User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:46, 28 February 2020

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 06:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Brendan Buckley	4 years ago	1	2033	0	2154.42
List of Baptist churches in Leicester	4 years ago	13	45426	0	2040.26
Congregational Churches in Leicester	4 years ago	8	67186	0	2040.24
Confederation of Iranian Students (founded 2009)	4 years ago	0	2829	0	1894.66
Alexanderstone Meadows	4 years ago	2	3126	0	1487.22
Signifyd	4 years ago	0	5040	0	527.5
Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur	4 years ago	0	2879	1	478.14
Syed Bande Ali Husaini	4 years ago	1	2347	1	448.92
Norman Mitchell (comedian)	4 years ago	1	3437	1	448.64
Joseph M. LaRocca	4 years ago	1	2744	1	448.52
Chouïa cinema	4 years ago	0	2693	1	429.84
Grizzles Orchard, Arizona	4 years ago	1	2118	0	429.25
NIX (company)	4 years ago	0	5431	0	427.36
Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms	4 years ago	1	2558	0	420.45
Vent-Axia	4 years ago	0	3779	2	414.05
Pulau Besar Museum (2nd nomination)	4 years ago	1	1927	0	413.65
Tupocracy	4 years ago	1	1842	0	410.63
Slo Top 30	4 years ago	0	1642	0	409.45
STOCS lite	4 years ago	0	1201	0	408.26
ILVE appliances	4 years ago	0	1475	0	400.94
Magister (company)	4 years ago	0	1792	0	400.04
AnimOuch!	4 years ago	0	1451	0	399.76
MiG Arogan	4 years ago	0	3022	1	398.77
Tinnama Padukunnama, Tellarinda	4 years ago	1	3746	2	395.13
List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters	4 years ago	1	6608	0	393.33

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Buckley

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

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Article is unambiguous advertising or promotion per G11. Multiple issues tag has not changed for nine years. Buckley does not meet notabibility requirements for musicians per WP:MUSICBIO. Kire1975 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Send it away. -- Dorama285 18:10, 05 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete Poorly sourced and no evidence in searches that suggests passing any applicable SNG or the GNG. The best claim to notability is their work as a session and touring drummer but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable drummer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment - he seems to be some sort of back-up drummer who tours with bands. Perhaps some of this can be merged into Tegan and Sara, his most recent collaboration, but I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was Draftify. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Baptist churches in Leicester

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

A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Baptists in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE:This was closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was reverted following a request to do so. Djflem (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The NAC was self-reverted by the non-admin closer after a discussion about it being a BADNAC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein, a decision overturned but allow new AFD by deletion review on 22 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus

But new AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester was opened 30 January, was continuing as of 12 February, was closed 22 February. --Doncram, 8 March 2020

It's worth making a note to the closing administrator that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, which bears almost identical similarities to this article, closed as draftify/move to draft for the reason(s) similarly noted below. --Dmehus, 22 February 2020

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

off-topic

I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but:

Having multiple AfDs simultaneously open on related but different articles is fine. The outcomes may differ due to the differences between the articles (and each article should receive sufficient individual consideration unless there is a clear-cut case to bundle). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of List of Baptist churches in Leicester and Congregational Churches in Leicester.
I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying.

Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The notability of the topic is referenced in the article.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep Certainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Article may be Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved.Djflem (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

So, as per the nominator mention on "no notable churches" and the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Baptists in Leicester or a prose Baptist churches in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist.

Are you going to continue copying every comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester to here even after I respond to them over there? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am following your lead about copying & doing exactly as you are with regard to that AfD, which is a similar, but different AFD. It's about the AfD not about you. I mentioned the essay because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Sure, but not acknowledging the responses when reposting comments suggests that you are ignoring or dismissing the responses.

Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring or dismissing, I'm contesting the arguments being put forth and providing links and insight guidelines and policies that suggest this list should exist. Therefore, I quote the specific part of it, rather than just add a link. Can you address them and/or do the same? Doing so can make the discussion more productive.Djflem (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant that you're copying the comments from the other AfD, after responses were made to it there, without acknowledging those responses forcing me to copy them here. It's not important, just a procedural thing.

I don't know why you think I haven't been addressing your arguments, which are based on Wikipedia essays rather than policies or guidelines. Here are pertinent quotes from policies and guidelines. From the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
— WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not: ... 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
— WP:NOTDIR

From the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that you already previously quoted:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
— WP:CSC

WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention directory in AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are more specific things than the sweeping statements above which pertain to this AfD. The bold is mine:

From:guidline Wikipedia:LISTPURP#1The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

From: guidline Wikipedia:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.

