Run of the mill social services/rehab/treatment serving the local community that we can expect every medium to large cities to have. The NJ.com source is about a roundtable that was held at the organization but not really about the organization. An article like this has no place in a global scale encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEVENT. A non-fatal stabbing where a single non-notable person was injured, no deaths. The citations in the background section do not mention this incident as they predate it. There was a brief burst of coverage that it happened and the perpetrator was indicted without hate crime charges (covered only by local media) and there has been no coverage since, failing WP:SUSTAINED.
Additionally, there was a fatal mass stabbing at this same school in 2017 that is substantially closer to passing NEVENT that we do not have an article on (imo it still doesn't pass NEVENT but this is to make a point): the reason this article exists appears to be the Palestine connection.
Keep: and improve with Chinese sources (see WP in Mandarin). Release announced for August, 3, notable director, notable cast. This kind of Afds just before announced release are not really a good idea imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It does meet that guideline imv: sources on the page or existing online can confirm "production itself" has attracted attention. Added some to the page; there are more. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFILM. Sources provided are unconvincing. IMDB is not a WP:RS. The other two are links to basic details of the film. Nothing provided that has covered the film significantly. No reviews, no nothing. - The literary leader of the age✉21:37, 14 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.
When all the dust settles, cooler heads will determine whether this should be a standalone article or merged into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per BLP1E, and keeping in mind especially clause 3 thereof
Yeah, let's not. There's a process and we should give at least one full day to consider opinions instead of the rushed (and botched) discussions that have occurred so far. —Locke Cole • t • c21:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Locke Cole; the prior discussion did not have adequate time for a discussion and given the highly contentious topic and BLP concerns an admin should be endorsing any close or decision. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. This is pointless. We had an AfD; it ended with a large consensus to keep the article. We then had a deletion review, which was closed in favour of endorsing the AfD's closure. This is pointless. GhostOfNoMeme21:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. People want to read about the profile of the shooter on this kind of events. Wikipedia can be a reliable source for people to read about this subject, otherwise they will find untrusted sources to read. Wikipedians should be improving this article by reading the sources, improving redaction, improving the references, instead of erasing content and articles. It would be better if Wikipedians help to improve the quality of this article on the following days, and after a couple of weeks they can take the decision of merge this content with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump or not. Martiniturbide (talk) 21:14, 14 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.
References are a mile wide and an inch deep, primarily including the subject's own LinkedIn page, writings, patents, and grants. BD2412T20:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An inventor with patents, is not notable... I can find this reference [1] but it could just be a similarly-named individual. Otherwise, I don't find any sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a writer of speculative fiction. I have found and added one reference, but it is either an interview or an article by a friend (named author who introduces the article, but the bulk of it is by Jessup). The article already references the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I think is a reliable source, but as the only reference which demonstrates notability I don't think it's fully evidenced. The article only needs a couple of reviews from reliable sources to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't been able to find any. Unless anyone else can, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:
The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (Y)
The Variety article only has passing coverage N
The Deadline interview is non-independent N
The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref WP:UNIGUIDE) (Y)
The Polygon article is non-independent N
The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) N
That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards we may actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.
Bussing isn’t presumptively notable as a politician WP:NPOL. Mayors from Compton shouldn’t be presumptively notable by virtue of their positions, they have to pass other criteria. Bussing also fails WP:NPOL since he didn’t get elected for HoR. Also fails WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional BLP of a successful businessman with no real claim of notability. Various non notable awards and ROTM coverage in the form of interviews and PR profiles. Mccapra (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baronets are not normally notable and there doesn’t seem to be anything that would amount to a claim of notability with this subject. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Co-counselling#Co-Counselling International: though even that section needs a lot of work and potentially shouldn't exist at all. No WP:SIGCOV of the organization. No point in merging anything because the content missing from co-counselling is all promotional junk. The BLAR was contested by John Talbut, an employee of the organization — if you're going to continue editing these articles, please disclose your COI on the talk page of the article to avoid confusion. CFA💬20:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I found and added a Guardian article that covers a lot about this organization's origins. Anyone should feel free to mine it for more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CCI is a peer network that I have been active in for many years. It does not have employees. People who teach co-counselling, of which I am one, may be paid, usually by participants or in some cases by outside organisations such as schools or colleges. John Talbut (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally have "Formerly UK Contact Person for Co-Counselling International (CCI)" listed on your profile. Regardless, this is still a conflict of interest that has to be appropriately disclosed. CFA💬03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to get to the categories before I found out this article is about counseling as in mental health and not counseling as in lawyers. EDIT: Fixed and sourced. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a single paper on the website you linked that was secondary. They were all written by Co-counselling International. Some of them, in fact, were written by you. This is not secondary coverage at all. CFA💬03:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to do? Co-Counselling International is an active international network as is evident from following the web links referenced. You seem to be trying to delete most references to it. Do you have a COI? Co-Counselling International does not write anything, all contributions are made by and are the responsibility of individuals. Naturally a lot of the references are internal because they are about the network. If you think the article needs improvement please suggest how. John Talbut (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a COI. I had never seen this article before it was listed at AfD. Being an "active international network" means nothing when it comes to notability. Please read the notability guidelines for organizations:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
There is not significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources — which means it is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The references you listed above are all not independent of the subject and thus do not count towards notability. If you have any policy-based evidence that the organization is notable (WP:NORG), now would be a good time to share it. CFA💬16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source one is written by John Heron, the founder (?) of Co-Counselling International: the exact opposite of independent. Neither is the page you listed — the author is involved with the organization. Not sure about its reliability either way. On another note, it's interesting how this account has only ever made one edit: the reply above to this seemingly-random AfD. Looks like a duck to me. CFA💬21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ...
