Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 06	July 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Princesa Lea[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodboy Galaxy[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//

According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Yes, the majority of the sources are about the single event of the Kickstarter campaign success, but those are still very good sources (Eurogamer, IGN). Nintendo Life considered the game of significant interest before its successful Kickstarter result, and most importantly to me gave us some really good dev info much lateron, showing longevity. Not yet used but also showing notability is SiliconEra and a brief mention in Gamespot in 2024. I do not see any reason why this article would not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a glorified review aggregator. I'm unfamiliar with Way Too Many Games and Time Extension, but the latter is listed as reliable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're just collecting all the reliable sources. Most of the sources you've presented are just routine game announcements. This is the only good source [1], but is pretty flimsy and doesn't help GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sources reporting on the release of an independent game on 20-year old hardware is ever really routine. That sort of thing is pretty rare. (Also there's Time Extension of course) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, I don't consider announcements as significant coverage, none of them "addresses the topic in detail". Maybe if they had played the demo or watched the trailer and wrote something critically based on that, it could be considered SIGCOV but none of them did. Siliconera article's two paragraphs about the game is not enough to be considered as SIGCOV. Time Extension review is the only piece that qualifies and it's not enough. --Mika1h (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the dev info brought to us through Nintendo Life? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interview? That's a primary source, doesn't count towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think Nintendo Life was directed/paid by the game developers to publish that? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary source unless there's some significant secondary analysis by the interviewer. Only secondary sources can establish notability. See WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. --Mika1h (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mable's sources above. The WP:GNG requires third party sources to cover the subject in detail. We have multiple sources doing this. It does not matter that they're covering a game announcement or Kickstarter. The GNG does not care about that. They're third party sources publishing dedicated articles to the subject. And we have an RS review too (Time Extension) so its not like its "only game announcements" anyways. It's not a homerun, but the delete stances are holding the bar higher than what the GNG actually says... Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are saying this is significant coverage? If not, then which other articles are you arguing provide significant coverage (besides Time Extension, which is already pretty short for a review). You claim SIGCOV exists but I am not seeing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the IGN, Eurogamer, and Time Extension sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogamer when you ignore the inline trailer/unrelated videos is only a paragraph with the barest of description. IGN is as well, when you ignore the talking about other games. I am actually flabbergasted that this would legit be considered non-trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't summarize others comments so dishonestly. I'm having a hard time believing you're struggling to follow me this poorly with these follow up questions. Those descriptions are careless. For example, it's only the last sentence or two of the IGN source that mention other games. It's still a source largely dedicated to the subject, not a passing mention or listicle entry. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are multiple articles from multiple reliable sources covering the game. Individual articles should not be looked at in isolation. The coverage is cumulative. Oz346 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.We have multiple reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum[edit]

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

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Amato[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; lede reads like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Florida Times-Union source already in the article along with [[2]] and [[3]] each contain multiple sentences of in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here, and while this article needs to be improved, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs. 1 and 2 are not independent coverage, and the other sources here and in the article are pretty routine local coverage, failing WP:NOTNEWS (routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage) – for examples, here are two similar articles from this year. Note that this person seems to be different from the member of the Missouri House of Representatives of the same name, who would be notable under WP:NPOL. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find anything better than the sources here above, and those do not approach notability. Routine reports of changing jobs in a local or regional paper are not near what would be needed to rise to GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountmellick Athletic Club[edit]

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

No evidence of notability (found little reliable coverage under the GNG, and clubs are not covered under the sports guideline) Quadrantal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Quadrantal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Quadrantal (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast[edit]

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

Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place. The current population is irrelevant. – Joe (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gven that the rational was WP:NOPAGE, this vote should be struck as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, it's verifiable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:GEOLAND only suggests inclusion, not an individual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NPLACE. Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this? There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities. If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population. I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NPLACE.
This only establishes presumed “notability,” a need for coverage. This is not the same thing as a need for a separate article.

Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this?
Because it, and every other little stublet are an affront to the readership. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, isn’t it?

There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities.
Why do you write this as if it is a good thing? What good does that do the readers?

If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.
There are differences between “can,” “should,” ”ought to,” and ”must.” Why do you think this is a subject that requires is own article.

I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it needs one or the other, and it’s easier to start here. Qwirkle (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virgin Trains (open access operator)[edit]

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

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]