From: policy Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.

From: essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Wikipedia has no deadline.

Djflem (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:

Where we disagree on LISTPURP#1 is whether this list is a valuable information source; I don’t think this list is one.
You seem to have misunderstood CSC#2: your quote from CSC#2 describes why they're created, and the guideline immediately suggests not creating the list in the following sentence.
DIR#7 is explicitly saying that all WP lists should have context, not that all lists with context should be on WP. The WP:NOT policy rules out cases, it does not say anything about inclusion.
Essays are individual editor opinions. In particular, SURMOUNTABLE is very very general.

The clear superseding uncontested fact is that the article is explicitly ruled out by policy NOTDIR#6. Unless new sources demonstrate that the intersection of “Baptist churches” and “churches in Leicester” is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Yet another directory of non-notable churches in one particular British city. Ajf773 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Policy? Wikpedia provides for themed lists of items that would not necessarily garner a stand-alone article.Djflem (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a policy that covers this WP:NOT#DIR. A really loose list of article-less churches with their rough location included. Ajf773 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly a thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted. Otherwise descriptions with RS about the items in the list would have been added making it a annotated list. The policy cited says simple lists are not Wikipedia, but that annotated lists are Wikipedia. This has been clearly demonstrated at a similar AfD for Methodist churches in Leicester, where, indeed, information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information as sourced prose has been included.Djflem (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. Just because it wouldn't violate NOTDIR#7 does not mean that it does not violate NOTDIR#6. It's still a cross-categorization that is not a culturally significant phenomenon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

So we do agree that it does not violate NOTDIR#7. It does not violate #6 either: There is no Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Even if there were a Category:Congregational churches in Leicester, that would not apply since a list of List Congregational churches in Leicester would be more than than appropriate for inclusion along with any individual item that had its own article, as is precedent and common practice, and would be included in Category:Lists of churches in England and by extension its parents. (e.g. List of GS1 country codes>Category:Lists of country codes>Category:Country codes) Djflem (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What? NOTDIR#6 absolutely applies. This is almost identical to the situation described.

NOTDIR#6 is clearly about articles, since it says Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article (bolding is mine). This article is the intersection of Category:Churches in Leicester and Category:Baptist churches. It's almost identical to the given example "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" in NOTDIR#6. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization to which you make reference when citing WP:DIR#6:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. You seem to be suggesting that the following lists, similar in title & scope, and other like, should be deleted. They appear to be very encyclopedic:

Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it? Djflem (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed culturally significant phenomenon as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either. Drawing up a list of other cross-categorizations and asking for comparisons is an exercise in futility. AfD is not the place for “oh but this other article exists!” As you also point out, NOTDIR#6 allows for encyclopedic cross-categorization. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.

There’s nothing more to really debate if one can’t demonstrate that this particular class of churches in Leicester is culturally significant.

