WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company without providing any evidence that any of those facts have anything in particular to do with Peter Wall. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered. LynnEditor.Nam (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: current sourcing is Canada C3 Coast to Coast describing him as a team member (non-independent), a coworking space review mentioning his company but not him, two sources by him (non-independent), and two sources mentioning him joining and leaving as CEO without saying much about (providing significant coverage of) him, one short source about an IPO not mentioning him, and the bitcoin mining rush source which includes a quote from him and says basically nothing else. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as suggested: nominator is being unnecessarily harsh by calling it "not a free linkedin alternative" but I cannot find sources googling that are not associated with him, by him, or coverage that does not go into detail of him being in various positions.
Per Wikipedia:Notability, significant coverage (at least a paragraph specifically talking about him and who he is) from at least two reliable, independent (not affiliated with, employing, employed by, working together with him) sources is necessary for an article so that it can be written sufficiently independently and in-depth. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't a notable person. This is about the best [1] and it's a PR item. A video journalist is just a "grunt behind the camera", to be blunt, and isn't notable. He's reported on things that happened, which is what videographers do. The crypto connection isn't helping notability. There is a real estate person in Vancouver that has coverage (with the same name), but it's not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral in this filing but feel a consensus is needed here than deleting the page and redirecting, given that this is an ongoing tv show which satisfies WP:TV. Also I don't find any issues with the current sources of this article, only thing is that more WP:RS sources should be added. Editingmylove (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With only 28 edits you may not be familiar with WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is what all of these references fall under. Nothing reliable to show notability. I would also say that a redirect wouldn't be a suitable WP:ATD based on the objection to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Sony_Entertainment_Television#Current_broadcasts: Not opposed to keep, given existing coverage. A redirect is not only suitable but should always be considered when production, cast and broadcast are verifiable, which the said coverage clearly allows. If someone objected to the redirect, it is most likely because they wished a standalone page, not on principled opposition to keep history and allow further improvement or expansion here or on the target page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TejalGraphics The point is that he contested but didn’t win. Politicians aren’t presumptively notable by virtue of their candidacy in an election. They have to, at least, win the notable position they contested for. If they don’t win and they pass the general notability guideline, then that’s a different case. Neither is the case for Danga. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Murder of Tupac Shakur. Textbook case of WP:BLP1E and a potential violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Most of the text in the article is about the murder and the various theories surrounding the possible perpetrator, not Davis. Davis hasn't been convicted or found guilty, and the coverage surrounding him is only in the context of the one event -- the murder of Tupac Shakur. Longhornsg (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested seems like the best way to proceed here. He isn't notable as a "criminal" (he hasn't been tried yet, only arrested), or otherwise, only notable in relation to the Tupac murder. He was arrested and is in jail, pending the trial. Unsure if he might even pass criminal notability if and when he should be found guilty either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.
Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm. Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)
I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda [3], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:31, 9 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.
As it appears there is only one winner of EGOT of Filipino descent that fits the criteria, this list article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST.
Nominations for awards alone are not typically enough for notability unless it's multiple per WP:ANYBIO.
There are separate lists for winners/nominations for the 4 separate awards that make up EGOT for other countries, but all of those have a stricter inclusion criteria (not descent, but actually from the country) than just descent, so this list is wrong on the basis of being about EGOT, which is something WP:SPECIFIC and on the basis of being inconsistent regarding inclusion criteria compared to other separated out awards lists.Raladic (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator following below discussion with article creator, rescoping the article to address the issues I raised by renaming and removing descent based criteria for WP:CONSISTENT with other such (split out) lists. Raladic (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
::Delete: I think it's the best thing to delete this article rather than move because I mistook the title early. It wasn't for Lopez's wins but for Filipino descent as an equal. I believe "List of EGOT winners and nominees of Filipino descent" is a good title or you can rename it to "List of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony winners and nominees of Filipino descent" as a whole list of accolades involving Filipino descent. As a matter of fact, it lacks the information of accolades or "winners and nominees" of Filipino descent like "List of Oscar winners and nominees of Filipino descent" or "List of Grammy winners and nominees of Filipino descent". So, I put that title as a whole list rather than separate.GeniusTaker (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I expanded on in the nomination, this list is inconsistent with other lists about the separated-out awards, which are not about descent, but about people from those countries.