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.
The article notes: "Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."
The article notes: "The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."
Thea article notes: "After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer. The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire."
The article notes: "Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's "The Holiday" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, "Dear Santa.""
The article notes: "Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career."
Comment: both keep votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? I don't think Cunard nor myself have missed that part, no. Cunard even quoted it VERBATIM in his !vote. Rather, maybe you missed the part in our !votes when we found it is notable, explained why and/or the evidence presented by Cunard above, present in the page or existing online Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard quoted it verbatim, yes, but his sources don't address it at all? All of these quotes he's pulled are basically "this movie is coming up! it's started shooting! here are some guys who are in it!" That's not the production of the movie being notable. That's simply people saying that the movie is currently being produced. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources discuss the film's production ("Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy"), its plot ("The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead."), its director and producers ("Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer."), who wrote the script ("The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt"), and background about the script ("The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen"). There is enough coverage about the film's background to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard, saying "Jack Black is in a place to shoot a film" is not discussing the film's production. For one, it's not discussing, in any sense of the word; it doesn't tell us anything about the film's production other than that it's happening. The "production is notable" part of WP:NFILM allows us to have articles on films that are not out and are not likely to come out, but are nonetheless notable. Like The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, which spent decades in development hell before finally coming out in 2018. The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) is another example - you can see on that article that almost all of the content we have is about the production of the film. These are examples of films where the production is notable, which is completely different from "the movie was mentioned in the press while it was in production". -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The film has notable individuals attached, including Jack Black and the Farrelly Brothers, and is backed by Paramount Pictures. However, its current state lacks comprehensive secondary sources that offer in-depth coverage. Improving the article with more references from reliable sources can bolster its credibility and notability. Yakov-kobi (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the delsort issues, more eyes won't hurt. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SWinxy, in this case, wouldn't a redirect be more appropriate? That way, if he becomes notable in the future, someone won't have to start the article from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline decision but given the rhythms and vagaries of the English county cricket season we are approaching the part where younger players are used to a greater extent, precisely the time this page will be useful to people who follow the game to refer to. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Variety Magazine mentioned it being in development once, in-passing [10]; that isn't substantial coverage. I doubt there is substantial coverage. Unsure about a redirect to QI; ComedyBox is a redlink. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG apply. Draftification will allow more time to gather and check more sources. These sources may emerge and support the article, ensuring it meets the platform's standards before it reenters the main space.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep : as per nomination by various editors in terms of the same GNG Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Miraboi Mark (2nd nomination). Clean up is just required which I would be contributing later due to my time schedule. In 2021 appeared at the Ghana national TV as a musician with one of his top song featuring Peruzzi[11]and no longer do music. In 2022, he was dragged by Nigerians for a political act [12] further details nomination 2 can be cited [13]. Nominator 2 has also been a block user for 4 years now I just noticed that. Theirs no point AFD nominator replying. Look forward to other editors as I will be busy. --Gabriel(talk to me )00:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is a helpful reference and serves a navigational purpose. The list's notability is only a minor concern. Lists of films by major studios, such as Columbia Pictures, document cultural history and provide insight into cinematic trends of a specific era. These lists do not need additional sources to meet the notability guidelines. They are notable because they include famous films, and the studio is famous.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:24, 14 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.
This is a relatively small secondary school with, as far as I can find, no obvious claim to notability. Others may be able to provide evidence of notability (and create links from other pages to deorphan this page). Newhaven lad (talk) 17:27, 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.
Delete: Celebrity gossip coverage isn't what we're looking for notability-wise. For this to be kept, you need an extensive amount of sourcing to get it over the hump; this is too brief Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there's a list of Universal studios films for every decade they've being in existence for, this list is well sourced and imo, is notable BFC Aspie (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this person is notable per the current sourcing (which is not significant coverage), nor by her association with her husband, nor as a model/artist/musician. The article is part of a walled garden about the Munshi/Munsi extended family. A BEFORE search revealed nothing about this Jayati Devi (only about others). Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the most direct violation of WP:DICTIONARY possible; an indiscriminate collection of words used by (predominantly American) teenagers, with little prose and often sourced exclusively to barebones Dictionary.com entries.