An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Australian lists are directories like this one and should also be deleted. The rest are limited to churches that are either notable enough to have articles or are designated historic buildings. We should definitely have lists for notable and historic churches, we should not have lists merely to be a directory of all places of worship. A Churches in Leicester article should be limited to notable ones. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement that items on a list be notable.WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles...Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. As there is no parent article, this list should stand as is.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep This is clearly a useful encyclopedic list and meets WP:LISTPURP. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- But it also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see discussion above and explain what particular part of the policy to which you are referring, because your claim seems to be invalid.Djflem (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably WP:NOTDIR#6 once again: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories. Pinging: @Reywas92:. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that per MarkH, as well as "Simple listings without context information" and WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These generic facilities do not need to be listed merely because they exist. There are more than 40,000 churches in the UK, more than there are pubs, and it is not Wikipedia's place to list them all, even when split into articles by city and denomination. Reywas92^Talk 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete [Was "Merge" to List of Baptist churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Changed to "delete" because I have already merged the 4 Grade II listed ones, and the rest seems to include outrageous errors and is just shite. So "Delete" is my !vote to emphasize how "shite"-y it is. --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)] Surely some of these are list-item notable. It does not require an AFD (and I think opening an AFD is unhelpful, especially without giving notice elsewhere) to propose a merge. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE ITEMS ARE NOTABLE OR LIST-ITEM-NOTABLE. I also do not believe that religion is "special" in Leicester and oppose creating a merged article about all types of churches in Leicester. (This is a copy of my comment at the Congregational churches AFD. This is stupid, having 3 AFDs, rather than letting one conclude and take your cue from that. The Methodist one is heading towards Merge, I think.) --Doncram (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, IMO you have not understood the discussion at the Methodist one. Right, you are not proposing merge yourself, but there is no way this should be outright deleted because there is good alternative to deletion available (merge). If you would have let it conclude, there would be no need for other AFDs. Further general discussion about AFD behavior, not above content, should be done at Talk page of one of these AFDs with notice given at the other Talk pages. Discussion between MarkH21 and myself can occur at my Talk page, where MarkH21 did open a section, expressing their objection to my bolded notice towards top of this AFD. Happy to discuss it further there. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I argued for a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, which has properly referenced material worth merging. I do think that outright deletion is the correct outcome for this article because there is no properly referenced material worth merging. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sez you. The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Baptist ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Baptist churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Baptist churches have more commonality with the Baptist churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Baptist churches are sensibly discussed together (perhaps noting which ones were visited by John the Baptist), not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You're agreeing that some of these are likely to be notable. I and others are not wanting to play game now of pulling up info right now for you in multiple AFDs, and actually sources brought up in some of the other AFDs probably provide info about some of the Baptist ones. As we've discussed elsewhere wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP but you are explicitly acting like it is for cleanup. You're ignoring fact that outright deletion would remove the candidate list of churches which might be notable (individually, or list-item-wise), that some other editor thought were notable, and would maybe delete some sources and some context. The existence/closure of the AFD should be noted at the merger target article, and future editors can find their way to the candidate list even if it is merged/redirected. We are obligated to consider alternatives for deletion and there is this good one here, so there is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HEY since the initation of AfD, the list has been worked on. To be considered (bold mine)

Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a simple listing without context information and it contains information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose.
Wikipedia:LISTN: This list fulfills this because as it is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, items in the list do not need to be independently notable, it is not a large list, it is informational, and there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: The list follows the precedent of List of X churches in Y, of which there are likely hundreds, many of which are much more complex and cross-categorizational. as seen in Category:Lists of churches

Djflem (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The article as it stands is in more than satisfactory shape (format & refs) to remain published in main space, where it will be seen & invite improvements by more editors, while regulation to draft will hinder that process by hiding it from potential contbutorsDjflem (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep - I agree with Djflem that the article does not contravene any of the WP:NOT categories that would make the inclusion of this material unsuitable for a list article. Lists of churches for a city are appropriate for a Wikipedia and are not a "directory". The article needs significant cleanup but that's not the purpose of AfD. Bookscale (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

And just to cover off everything, I believe the churches in Leicester have been discussed by multiple reliable sources. There are some in the article, and there are likely to be others, for example, Rimmington's helpful articles (another one, and another one in a different publication: Rimmington, G. "The Baptist churches and society in Leicestershire, 1951-1971." Local Historian 39 (2009): 109-21, etc.. Bookscale (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and this group is not notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the accepted reasons (not a requirement: meaning there are more accepted reasons), why a list topic is considered notable is that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source, as this list and its entries have.Djflem (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep as this topic has coverage in multiple reliabls sources as shown in the references and sources sections of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the relevant volume of the Victoria County History. As the list provides both information and a basis for future development, it satisfies WP:LISTPURP too and the nomination's contrary claim is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
However, this is the one source that has significant coverage on "Baptist churches in Leicester" as a whole. The other sources presented are for individual churches and not the group as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment - these lists could all be merged into List of places of worship in Leicester - q.v. List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling et al. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep rather than merge; combining all the city's lists of different religions' premises/congregations into Places of worship in Leicester would result in a very long and unweieldy page. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- If a single Leicester list would be too long, then a split by postcode area would be appropriate. LE1 - LE9 are the areas that comprise Leicester, so that would give nine lists. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep or possibly merge into Places of worship in Leicester. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete This list fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hardly just a "directory" as it includes a large number of purely historic entries. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing DIR#6 is vague because it in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the policy Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another clear one is cognitive dissonance. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which is filled with exactly the same type of lists.Djflem (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There has been more activity at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester. About Methodist churches, there are more sources (two articles by Rimington). I think any potential closer should close that one first, or maybe wait for someone else to close it. If that AFD is closed "delete" or "draftify" or "merge", then this AFD about Baptist ones should be closed similarly. The case for "Keep" is less strong here. In fact I see no source available on-line which can be argued to support keeping this. This Baptist article includes mention of 3 off-line sources:

A Brief History of Free Churches in Leicestershire & Rutland, Rev A A Betteridge
The Story of the East Midlands Baptist Association, Fred M W Harrison, 1986
Places of Worship in the City of Leicester, Leicester Council of Faiths, 2004

but I see no serious evidence that those sources are helpful, there has been nothing added to change this article from being a list of random places violating wp:NOTDIR. By the way, the "Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place" source is just literally a catalog, a directory, of no help.