So per WP:CONSISTENT, the current list fails this and should be reduced to either being a combined list, or 4 separate lists, but narrowed down to "List of Filipino X award winners and nominees", without the "descent" part. Raladic (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "List of Filipino Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony award winners and nominees"? Was it good for you? Because I don't want that separate list but instead as a whole. It's very difficult for that. GeniusTaker (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that can work if you don't want to split it out, but you'd have to remove all people from the current lists that are only of descent.
Please strike your above "Delete" (by putting <del> and </del> around it) and I can withdraw the deletion nomination and we can speedy keep it and then move it to the right article title. Raladic (talk) 03:26, 15 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.
There is a lot of refbombing in this orphan article. Whilst a lot of the coverage confirms he bought businesses and bars, none of this is indepth to meet WP:SIGCOV. Just a run of the mill businessman that doesn't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is little to indicate that this one-time 2024 event has notability. There is a lot of sourcing but little of it is reliable. Of the few RS that are cited, they make off-hand one-sentence mentions of this event or they explain the insignificance of the event. thena (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the cited sources may have a pro-Russia slant, but it also cites some directly critical sources under "criticism" and just looking it up on google I also found this bit of sigcov from a more generally anti-Western Turkish source; ONEEVENT is certainly a concern but it is also possible the sources required are simply spread out over many different languages that we only need more time and input to compile. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple sources available which indicates that it meets WP:GNG. The only issue with the article is WP:Toosoon but this will not affect the article because it is a multinational inter-party movement and it is not likely to die down soon, will rather gather more momentum. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think this event is sufficiently notable. It may be a little early to judge ref WP:SUSTAINED but, @Amigao it’s import to pay due regard to WP:NTEMP. I agree with @Thena and @Orchastrattor that the references are poor and fall short of the standard described by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I’ve done some cursory research and there are some western perspectives available that could compliment the pro-Russian sources currently in the article. (NB - Orchastrattor is being generous when they say. ‘May have’)
Absolutely tendentious rationale, just about every worthwhile article I've ever seen on AFC has come from a brand-new account or an IP. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, two previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:38, 15 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.
Tried to withdraw but I was not fast enough. I thought TW would show prior AfD but it did not do so. Please feel free to delete this page under G6 if possible. Apologies for the trouble. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:38, 15 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.
Fails NEVENT. All sources are from the week this happened, no follow up, failing WP:SUSTAINED. In addition, familicides are by far the most common kind of mass murder and tend to receive the least coverage, so the odds that this will receive any kind of retrospective coverage when coverage has ceased, especially since it's been two years with nothing, is slim to none. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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: the photos are indeed directly related to the assassination attempt, but have found distinct commentary, interpretation, and coverage as something more. WP:DROPTHESTICK on these deletion noms, please. BarntToust (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable given the amount of commentary on this image specifically. While it is a picture of the assassination attempt, it has gotten a lot of commentary based on it's use and composition. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleary a separate notable topic with wide coverage of the photos and not the actual attempt to kill past and potentially future President of the USA. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patently false, since notable photographs have their own articles, not some nonsense concept of just being a subsection for the broader topic daruda (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is / was widely reported on by a number of notable media outlets and extremely popular on social media. Also suggest we get a non-cropped version at low resolution to illustrate the article. User:WoodElf00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete it. This serves no purpose other than to elevate Trump as some kind of tough guy. Does Reagan have a dedicated article about the aftermath? Ridiculous. 32.220.216.27 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biased IP user with a low IQ take eh? not surprised. the point isn't trump, the point is the photograph. and 'raising the flag on iwo jima'/ ground zero both have articles. daruda (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this IP user does not seem to be giving a proper train of thought for any reason. They seem to be bringing aftermath of Reagan into this, and that is not really an "iconic, widely-discussed and notable" photograph sort-of-thing. This non-argument full of a personal opinion makes no sense to me. BarntToust (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP since this is a rather obvious example of a notable photograph. No idea why @LilianaUwU nominated this for deletion. Going through the user's profile, this initiative to delete this photograph seems to arise out of a rather partisan outlook towards Trump rather than an objective understanding of articles about notable photographs daruda (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph fulfills the nessicary criteria for use and an article beyond a context. I'll have to agree personally on how it seems the nominator has a personal bias, but I should not want to say anything definitive, like you, with the key absolving word "seems" making this only an observation, not an accusation. BarntToust (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exactly, I do not like Trump nor do I agree with practically anything of his, but that does not take away from the fact that this photo is incredibly important and will go down in the history books. 