There are no lists of slang used by other generations on WP, and nearly all of the terms included here were/are used for a vanishingly short period of time before disappearing into obscurity. Such is the nature of language, particularly among young people, but that doesn't mean we need to be documenting every weeks-long language trend among a relatively small demographic group. AviationFreak💬15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bougie, brainrot and AF are terms I've heard used and use, I'm nowhere near GenZ. This suggests notability... Seem well-sourced, not a slam dunk, but it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of words that I've heard, including many outside of the "Standard English" dictionary, that don't have an entry anywhere on Wikipedia (nor do I think they should). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be in the business of cataloging words outside of legitimate glossaries that aid in a reader understanding articles on a particular topic. AviationFreak💬17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the article has WP:OR issues, but this topic (Gen Z slangs) has received a lot of coverage from reliable sources. (The article's also receiving ~5860 page views daily [27]). Some1 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to having an article just on "Generation Z Slang", but this list format is not what that article should look like. A well-sourced prose article (using some of the quality sources in the current article) would be fine, but the article at present is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOTDICTIONARY is aimed against. Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, but a poorly-sourced exhaustive list with little actual explanatory prose should not be the way we cover the topic. AviationFreak💬02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So be bold and fix it, including moving the article to Generation Z slang if necessary. But requesting the deletion of the entire article because you disagree with the format and structure, even though you agree that Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, is not the way to go. Some1 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think editing a page at that scale (i.e., an entire rewrite and page move) is beyond what WP:BOLD is getting at. I do not believe a "List of Generation Z Slang" as an article has a place on Wikipedia, so I've requested its deletion. A prose article on the overall topic of Generation Z slang seems reasonable, but I believe that's an entirely separate article. Surely a better alternative to a BOLD edit of that scale would be a discussion like the one we're having now, given the possibility of the WP:BRD cycle undoing a time-consuming page rewrite. AviationFreak💬03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of the notability of the subject. No indication of any interest in keeping it up to date (no updates in the last 15 years). – PeeJay15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]
Keep - as I pointed out last time, there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article (National Post) is a hype piece centered on the 2 broadcasters that guest starred in an episode. It is not a review or indepth coverage of the show itself. Second article is just the same article, but more complete (as you stated). I don't think either support notability for the show. The article might be useful in the pages for the 2 broadcasters, but I feel it does nothing for an article on the show. DonaldD23talk to me00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the article also contains four other footnotes, from the Waterloo Record and the Ottawa Citizen and Maclean's, which you seem to be either overlooking or deliberately pretending they aren't there. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MintyFresh201: No other teams playing on the same level has had season articles written about them, ever. It would have to be an overwhelming depth of coverage, and not routine coverage from local news outlets. Geschichte (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't created these articles per se, but have copied them over from German Wikipedia.
I noticed the List of Car Manufacturers of the United Kingdom had a notice asking for more correctly sourced examples, so added to the list by copying over the German pages for smaller British car manufacturers, as I believed (perhaps naively) that since they were already on German wiki, they would be suitable pages.
Overall, since I haven't spent a great deal of time on these, I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached.
Fails WP:GNG. The article is largely unsourced original research and fancruft. A search of sourcing reveals an absence of articles on this particular plot element in the film "Slap Shot." Every single article mentions the fictional "Hanson Brothers" in the larger context of the film, and I haven't seen a single source on the "brothers" themselves. A previous AfD in 2016 resulted in a "keep," but at the time there was no evidence provided of such independent sourcing. Therefore deletion or merge to the Slap Shot article is warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article from the New York Times is a pretty good source, since it talks about the Hanson Brother characters in a real-world context, rather than simply within the plot of the films. As most of the sources discussing the characters are also discussing the film, though, it could be a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would make more sense to cover them together in one article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in a major music encyclopedia, which is copiously referenced in the article already. If it's covered by other encyclopedias, it should be covered in this one. Chubbles (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After almost 14 years, the articles claims of notability are not backed up by the reliable and verifiable sources that would be required, nor was I able to find anything meaningful in a Google search that could be added. The article is an orphan and there appear to be no meaningful connections to any other article that would help flesh out a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The South Florida Business Journal is fine, not impressed with the other source in the article. Otherwise, I can only find mentions of his company, hiring employees or the like. Not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 14 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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep - For WP:BLP1E all three conditions should be met. The third one is "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." - Robotje (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every person who has shot a U.S. president, including John Hinckley Jr. and John Schrank, has their own Wikipedia article. Why should this one be any different? MrsKoma (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning for not considering existing coverage to be sufficient? Articles dedicated solely to Thomas Matthew Crooks have been published by the BBC, Reuters, CNN, CBC, New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and many more. Many of these articles are not simply reporting on his identification as the shooter, but on the man himself: his background, political beliefs, motivation, childhood, etc. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a bit off topic, however, hurricanes may covered by dozens to hundreds of sources depending on their lifespan but still not get articles because they werent notable. ✶Quxyz✶14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously believe that the man responsible for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, in one of the most consequential elections of our lifetime, isn't a notable person? Let more coverage about his background come out before deciding to nuke the entire article, this should be common sense. 185.209.199.91 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Robotje and MrsKoma. More than enough coverage. Separate articles exist for the perpetrators of past US assassinations and attempted assassinations, as well as other significant events in the same category. There will almost certainly be a separate article inevitably regardless. I consider the coverage to be significant enough, establishing notability clearly. WP:BLP1E's third condition is not met. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are numerous news articles about this individual person. Famous for 1 event means that there can be an article if the event is significant enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The subject has multiple news articles from various sources and is most certainly notable enough for his own article. PortlandSaint (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robotje. Normally I would support a redirect instead but this seems significant enough to warrant him having his own article and there are also numerous news agencies reporting solely about him per GhostOfNoMeme. Procyon117 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Low-quality Wikipedia articles that get a lot of attention (usually current news articles) almost always end up in a much better state than the ones they started in. While this article is new and at the moment isn't detailed enough, I expect it to rise in quality significantly as time goes by and more details emerge. BLP1E is not met because this person definitely does not meet criteria #3. For the time being I see no need to delete this article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of redirection because the details about the shooter that emerge will eventually bloat the assassination attempt article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E: As User:Robotje noted, the third prong of this policy is not satisfied; both the event and the individual’s role in it are clearly significant.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: This is an essay, not a policy. As far as it’s relevant, it states that “you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. [...] comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review [...] makes a much more credible case.” The article on John Hinckley Jr. is a vital article (see Talk:John Hinckley Jr.), and the article on John Schrank is rated as a good article. Thus, according to this essay, a comparison mentioning the existence of these articles (in accordance with WP:BLP1E in the case of Hinckley, and in the case of Schrank in accordance with WP:BIO1E, which says “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.”) is a valid argument.