I do see assertion that several of the Baptist churches are Type II or whatever listed buildings; those ones could be added to List of Baptist churches. Above I !voted "Merge" to that list, which I still think is the right option. --Doncram (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of online articles not previously mentioned (I think?), see some in the list here. Bookscale (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place is indeed a database created by the University of Leicester (Archeology Department) as the result of a broader project to record all (types of) churches in Leicester, which clearly establishes the interest making it academic, encyclopedic, and notable.Djflem (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Draftify/Delete per DGG. This is, for all intents and purposes, a list; not an article. The "delete" arguments, arguably, have this one as WP:NOTDIR criterion #6 is entirely on point. Thus, the WP:GNG arguments don't hold water. Merging is a possibility, but it shouldn't be our place to "court order" a merger on a specific target, so draftification is entirely reasonable. This would allow those favouring "keep" to decide to where they want to initiate a merge talk page discussion or, alternatively, to refocusing the scope of this list into an article on Baptist churches in Leicester. Doug Mehus T·C 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a good observation to note that a page entitled List of Baptist churches in Leicester is indeed an list and not article. One would be wise to also note that at WP:DIR that #6 , like all , target points is clearly proceed by Wikipedia articles are not: and does not speak to lists at all is in and of itself mute on the point and does NOT preclude lists of this type. It would also be wise to consider Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which provides the information as to how to proceed with lists, which WP#6 does not. As clearly stated the at the incorrectly dismissed Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. DIR#6 merely touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to disregard the guidance offered is not wise and does not appear to demonstrate a clear understanding of the purpose of policies and guidelines.Djflem (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester I added the following:- "There are others in Anglican churches in Leicester. There should just be one article (Churches in Leicester) listing churches that have an article. Congregational Churches in Leicester, Anglican churches in Leicester and any similar ones should be deleted." I think this should apply to this article also. Only churches with articles should be listed. I am not sure what is the best way to handle these separate articles. --Bduke (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Note The above comment (@8.20 26feb20) was made after message sent to editor the nominator (@07:4826feb20) (and may have been prompted by it). Could this be considered an instance of inappropriate canvassing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it's absolutely not inappropriate canvassing. If you bothered to read the very behavioral guideline that you link, you'd see that WP:APPNOTE includes as an appropriate notification:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following... On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Oh hey, Bduke commented on the closely related AfD on Congregational Churches in Leicester. So this was a totally appropriate notification by the very guideline you link.

Knock it off, Djflem. This is another frivolous personal attack by virtue of being a false accusation of wrongdoing (e.g. like this false claim). You've made four personal attacks on these AfDs and have been warned by myself and by another editor (Doncram). You need to stop making false accusations immediately. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the inquiry and acknowledging that guidelines are important.Djflem (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be only 1 list named List of churches in Leicester for all types of churches, otherwise keep since the article seems well sourced to RSs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, This is a list though, so notability doesn't really apply. It fails WP:AOAL and WP:CLN woefully; we cannot allow cruddy content to remain in Main: namespace as poor content, in turn, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Thus, your idea of having a single List of churches in Leicester, perhaps sectioned off by denomination, has merit, but the proper place to handle this is Draft: namespace where editors can decide on inclusion criteria, whether to write it in list format or prose (I favour prose, since most of the church buildings are inherently non-notable and not eligible for bluelinked articles), and the like. Since we have no deadlines, we can't allow cruddy content which fails our guidelines to remain in Main: namespace indefinitely. Moreover, just speaking in generalities, the behaviour of some editors in this and other AfDs has been, frankly, appalling, particularly the refactoring of editors' comments and rearranging their comments seemingly to effect preferential placement. Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

