguates between exactly two articles. This is unnecessary as the existence of each article can be dealt with by hatnotes on either pointing to the other, which I have ensured is already happening. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Football, Disambiguations, Scotland, and Australia. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there any relevant guideline for such disambiguation pages? If yes, then it may help. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep unless someone comes up with a rationale for one or the other being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Until then, this is a correct disambiguation page. PamD 09:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @ExclusiveEditor and @PamD. There is policy on this at WP:ONEOTHER which states "
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article
". The question of whether one or the other is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant as hatnotes at the top of each article can point to the other article. A disambiguation page is simply not needed with only two articles to disambiguate between and results in unneeded mouse clicks. TarnishedPathtalk 09:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- If there is no primary topic then the WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC guideline applies (not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC): there is no policy in this area. The guideline has been carefully written to be as incomprehensible as possible so as to encourage misunderstanding and repeated, prolonged discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can still take guidance in the form of general principles from other parts of policy, such as what I stated above.
- There is also the third example given in WP:D2D. We have a limited number of articles here, two to be precise. One article is a footballer and the other is a politician and so there is extremely low likelihood that someone searching for the subject they are interested in is going to arrive and the wrong article. There is simply no need for a disambiguation page to add more steps for people to reach the subject they want and if per chance they do somehow end up at the incorrect article that is easily dealt with by hatnotes that exist on each of them. TarnishedPathtalk 13:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the politician looks like a clear primary topic to me. Geschichte (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: Look, for your arguement that there are just two articles and even if there is no one primary topic, hatnotes would be enough- I would say that its not like that. People searching for just the name 'Martin Ferguson' or those linking it somewhere using html etc. may find a 'no article found' error if they do so. Either Martin Ferguson stays a disambiguation page, or you move one of the person's article, there or
redirect it to one of them(The last one is possible but doesn't make any sense). Overall the page getting deleted is not the option. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- If there is no primary topic then the WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC guideline applies (not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC): there is no policy in this area. The guideline has been carefully written to be as incomprehensible as possible so as to encourage misunderstanding and repeated, prolonged discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Pam. GiantSnowman 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per my statement just above, either let it remain a disambiguation page, or make one of the two the primary topic. I don't see the point in deletion. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Susan Kushner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced and entirely in-universe. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Quimby. Johnj1995 (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. Is there any reason this non notable character with zero sources got to stay for so long? ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @ExclusiveEditor Few incoming links and no one noticed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ramona (novel series)#Characters seems like the best solution. I don't think this article works best as a standalone. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. Madeleine961 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meld Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No WP:SIGCOV sources were found. The article currently cites primary blogs, which do not count toward notability. Therefore, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 04:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I could not find any good sources either and it seems very not-notable. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete assuming others have found no sources, this is pretty cut-and-dry delete as the entire article is based on primary sources. VRXCES (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are a number of YouTube videos about this product (this is how I discovered it). Here is one from one of the most trusted sources for live streaming topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw9c2sKk1ec. Here is one from another established YouTuber who specializes in this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzAl4BW3uiA. I wasn't sure how to cite these, but they strike me as significant in this product category. Open to guidance here. There are not a lot of independent publications remaining that report on live stream tech :(. Emcee8710 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Crockett Town, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find anything for this. Newspapers.com results are for Crockett, Virginia. I've tried searching for Crockett Town and the variants Crocketttown and Crockettown, with only some minor coverage for a Crockettown Road. The gbooks preview for "Land Causes, Accomack County, Virginia 1727-1826" indicates no mentions of this, which is some evidence against the possibility that this is a settlement whose rise and fall predates most digitized coverage. A recent Arcadia Press book about Accomack County only has Crockett as a surname. I'm not seeing any evidence that this passes WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND, or even anything that could be used to expand this article. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: it comes up for me as a snippet in a GBooks search in "Virginia's Eastern Shore: A History of Northampton and Accomack Counties", Volume 2, p. 812: "the present crossover road from Crockett Town area to Mount Nebo". This is the only reference in that book. Those two places seem to represent the west and east ends of the present-day Omega Road, respectively, based on the ~1942 USGS topo map. It's not named on older topo maps, and after beating through a variety of old maps, there's no evidence that it was an actual settlement (nor that the Crocketts lived there). Choess (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Most likely existed when this article was created, but no longer exists. Searching the official Accomack County home page the only Crockett that comes up is Robert D. Crockett on the board of supervisors. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yanis Roumadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Several searches pulled up only databases and a very few signing announcements—nothing that appeared to be WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Algeria, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Probably delete, no significant coverage in the Latin alphabet, though there is a slim chance there is some in Arabic. Geschichte (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Principal Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This Buffy character doesn't meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG, there is no SIGCOV of him. Everything about the character is all in universe information, to make it worse, it only sites one unreliable source. Merge or Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Toby2023 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep BEFORE not articulated, please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage. I see plenty peer reviewed independent RS on a cursory search which can be used to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Coalition for Peace in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article paraphrasing the website for an organization which is not notable. 🄻🄰 03:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stars in the Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This standalone song from Sonic the Hedgehog 2 doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. All of the the sources are just promotional stuff. It would be better if it was redirected to either Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (soundtrack) or Kid Cudi discography. Toby2023 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: The first nomination appears to have been about a now-defunct disability website in the United Kingdom, a completely different and unrelated subject to the subject of the current article (the song, and the associated movie, did not even exist yet at the time of the first nomination). (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep If I can find something in Rolling Stone about a song, it's notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... wait, that's already linked in the article? As are a couple of other clearly RS'es? Can you articulate how you believe the GNG is not met or withdraw this nomination, please? Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't agree that just because it's briefly mentioned in Rolling Stone that it should be kept, but given that there's some level of coverage from Rolling Stone [26] Stereogum [27] NME [28] Complex [29][30] Pitchfork [31] Line of Best Fit [32] The Fader [33] and HipHopDX [34] it's hard to imagine a situation where this is not independently notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrxces (talk • contribs)
- I didn't say just Rolling Stone. But if it's been covered there, it will also have been covered elsewhere. One source can be sentinel notability, without establishing everything by itself. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- DELOSYS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined G11. Mildly promotional article on a Slovak fire-control system. Article only includes one source, which appears to be primary, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. No evidence that this warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Konštrukta – Defence, the producer of this system, as an AtD. Agree that it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Jeff Fernengel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist. A WP:BEFORE search found a few mentions of him, social media postings, a couple public-relations previews (press releases), and things he has written about himself. There is no independent significant coverage in reliable sources, or essays/articles on his work in art history texts; no major exhibitions at notable galleries or museums; no works in notable museum or national gallery collections. The article is an autobiography and also edited by single purpose accounts. It basically says that he grew up drawing dinosaurs, had a show at "Larry's Bar", designed a beer bottle label, and is an AVID (in all caps) Denver "Broncoes" [sic] Fan, and a "pizza expert", none of which adds up to notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Ohio. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)