Keep BLP1E third condition not met: event is significant, and significant enough role and increasingly well documented. Widefox; talk12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we should carve out a special exception for this person...
Arguments could be made along the lines that
He didn't survive and will not go through a "trial of the decade" like Hinckley or Schrank did. There will be no future appearances from Crook.
He wasn't assassinated by someone associated with the mob like Oswald was.
He's 21 and is unlikely to have a notable past.
Unless it turns out he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump to make way for a more moderate/hardline nominee (pick your conspiracy) then there's not a lot aside from "21year old shoots at former President", which is inevitably going to leave a stub article where the citations outnumber the words. But per WP:LAGGING, we ain't there yet on demonstrating some more notable background/context. Hemmers (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When it comes to the notability issue, articles about him are popping up quick. No one gets famous instantly, rather overnight. Still, being the person who tried to assassinate a former US president would make him notable by action alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rektz (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did the nominator even read BLP1E? The specific example used in point three is almost an exact parallel. An assassination attempt on a (former) president.-- Earl Andrew - talk13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, At the moment, we have too little amount of information on the gunman but I doubt anything will come out that will make us reconsider our decision. He didn't even see his 21st birthday and the only notable thing he did was shoot the former president in the ear. Besides, it's also WAY too soon to create a page on the perpetrator of a shooting that happened 15 hours ago. - MountainJew6150 (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoAttempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. A biography of negligible biographical depth, in which more is written about what is not known than is known. If and when significant coverage about the person emerges, a useful article can be spun out. Until then, keep rationales are based on other people and speculated interest. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a good amount of information. The event was very notable. Not much of background yet though. The article will likely continue to grow. Cwater1 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have already noted, all three prongs must be met to meet the deletion criteria under WP:BLP1E, and Crooks clearly does not meet prong three. A person carrying out a serious US presidential assassination attempt is literally the example they give of why someone would not meet prong three. Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoAttempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator as suggested. All that there is to say and all that there likely ever will be to say about this person in an encyclopedic context is already said, with more appropriate weight and better sources, in the two small paragraphs in the assassination article. The other presidential assassins that keep getting referenced here were for the most part somewhat notable for things they did prior to their attempts, and all of them survived and went on to attract significant media attention throughout their trials and subsequent lives. Crooks was barely out of high school when he was shot dead - he didn't evidently do anything noteworthy in his short life leading up to his attempt for the media to obsess about, there won't be media attention for a subsequent trial, he won't be interviewed from his prison cell, there won't be a media circus every time he's up for parole, and so on. What we have now is a pseudo-biography of a person notable for a single event. If more information does come up later to support more than a pseudo-bio that summarizes this person's entire life with "he was born then he shot Trump", we can revisit an article at that time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s like saying ‘all that can be invented, has been invented. So let's close the US Patent Office!’. It has been less than 24-hours since the event and you’re ready to close this chapter without additional discovery. Your short sightedness has clouded your judgement. 2A02:8070:48B:B800:A16D:B21D:C914:DEE (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -WP:BIO1E specifically states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Baltarstar (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely not be the Princip of our times. It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thomas Matthew Crooks is now extremely notable, and has received national coverage for attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. JohnAdams1800
Keep. WP:BIO1E doesn't prohibit this article, it even specifically states: "On the other hand, if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles." This event meets those criteria, and Crooks is a major participant. -- Falcorian(talk)13:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as the third condition of WP:BLP1E is clearly not met. It states: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The event is 1) significant and 2) Crooks' role is both substantial and well documented (as demonstrated by the significant coverage already dedicated to Crooks; the BBC, Reuters, NYT, CNN, CBC, Telegraph, Guardian, etc. have all published articles on Crooks, and we will inevitably see further and more detailed coverage over time). GhostOfNoMeme13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. The perpetrator of the 2023 Nashville school shooting also received a lot of media attention immediately following the attack, but ultimately proved to be unworthy of a separate article. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the attempted assassination of a former US president and current US presidential candidate is eminently a significant event. WP:BLP1E uses the example of the Reagan assassination attempt, not Kennedy's assassination. Clearly, such events are significant in and of themselves. I don't believe we need to wait for books to be written to establish this event as plainly significant on the face of it. GhostOfNoMeme14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the fact that Hinckley didn't kill Reagan, he's also an interesting case for forensic psychiatry, and he's still alive today. Crooks won't do anything interesting again, maybe he'll go down in pop culture, but it's too early for that now. If Trump had died or Crooks had survived, the notability of this person would be beyond dispute, but as it is, this biography does not provide it. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether we like it or not, Thomas Matthew Crooks belongs to American history by his deed; the page opened in his name will be expanded as serious, sourced information becomes available; keeping this page open avoids the scattering of these additional details to come in subsections of other pages that would talk about Thomas Matthew Crooks. Golffies (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thomas Matthew Crooks Has Public Interest and Potential for Expansion: He is of public interest and has the potential for expansion. Even if the article is currently a stub, it can serve as a starting point for further research and development by the Wikipedia community. He is genuinely interesting to the public, it deserves a place on the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisjohngalt (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robotje duly referenced the Wikipedia rule "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This individual attempted to assassinate a former President. Whether we like that former President or not, this is a historic event in American history which just took place. John Hinkley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan and there is a Wikipedia page for him. There is precedent for having Wikipedia pages for even failed presidential assassins. I imagine we will learn even more about this shooter which means there will be opportunities to expand the page. --LasVegasGirl93 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Hinkley survived the attempt and went on to have a trial. Compare the two articles. If more comes out about the shooter then we can create the page then, however, the existing article is nothing more than a stub and has no additional information outside of what's already mentioned on the assassination attempt article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Does not necessarily meet BLP1E; as I don't believe the anything is known about the motive or the subject at this time. Since the perp didn't survive, there will likely be little to write about and article will remain a stub. role was both substantial and well documented per WP:BLP1E] as the example there specifically cites the attempted assassinator of Reagan. If more comes out later, article can always be created and expanded. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:NSUSTAINED: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.Hypnôs (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly because a Redirect would only last briefly, if at all, as all other assassins, and would be assassins, have their own article. Having said that, this article should be brief and not turned into a veiled attempt to entertain partisan interests of any kind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Numerous other people have stated that it should be kept for not meeting the third prong of WP:BLP1E, and I agree. However, it might need to be protected because of general sanctions about post-‘92 us politics, but i am not 100% sure 24.115.255.37 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is going to become the subject of intense mass analysis of him specifically, information that won't necessarily be wholly relevant to the page for the assassination attempt itself Claire 26 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/MergetoAttempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator per WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The latter aptly reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, and it's quite clear that this individual is only notable for taking a shot at Trump. The present state of Thomas Matthew Crooks is such that it could be fully incorporated into the article on the assassination attempt without creating balance issues, and I think it would be better to present information on the perpetrator in the context of the shooting, rather than have two separate articles to maintain. As such, I believe we should redirect and merge this article to its natural parent. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wounding of a former United States President and current candidate is significant, and his actions will no doubt impact discourse surrounding political violence in the United States, as well as the election itself. Arthur Bremer got his own Wikipedia article, so I feel this is worthy. 21stCenturyCynic (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, for being one of a few people attempting or having killed a US president. We've got global coverage at this point, which I'm sure will be discussed and expanded in the near future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - why deleting? this can be a helpful article that can help people who are interested and want to know more about who the perpetrator was. Barakeldad (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Lack thereof is worse than denying the event. Political discourse caused the attempt, and we can't let political discourse attempt to erase or besmear. 72.28.130.25 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least until the tag for involvement in a current event is removed when the time comes; while this is still unfolding, it’s a little hard to tell the degree to which this man is notable for his role in the event. I regard it as a little premature to make a decision about deletion now. Hydroxyzine-XYZ (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, then (probably) redirect. The perpetrator will not do any more notable things; this much is certain. In articles on criminals who are non-notable except for the crime they committed, Wikipedia has no universal standard; Robert Pickton is an article, but "Alek Minassian" redirects to 2018 Toronto van attack, despite both Pickton and Minassian being non-notable beyond their crimes. A criminal investigation that will determine TMC's motive, and whether there is anything notable in his biography beyond the assassination attempt is underway, but at present, we do not know the results, or the contents of his computer, or if he wrote a diary and what it contains, or his social-media handles and activities, etc. All of these may or may not become notable as the investigation proceeds. Present publicly-available information is, I think, a clear argument for a merge/redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, but this information is only preliminary.
No clear guideline exists for such cases, but for practical reasons, I think it is better than to keep the articles separate until they are approaching stability, and then decide for a merger (if TMC is indeed non-notable beyond the assassination attempt) or against it (if TMC turns out to be "more than he seems"): Merging will require the TMC article's content to be condensed, and in the case of a re-splitting, this discarded information would need to be restored and re-vetted, which is cumbersome.