One simply needs to see Wikipedia:LISTN, a section of Wikipedia:Notability, to see the absurdity of the above claim.Djflem (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, lists containing with "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list. While such bluelinks are not a required by Wikipedia:SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, or Wikipedia:LISTN, it is correctly observed that it does follow Wikipedia's common practice to keep those lists which do have blue-links as is the case with the aforementioned pages. This article contains at least four entries which are independently notable as listed buildings. The creation of those articles would thus bring it in line with other articles and remove a concern/original claim of the nominator who stated that this is "a list with no notable entries". They are:

Charles Street, Central Baptist Church [1]

Main Street Evington [2]

~~Melbourne Hall, Evangelical Free Church [3]~~

Narborough Road, Robert Hall Memorial Baptist Church [4]

Belvoir Street [5]

--Djflem (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Addendum/correction: add Central (now blue-linked);strike Melbourne.Djflem (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of those in Category:Lists of listed buildings in Cumbria contain non-linked items. I'd add that most parish churches (rather than Methodist churches) tend to be listed buildings and will have third party coverage from a number of sources and are significant to the residents of the parish. Even still the list appears to satisfy AOAL#8 anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I hesitate to return and reply to anything here, because I don't want to prolong this AFD, which has long been ready to be closed (delete).

But, as has been pointed out before in some or all of these related AFDs, it is just wrong to assert that any list whatsoever is Wikipedia-notable, just because it can have one or a few bluelinks. That is just silly, and I am surprised that one or more editors are repeating that. (If someone seriously believes that, please consider: do you want there to be a million or more separate lists covering these? E.g. "List of stone churches", "List of churches in Leicester", "List of churches in Leicestershire", "list of Baptist churches having doors", "List of churches having addresses", "List of churches built before 2020", "List of buildings in England", "List of places on Bishop Streets in any city having a Bishop Street", etc. etc. etc.?)

No, in practice in Wikipedia it is NOT true that listed buildings are assumed to be individually notable. In England, it is usually assumed that Grade I (buildings of exceptional interest) and Grade II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest) are going to be individually notable. The four ones here are just Grade II. Note that Leicester#Landmarks makes a point to mention the 13 Grade I buildings in Leicester, but not lower ones. There is no need to split out that section of "Leicester" to create a separate "List of churches in Leicester".

But sure, if enough coverage exists to satisfy wp:GNG, a Grade II building could nonetheless be Wikipedia-notable (not shown to be thef case for any of these though). However, there does exist Grade I listed buildings in Leicester, and those 4 churches could better be mentioned there, without creating separate articles about them. Also, they could be mentioned in List of Baptist churches in the United Kingdom, which I think I pointed out months ago, above. They are still not mentioned there; there is no reason to split out a smaller list of Baptist churches in Leicester alone.