174.26.132.119 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to Keep, as per the countless keep votes above me, a historic photo. Politely and respectfully speaking, the OP's participation history leaves me and other people thinking about the vexatious component to this particular nomination! User:Historyexpert2 — Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic photographs such as this usually warrant their own articles. With the amount of attention this photo in particular is receiving, both from supporters of Trump and the media, I believe the article is appropriate. NorthropChicken (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading down this discussion, you are the first person so far to actually address what a deletion discussion should address, which is depths and provenances of sources. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to admit, there comes a point that in a dire context like this, it can never be too soon to say that something coming from a historic event is going to have an impact. Nobody would say this, much less the entire article's worth, if it were not impactful meaningfully. Trump would never had a mugshot to hold its own article had he not engaged in criminally questionable activity, its own thing as well. same logic. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:282D:933B:D824:B63 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Mug shot of Donald Trump is very similar to the image of Trump with his fist raised in terms of spread & use, and that page was created the day after the mugshot was taken. It appears that an image (especially of Trump) can be called 'iconic' or 'noteworthy' this quickly in this day & age. I can't think of a reason why that page gets to stay up but Trump's raised fist gets taken down. jan Janko (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 wanting it not its own article, opposed to 15 for. Remember, this isn't a majority vote, but rather a test of logic. Logic trumps all. BarntToust (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: not "Trump" like the subject of the photo. trumps as in logic is better than majority. Consensus seems to be then, that it is iconic, subject of coverage, and worthy of an article based by the means for having one. Maybe wait for other editors to jump on? The logic won't change, but maybe SNOW conditions will. BarntToust (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no doubt the main iconic photo will forever linger in American politics and history. It well deserves its own article. The assassination attempt will have a big effect on the November election, and the images Vucci took symbolise it somewhat. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not everything is a fork that has to be merged into a bigger article. Sometimes a topic is notable enough to have its own article, even if it falls under the umbrella of a broader event. This is clearly the case here. The photo clearly meets GNG by itself — no question about that — so there should be no issue WP:SPLITTING it from the main article. I have yet to see any policy-based arguments as to why this should be merged. CFA💬03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The detailed, significant coverage of this photo in many reliable sources shows that this photo is already notable, and additional coverage in reliable sources is highly likely in days, weeks, months and years to come. If coverage unexpectedly fizzles out, then we can reconsider in a year or two. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE This should just all be included in the other article. The Photo-op in front of the church, for instance, is an all-inclusive article about the event, not just the photos taken. CNC33 (. . .talk)04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the photo has potential to remain iconic enough to have its own page, but its impact has yet to be seen. I think it's simply too soon for it to warrant its own article. Unlike the Mug shot of Donald Trump page, it does not represent a presidential first or anything like that. As is, I think the blurb in the main article suffices. However, I think it should be discussed again if the assassination attempt has a profound impact on the outcome of the election. Pac-Man PHD (talk)
Keep: Iconic images deserve to have their own article on Wikipedia. So I'm going to nominate this as "Keep". It can also be merged too, but I think this article should be kept. As of anyone living around anywhere around earth, not just the US, but other countries, it's recognised as well. It's been going everywhere around the news in Australia, this image is also viral in Australia too. So as an Australian, I see this as "keep". PEPSI697 (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an iconic image that may well be the defining image of the election and is covered by enough RS's. But I will say to the nominator that if you want this merged, AFD is the wrong place for it. You probably want WP:PM for that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)08:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have stated the image itself is notable on its own. It's being widely circulated and is looking to be the most important photograph taken this year (perhaps for many years). It's a defining image of this event. — Czello(music)09:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as complete and unencyclopedic trivia. Merely a fork of the parent article. Obviously not all of it would need to be carried over. Why are so many newish account attracted to this AfD. ——Serial Number 5412909:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been happening this way at AFD for over 2 decades, and is one reason that we have {{notavote}}. There's no ballot and this isn't a vote, but people think that it is and want to stuff it. Sad to say, there are a lot of comments above that are just noise and of no use to a closing administrator, because they do not show at all how Wikipedia deletion policy applies, one way or the other, to the question at hand. Some people have addressed sourcing and notability, though, which is exactly what a closing administrator needs. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