Also, both articles are liable to be targets of vandalism, edit-wars etc, but in different ways: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump will have a lot of legit information upcoming (to be handled on a per-request basis if the article is protected) but also a lot of opinionated content from non-notable sources; the choice of weapon alone is bound to cause a lot of debate. It thus mainly requires notability-checking. Whereas Thomas Matthew Crooks will have one or very few sources of legit information (the official investigation, as well as maybe some OSINT work) but is liable to be swamped by non-verifiable "facts" that are likely perpetuated by sources that are formally "reliable" (looking at you, New York Post). It thus mainly requires verification-checking. Keeping the articles separate for the time being, rather than having one article that is affected by these two different problems/challenges, will keep these editing/maintenance problems and resultant workload to a minimum, until enough information is available to achieve a broad consensus on how to deal with this case. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to the article about the assassination attempt. I agree with Ivanvector's points that unlike most/all of the other articles about attempted assasins being cited by others in this discussion, Crooks is both dead (precluding further appearances in the public eye) and was very young (unlikely to have accomplished anything else notable) so there is not likely not going to be a lot of further coverage about him beyond his role of pulling the trigger. What little information that is available now is coming out in crumbs and could be served by a section in the main article. Once the dust settles and the investigation is completed, this can be revisited to see if Crooks meets WP:BIO1E. RA0808talkcontribs16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoAttempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Obvious BLP1E. There's some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding John Hinckley Jr and John Schrank. I consider those different because they survived and were tried - meaning there is a deal of independent coverage about the trials and aftermath, which is derived from the assassination attempt but separate and establishes notability. Likewise, Lee Harvey Oswald survived, was arrested and then assassinated himself by Ruby, who was associated with the mob, which spawned some highly developed conspiracy theories. By contrast, it seems unlikely that there is going to be a great deal of coverage about Crooks that is not directly related to the shooting (so per WP:LAGGING he should be a section of the main article until there's enough to be worth splitting out). Unless it turns out there was some wild conspiracy and he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump in favour of a different nominee or something similarly out there (I'm sure QAnon have something cooking up, but we need not concern ourselves with that on WP). As it stands, comparable cases might include the attempted kidnapper of Princess Anne, or the perpetrators of the UK's worst mass shooting) or the 2023 Nashville school shooting who do not have their own articles. Just because someone did a bad thing and it's in the news doesn't make them notable. None of the UK's mass shooters have their own articles - it requires something additional like Oswald's shooting or a post-shooting trial.Hemmers (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if there isn’t enough info on him yet for it to be notable, we will naturally get more and more, deleting it and then having to bring it back when more info comes is unnecessary
Will we? Naturally the press will regurgitate the same basic facts - 21year old from Butler, won an award, shot at the former President. And yes, we can add those increasingly repetitive citations to the article, even though half of them will be opening "as reported by <the other outlet>". The presumption that any novel and notable material will emerge to justify a separate article is just that - presumptuous. And per WP:LAGGING, we don't deal in presumption. Hemmers (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now At the moment it's hard to tell exactly how notable the subject will be after this all blows over but I'm generally opposed to WP:RUSHDELETE in situations where notability cannot yet be determined. Ultimately I think it's likely we'll end up with nothing particularly notable on the guy outside of this and having to redirect, but since the story is actively unfolding at the moment I support waiting until the dust settles to delete. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖15:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned it doesn't meet with BLP1E, and the article is new and details still emerging, the article will grow. We should wait before we rush to delete or redirect.Tommi1986let's talk!15:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I think, as it is an actively developing story, we should keep this, but when it dies down, That is when we should decide to merge. Carson004 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As described above, all other shooters of US presidents all have their own pages. When more information about Crooks is released, like his exact motives and such, the page will also become more expansive. Nowhere Box (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. History needs to record details on the infamous stains on humandkind as well for future generations to reference. Zindulee (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the assassination attempt itself is notable enough for an article, than the assassin should also be notable enough for an article. This kid shot Trump, and was killed in the process. This is world news. Everyone wants to know who this kid was. Like it or not, the easiest way to get famous is to do something like this. This is one for the history books, and people are not going to forget about it anytime soon. --Thoric (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoAttempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BIO1E. I know it might be hard for most Wikipedians, but it is in fact possible to write concisely and proportionately. We can succinctly cover all salient points about the shooter in a couple paragraphs in the main article, even if local journalists in the next few weeks report he liked video games or bike riding or strawberry ice cream and his neighbors all think he was a fine young man who'd never do such a thing. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect There is a strong argument to redirect since the information on the perpetrator is limited, however it is likely that this information will expand, likely to the point where the detail will warrant a separate page. It therefore makes sense just to start a new page now to simplify the process for the future. This is mainly an argument against deletion. 45.44.122.106 (talk) 16:41, 14 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.
I also note that looking at the adjacent stations, they seem at a glance to be able to pass GNG (via ZH article). Deleting random articles in a mainly notable set creates consistency and navigation issues. JumpytooTalk18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I was wondering... Since interview sources fail WP:GNG, do ones with third-party analysis count to demonstrate the person's notability? If so, what are some examples from websites? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆14:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This interview is an example of one that would count as having at least some third party analysis (of the tennis player Carlos Alcaraz). Clariniie I am aware that that's a different sport, though. Good interview sources for football look like The Guardian (Leah Williamson interview) and BBC (Aitana Bonmatí interview). Notice how the articles are written outside of a normal Q&A format and how most of them start with some background info on the interviewee first, which automatically pushes it to SIGCOV. The articles do more than just merely regurgitate the interview. If someone can find similar calibre sourcing for Mahmutaj, I will happily withdraw my support for deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Poorly-formatted article without significant coverage and major updates :( I also agree with Geschichte for the article rename once this nomination has been closed. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With only database references listed, this article fails WP:GNG. The closest significant coverage in reliable sources I found is iDNES. Unlike her sister Nikola, she has not received any medal record. Notability is not inherited from relatives; as ATD, should we consider redirect this article to her sister or Czech Republic at the 2010 Winter Olympics? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There still isn't enough WP:RS for GNG: apart from the iDNES ref, the article as of now relies on database references and texts written by herself (author profile pages). I was unable to find better. (N.B.: I do not speak Czech and my assessment of sources is based on machine translation of them, which means it may be very flawed). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company is likely notable (pl wiki article is a bit better, states it is the largest investment fund in Poland) but both our and pl are lacking independent refs. Quick GS search suggests sources exist (ex. [29]) but I am not motivated to fix this - the company should hire a PAID editor for that. They certainly can afford this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some mentions on online newspapers of her being paired with Nada Daabousová in the synchronized swimming competition at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I could not find any in-depth coverage of Labáthová herself that would pass WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source #1 mentions Labáthová in the first five paragraphs, Source #2 does not address her in-depth, and Source #3 mentions her in one paragraph repeated from the title. None of these provide significant coverage that is required for notability; Labáthová still needs to meet SIGCOV and GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆09:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To start with, this is a self-promotional article about a self-promotional self-published book and should be rewritten to address this tone. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and this book passes criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK, which states "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]." According to reliable sources (the Monitor, a legitimate and reliable Ugandan news outlet, plus PML Daily), Uganda's government agency overseeing curriculum adopted the book as part of its secondary school curriculum and thus made it a "subject of instruction." And according to NBOOK, satisfying one of these criteria overcomes concerns about self-publication. (While criterion 4 is dispositive, I also think we need to be careful about overturning a prior "Keep" AfD decision without a clear statement from the nominator about why that discussion was flawed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without abandoning WP:BEFORE, this book has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum, where there is promotion, I recommend cleanup. Regarding Paid Edits, there are necessary Disclosures on the talk page already.