I probably won't reply further. --Doncram (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A fair point. So, in your opinion, how many Grade I or II listed churches would need to be included in a list like this for it to be kept? Or would they all have to be Grade I or II listed? Don't feel you have to reply. But I'd be interested to hear your opinion. Whether or not this is just "silliness". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Martinevans123, I'll answer. It would make sense to split out a sublist from List of Baptist churches in England when there are about 200 or more to split out. The 200 or so rule of thumb is effective practice for splitting out sublists for historic places in the U.S., and would generally apply for tabulated lists of places in England or anywhere else, too. Technically I think there is a guideline somewhere on the number of bytes justifying a split, which basically corresponds to about 200 items like these. I have added the four Grade II-listed ones to the List of Baptist churches in England list. I am not really sure all four of those really need to be mentioned there, but I am quite sure there are not 196 more that need to be listed there, so split won't be needed anytime soon! --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. But did you want to answer my questions too? I don't think there is actually any written policy on this, is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123, please note your statements don't show an understanding yet about the fact there are three levels of listed buildings: Level I, Level II*, and Level II. Please see listed buildings for explanations of those 3. I have tried, am willing to keep trying to answer your questions (but maybe this should be at your or my Talk page?). You asked for my opinion; I gave it. There is a written policy/guideline on how big is too big for a list-article somewhere, I will try to find it, but anyhow the current List of Baptist churches in England list-article/section is nowhere near that. What further question(s) do you have / what other written policy do you want to see? --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So I "don't show an understanding yet about the fact there are three levels of listed buildings". "lol", as they say. I thought my questions were reasonable clear. Never mind. Please don't trouble yourself any further on my account. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, Even if not closed as "delete," to close it as anything other than "draftify" would be wholly incorrect; there's simply no consensus here for retaining the article as is in Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 15:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete or draftifyDjflem (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Your beliefs are clear and do not need to be repeated again and again and again and again and again. Please leave it to the closer to assess what the consensus is. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTE:It important to note that since the nomination RS which support the notablility/verfiability have been added, including Ruddy, Austin J. (6 February 2018). "Renovating a great survivor of the 'metropolis of dissent'". Leicester Mercury. Retrieved 28 February 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Thanks, great, I have added that citation to the row about the Central Baptist Church in the List of Baptist churches in England list-article. The existence of that citation does not mean that a separate article about the church is needed; I think its row in that list-article is just the right amount of coverage. And there is no need to divide out the few Leicester ones from the England-wide list-article, which is certainly not too big yet. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment I have added four Baptist churches in Leicester to the List of Baptist churches in England list-article. Above I think I argued for "merger", but at this point I think "Delete" is better. There is other junk in the current List of Baptist churches in Leicester article, such as claim that "St. John the Baptist church" in Leicester is a Baptist church, which is just false, it is a Church of England church. It is garbage, frankly, and best deleted. :) Or fine, give a copy to anyone who wants to try to salvage anything other than garbage to put into Leicester or List of Baptist churches in England article, but I personally don't see anything of merit worth copying over. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually I sould suggest that List of Baptist churches in England is garbagy, piece of junk. It is a random, indiscriminate mish-mash of odds and ends, just filled a little of this a little of that without real reason, rationale or parameters. What is the basis, the goal or objective of such hodge-podge grocery list of incomplete information? What does it have to with the real truly academic & encyclopedic world outside the Wikidpedia orbit? This list and others for Leicester and London present a comprehensive, perhaps exhaustive/finite lists of real complete information that has vetted and verified by university & community studies/survey. They are what make for a real encyclopedia and make Wikipedia, the purported goal of which is to record human knowledge, better.Djflem (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly can one find the Saint John the Baptist Church that you claim is in the list? Djflem (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Under "Closed churches", Clarendon Park Road, Clarendon Park Baptist Church is referenced to Church of St John the Baptist. Likewise, Melbourne Hall (under "Open Churches") is not a Baptist church either. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Good work for catching that: corrected! That scouring of the references and the recent work by User:Martinevans123 helps to improve this list-article. One can safety assume that citation of Ruddy, Austin J. (6 February 2018). "Renovating a great survivor of the 'metropolis of dissent'". Leicester Mercury. exported from this article for notablility/verfiability at the aforementioned List of Baptist Churches demonstrates its quality as a source. There is much to mined from it and others in this list for creating in-line citations. The work done by User:Martinevans123 (thanks!) and this ref-check clearly demonstrate that keeping the article in the main space, rather than a draft, leads to improvements. The question of the Melbourne Hall highlights the architectural (as opposed to religious aspect) of the list is better dealt with on the talk-page.Djflem (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that Anglican churches in Leicester and List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester ought to show if any of their entries are listed buildings. I believe Leicester Cathedral is a Grade II* listed building (but pardon my limited understanding). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist, if only to fix something borked with the original NAC close and re-open. No prejudice given to closing this "early" due to the age.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

As with the similar article for Congregational Churdhes, I think that all that is needed, as is the case for many other places, is that there is an article "Churches in Leicester" that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article. --Bduke (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

