(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Language. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Language|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Language[edit]

List of surnames in Russia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of surnames in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hopelessly indiscriminate/random/subjective collection: here says they found 380 thousand different surnames in Russia, of which core of 14 thousand surnames are used by 70% of the population... And with a misleading title: it lists only east slavic surnames, while there are plethora non-slavic people in Russia from the times of Russian Empire and Soviet Union: not a single surname ending in -shvili and only one ending in -dze, no one ending in -yan/-ian i.e., Georgian surnames and Armenian surnames are thoroughly not represented. In is poorly maintained: I removed a couple obviously hoax (OK, mayby typos by nonslavic editors; AGF to them). Even slavic surnames are far from being complete: I immediately failed to find the surnames of my favorite writers: Ilf, Strugatsky, Nabokov Akunin, Zoshchenko, Bulychev, as well as other well known surnames Schmidt/Shmidt, Goldfarb, no Zeitlin/Tseitlin/Tseytlin, good thing there is Abramovich :-) ; there are Tkachenko and Tkachyov, but no Tkachuk. For some reason there are both Pelevin and Pelyovin listed, but there are hundreds of other e/yo spelling variants missing ..... And so on, and so for. - Altenmann >talk 05:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEFR companion volume[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and is poorly written. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generation Z slang[edit]

List of Generation Z slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. 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 - Zoomer slang has received particular coverage from prominent/WP:RS sources - Insider ([1] [2]), LA Times ([3] [4], WaPo ([5] [6]), NYP ([7]), Politico ([8]), USA Today ([9]), Newsweek ([10]) - with the related topic of Gen Alpha slang receiving coverage from the NYT ([11]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Granted, the article has some WP:OR issues and could use some work, but this topic (Gen Z slangs) has received a lot of coverage from reliable sources. (The article's also receiving ~5860 page views daily [12].) 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]
    Just want to note that List of ethnic slurs has a list format similar to List of Generation Z slang. Some1 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also the clearly-defined inclusion criteria on the talk page, quality sourcing, and lack of OR. Additionally, that article has long been a part of Wikipedia, and when it went through a number of deletion discussions, the main focus was on the offensiveness of the content, not its format or status in functioning as a dictionary. Other stuff exists. AviationFreak💬 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Re Moriori (app)[edit]

Ta Re Moriori (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:N. Ref 1 and 2 are dead (WP:404) and it appears to be taken off the Play Store. Ref 3 reads like an ad ver tize muhnt. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scoop (website) publishes press releases and has pretty much no standards. They're absolutely useless for notability and should only be used where primary sources are appropriate. The name doesn't help but there does appear to be no independent coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Moriori language; the app on its own seems unlikely to become noteworthy. —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor coverage about its release but no coverage about its usage or impact. Does not meet WP:N. Adabow (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt[edit]

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

Recent AFD resulted in deletion. Article was then re-created, but still isn't notable. PepperBeast (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was deleted literally last month. Still doesn't show any notability for inclusion. Would be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. Procyon117 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was deleted before yet I don't see any change in the article. Xoocit (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haliey Welch[edit]

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch
The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.
To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rdirect or merge: to Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach Bryan or Shaquille O'Neal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato—mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want a "like" button, @Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the article.
    "Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""
    She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or draftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Lowellian (reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.
Comintell (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BLP1E lists three criteria, all of which are required for deletion. Please address the actual criteria rather than merely WP:VAGUEWAVE "per BLP1E".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a clear BLP1E situation. The coverage of the individual is because of the video, the person absolutely is still a low-profile individual (assuming she's going to successfully parlay this into wider fame is impossible to say at this point), and point three doesn't particularly apply to this (if it's about the meme, she would be a footnote in the article.) "Subsequent" developments like her finding representation or starting her own company are still in relation to being the "Hawk Tuah Girl". The best you could argue is the meme should have its own page, but this bio ain't it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think at this point there's clearly enough references and global news articles defining her as a notable person, and just based on the interviews she's done over the past week or so, she's clearly got plans to stay in the public eye. I would suggest a cleanup however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify the page until enough time has passed to assess whether sustained notability exists beyond the initial viral meme phase. The focus should be on documenting the Hawk Tuah meme rather than emphasizing Hailey Welch, unless she achieves broader recognition and is demonstrated to be notable through continued media coverage. Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep // Gargaj (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, the person is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event (a TikTok interview that went viral) is not significant. Zacwill (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follower counts aren't relevant in notability discussions, and Bhad Babie's bio article is primarily about her musical career. Maybe we can revisit this discussion if Welch becomes a successful musician or something. But it seems like Hawk Tuah's time in the media spotlight has already come to an end (at least for now, who knows if she'll be relevant again in the future). That the deletion discussion lasted longer than her fifteen minutes of fame should give us some pause.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. A quick Google search will review she is still being covered, with multiple articles per day. RTredwell (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But which outlets are still pumping out multiple articles about her per day? The Daily Mail? TMZ? It's been roughly a week since any reliable outlet mentioned her, and even then, there's only been a handful published in the last two weeks. Her day in the sun is over. That doesn't mean she'll never be article-worthy, but she certainly isn't yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:TOOSOON, some articles about disasters or events that are recent I haven't seen a notice about this.
For WP:SINGLEEVENT, (this may not count) articles about the Super Bowl, the event only happens on those days pacifically. And the players involved in the football game may not return to the Super Bowl.
Turning it into a draft probably would be a good idea if the article doesn't apply to the rules. Tonkarooson (discuss). 22:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Periodically, an article like this comes along that illustrates the absurdity of the WP "notability via sources" idea, by which I mean the idea that the existence of sources is a sufficient condition for an article. The growing corpus of non-encylcopedic content across WP should convince all of us that sources are instead a necessary (but not sufficient) condition and that editors' jobs require added judgements of things like accomplishment to assess the encyclopedic value of the articles that should appear here. (Otherwise, going forward, we should just let AI slurp-in all sources and auto-create articles.) I think it should be clear that there's no encyclopedic content here and, that at a minimum, we would look to WP:ONEEVENT for a softer delete that would not rule-out recreation if this person actually makes notable contributions in the future, as opposed to being forgotten about, once the novelty of her comment runs its course. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1234919013"