Comment This article was already nominated for deletion before in 2020 and the result was Keep. The very nominator here was part of the discussion contributors. I have also established that it is the very nominator who actually started the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. and he has a rare special biased/negative interest against the project, the author as he keeps reffereing to that everytime he wants something bad to be done to the (or revert/delete) authors wikipedia works. He appears to smartly resist any updates to the author and his global contributions, potentially aiming to frustrate other contributors, by labeling every editor of this author as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) disregarding the fact that all contributions are collaborative efforts.
Keep The Article Already passed an AFD with a "Keep" Result implying community consensus for its notability. Since then, no paid editors have contributed; all edits have been from independent editors part of whom contributed to the Article's first ADF consensus. The Edit history show the article having been improved by experienced and non conflicted editors ensuring compliance with Wikioedia's standards. The WP:ADMASQ claim is unfounded based on the current content.The nominator's motivations should not influence the deletion discussion.5.31.71.51 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 5.31.71.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I stand by my keep !vote above on policy grounds but I think the flurry of IP SPAs who showed up need to be disregarded. Would love to see more perspectives from some uninvolved regulars at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm unsure if Uganda has the same paid for media coverage problems as India and Nigeria, so evaluating the sources is kind of difficult here as I am not familiar with many of the publications. IMO, the schooling thing mentioned above helps it be pushed over to keep, and most of the sources look okay for notability - though some appear unduly promotional and perhaps tied to the author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basing on the fact that was adopted by the Ugandan Ministry of Education through its NCDC and recommended for use in Secondary and higher institutions of Learning, It got an award though this is only talked about in Uganda, I find many substantial postive reviews on Amazon and I find many references linking to several libraries for schools and Universities in Uganda.102.85.51.233 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — 102.85.51.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, first, Amazon reviews are not important, secondly, I'd like to hear from some of our AFD regulars instead of new IP editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib @Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Why wouldn't you consider We News reliable? Limited usage doesn't necessarily indicate that the source is unreliable. What do you think about this and this? These three combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, I'm not saying We News isn't a RS because it's seldom used here. Please re-read my comment. We News isn't reliable for many reasons, one of which is that the author who wrote about Muzzammil Aslam tends to produce sensational/tabloid-style stories. Additionally, all the sources you've provided (incl. this and this) are just announcements about his appointment as an Advisor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, making this a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Please allow me to ping @S0091: to get their take on the provided coverage/sources. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) this specific editor does not always share the same views as mine. 2) I'm not seeking their vote; I just want their feedback on the provided coverage. 3) WP:CANVASS doesn't explicitly prohibit pinging others. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib is correct that I do not always agree with him. However, I will not offer an opinion by being pinged to an AfD in which I have not already participated because even the appearance of canvassing is enough to sew distrust which is the last thing AfD needs, especially a contentious one which appears to be the case here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that NPOL does not cover advisors to ministers. There is no consensus that it does and no good reason has been provided to extend NPOL's reach that far. I won't !vote because I can't effectively search for coverage in Urdu. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Please take any references I've given in Urdu, copy the text, and use Google Translator to translate it from Urdu to English. Even if NPOL doesn't apply to him, I believe he still has enough coverage to meet GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not being used often on Wikipedia does not make a source unreliable. We News appears to have an editorial board and some reporting standards. I'm not seeing any huge red flags on their website. Also, the fact that another article was deleted is neither here nor there because we evaluate each article on its own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I hope you didn't overlook my previous comment where I shared two additional English language sources (TNN and Mettis Global) that provide detailed coverage of Aslam. These might help you reconsider and change your comment to a keep vote. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your point above. Apologies. But the fact that it isn't used much doesn't mean we can just hand-wave away its reliability in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts, Noted. And that's precisely why I pinged @S0091, for a third opinion on this source. Also I mentioned Waqar Zaka because he also served as an expert in the same government, albeit in a different role. And he has received significantly more press coverage than Muzzammil Aslam. This was merely an example and not meant to establish a precedent. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 15:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib @Voorts The TNN story covers him as a person, stating he is a renowned economist, mentions his date of birth, two decades of experience, and leadership positions in several private institutions. It also covers his joining PTI, his previous role, and his educational qualifications in detail. Mettis Global discusses his appointment and mentions others who have been appointed as advisors, but the rest of the piece is about him, indicating his greater notability. The rest of the piece, like the We News and TNN stories, talks about his role as a spokesperson, his 15 years of business experience, and detailed coverage of his educational qualifications. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, I understand your point but I’m still not convinced. As I mentioned earlier, both stories discuss his appointment as an advisor. Thus, I concur with @Voorts that both are just routine coverage about him being hired. A clear case of WP:BLP1E. While I’m fine with citing them for WP:V, but imv they don’t meet the criteria for establishing GNG. In case it’s useful, the Mettis Global coverage doesn’t even have a byline. And does Tribal News Network even have an editorial team? — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show, 789 SURVIVAL. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their music have already been released. The band was split into 2 different subunits: BUS5 and BUS7. It should be easier to find sources from these 2 names. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Should not linger in mainspace with WP:V problems that are basic in nature: Who are Bus? Are they one or two groups? Who are in those two groups? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify. Although there is coverage, there are not many WP:RS, what I could find was a) social networks b) fandom c) a website called kprofiles that looks user-generated (though my results may be not the best due to language settings). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities as suggested above by BD2412T and possibly implied by LaundryPizza03. A quick search shows a number of articles on fictional universities as a group, so that would appear to pass WP:LISTN. The main problem here is that it's a non-encyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT, but as that can be solved by removing the cross-category element that seems to be the obvious solution. Robminchin (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got pinged as the article creator. It seems that a long time ago I merged a couple of articles because they were not individually notable. Perhaps some of the items here have enough 3rd party coverage to merit existence, but I'll stay out of discussion. --Tone14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin(talk)05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Ashta-diggajas is a significant concept in Hindu cosmology, as the elephants that support the world. Secondary references are available in the article and cover the subject. WP:BEFORE should be applied instead of Bold blanking and AfD. --RedtigerxyzTalk05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepormerge The concept certainly seems to have real-world importance and sources exist, although I am not completely sure on the extent. A pure redirect to Hindu cosmology is of little help to the reader, as the concept does not yet appear at that page. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate the new sources added. I didn't review the sources but all sections of the article are cited so I'm not sure if the assertions of OR are justified. Let's focus on whether the sourcing is sufficient and of good quality. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing. Repetition doesn't matter - this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator also hasn't explained why "outdated sources" would an issue in an article about a mythological concept from ages ago.
Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92Talk14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTBOOK. I can find no sources on the book or the author of the book, other than catalogue or sales listings. Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more, hopefully experienced, editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NCORP. The sources used are either written by the firm's founder or are interviews with him that rule out independence. I so far cannot see any proper independence sources that provide significant coverage on the firm itself. ImcdcContact03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Zero evidence of notability. I speedied an article about the founder (or "founder"), Asuna Gilfoyle, in May. Gilfoyle was a character in Silicon Valley -- I think A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P. is a joke. JSFarman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. This article has no footnotes, and the only reference is IMDB, which is not reliable. There is a draft, Draft:Sanvikaa, which has footnotes. I have not reviewed the draft in detail, and so do not have an opinion on whether the addition of the sources would satisfy general notability, but addition of information from the draft to the article would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG for p[laces explicitly says that they are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. Has not even one reference anywhere near GNG. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there might be information in polish to help prove notability, but as I can't speak polish, and polish wiki has no useful citations to help, I'd vote delete unless folks can find them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. There are no references much less GNG references on the subject of the article. The references are all on Pakistan politics in general, not on the subject of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. An award for playback singers issued by a TV channel. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 14 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)
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. StarMississippi01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until we know a lot more detail about the new plans it's impossible to say whether open access operators will be a feature of a nationalised railway (there are hundreds (at least) of possible structures it could take), but that's only tangentially relevant crystal ball-gazing. This is notable as a proposal (probably individually, definitely as part of a broader article) whether they end up ever running trains or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how this subject passes WP:GNG. The only thing here was that he won the Gulder ultimate search. The rest are just biography with no source. No evidence he won those awards.Since 2023 the issue tag was placed no fixed has been made. Even when I had to google. The news source fails independent as they are likely stating his quote. Gabriel(talk to me )00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this page and wanted to over look it not until almost all the source, possibly all fails to meet Wikipedia independent, reliable and secondary. No point calling him a musician when all the source are from promotion link and also fails in music notability. Since 2023 issue was tagged but no changes. Gabriel(talk to me )00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage is looking sparse. These two sources might count towards GNG, although they do look low-quality: [34][35]. I am unable to consistently access guardian.ng. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how those sources you provided meets GNG neither low quality. Meanwhile, i have never heard the word “Low quality” while determining either an article meets GNG or not. If it passes it passes. If doesn’t pass, it doesn’t. You can visit the article page. Check the tag to understand what reliable, independent source it’s all about. The two source you provided failed to be independent because it doesn’t speak from a disinterest of the article subject. Gabriel(talk to me )04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "low-quality" I meant that the tone is tabloid-style and the articles don't contain a lot of independent analysis. The sources use non-neutral language, but I don't see indications that they have a vested interest in the subject. If the articles were sponsored, for example, they would be completely non-independent, but there is no indication of that (unless there's something I'm missing about the sources). Per WP:IIS, "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources could also be non-independent if the coverage is almost entirely based on the subject's own words, which is possible but not obvious. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand u. But before i nominated the page. The sources are not just making sense to me. The few newspaper that was cited was just all about Meet Funnybros. The rest are from Nigerian blogs and music link containing Apple Music and the rest. Personal life he bought a Benz the two source cited are from blogs that are not reliable besides buying a Benz has nothing to do with notability. Gabriel(talk to me )11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article about a comedian that meets WP:GNG. Appearing in independent sources is notable if not presumably. There is a recognition for his skits but I see some unreliable sources, which can be cleaned. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y)
N
Y)
Looks like a duck to me. C F A 💬 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