List of churches in Leicester with articles on Wikipedia isn't really very encyclopedic (and probably a violation of NOT:DIR).Djflem (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree with Bduke's suggestion. Churches in Leicester was created as a redirect back on 13 Jan 2020, to redirect to Leicester#Landmarks, which is a place where churches that are especially significant in the city might be mentioned. It would not be appropriate to list more than a couple churches there, because most are so non-important in context of discussing Leicester. Nor would it be appropriate to split out any churches mentioned there, to a separate list, whether or not that would be expanded to become a directory of all churches that have ever existed in Leicester. We simply do not want this one or a zillion other directories titled "Churches in X", where X is a city or town or other area. Nor do we want "Restaurants in X" or "Factories in X" or a zillion other possibilities. Bduke, while I kind of agree with your dismissal of the AFD topic article, IMHO you are simply wrong to imply that a bigger list of unimportant churches is "needed"; it is not. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: If it will assuage your concerns about zillions of possibilities, there is a Category:Lists of churches, which includes many (maybe hundreds) "Churches in X" and "X churches in Y" that satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no Category:Lists of factories. There is a small Category:Lists of restaurants, which does indeed include random, indiscriminate collection of lists of restaurants that have blue-links, which would which be better described as Category:Lists of restaurants with articles on Wikipedia, since the only criteria for them existing seems to be having an article Wikipedia, which is a indiscriminate, random, non-encyclopedia, non-academic, self-referential Wikipedia-world rationale for a parameter. That would be similiar, if one correctly reads Bduke's suggestion that an article "that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article" be created, to List of churches in Leicester (with articles on Wikipedia) to which Churches in Leicester would be properly redirected. But rather than speculate or fret about future worries, the matter at hand is this AfD, and as you are likely aware, which should be dealt with on its own merits. This list as a whole has been well vetted and clearly undeniably meets notibility and verifiability as provided by the reliable sources and should be evaluated in that context. That may help to expedite its closure.Djflem (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Bduke's good-faith suggestion of creating a List of churches in Leicester with articles on Wikipedia, because WP:AOAL and WP:CLN require most of the list entries to be bluelinks, with some redlinks, the correct place to draft such a combined article is in Draft: namespace. As written, this is just a list of old non-notable church addresses and this fails WP:NOTDIR criterion #6. As suggest above, this would be better written in paragraph form, as prose, and this should occur in Draft: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 03:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus:: This list and the others for churches in Leicester easily fulfill the advantages of a list. While, bluelinks are not a required by Wikipedia:SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, or Wikipedia:LISTN, which this list (and others) easily fulfill, DO have them. Prose would NOT be the better format for the presentation of the material, so there's no need for a draft. Unless you have something to add to explain your suggestion there appears to be no reason to incessantly repeat it.Djflem (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment, looks like some bludgeoning going on here... Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Just not seeing it. Perhaps there are sources enough to have an article about baptism in leicester where this could be merged, but this seems like a NOTDIRECTORY issue. Second choice, I suppose, would be Selective Merge into a list of churches that includes notable examples. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Extensive, reliable sources that prove Baptist churches in this city are notability are here, here, and here. A somewhat less extensive source is here.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

First source appears it might support an article on Baptists in Leicester, though not about Baptist churches AFAICT. Second and third are Rimmington, discussed (and dismissed by me) above and/or in related AFDs. Fourth is not usable as a source for anything. As I think i've asserted above, if someone could write a list-article using info from Rimmington, they should have done so long ago, by now, but it seems to me that Rimmington's articles are not seriously helpful for a list like this, so I eventually changed my !vote Delete. Bookscale asserted that Rimmington was good and further that there must be more so-far-undiscovered sources; I disagree. YMMV. --Doncram (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Rimmington, Gerald T. (200). "The Baptist Churches and Society in Leicester 1881–1914". Baptist Quarterly 38:7. pp. 332–349. Retrieved 15 March 2020. In 1881, the Baptists were the undeniable leaders of Nonconformity in Leicester. They had grown rapidly in numbers since 1851, when they had ten places of worship. Two more had appeared by 1872. By 1882 they had 20 places of worship.... added to article.Djflem (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Would seem that G.T. Rimmington an Honorary Visiting Fellow, Centre for the History of Religions and Political Pluralism, University of Leicester from 2000-2019 (who has written extensively about Baptist and other church buildings in Leicester) would include information in his (3rd above): "Baptist Membership in Leicestershire between the Two World Wars". Baptist Quarterly. 39 (8). Baptist Quaterly: 393–407. 2002. Retrieved 15 March 2020., which does not appear to be available online.Djflem (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The first above, "Early Leicester Baptists". Baptist Quarterly. 1 (2): 74–77. 1922., AFAICT does not appear to be freely accessible on line, and therefore cannot be properly evaluated. It may or may not contain info usable info to support GNG and verifiablity some theoretical article, but is not needed to do for this existing one.Djflem (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep per Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was Draftify. This AFD is frankly, a mess; it would seem to be obvious that there is the possibility of a useful article here but this one is not it; thus draftifying for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Congregational Churches in Leicester

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

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

A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Congregationalism in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE:This was closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was reverted following a request by the nominator.Djflem (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein, a decision overturned by deletion review, but with statement that a new AFD would be fine on 29 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus

It was followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, opened 30 January, which ~~is ongoing as of 12 February~~ closed as draftify/move to draft as of February 22, 2020 (see below note).

It's worth making a note to the closing administrator that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, which bears almost identical similarities to this article, closed as draftify/move to draft for the reason(s) similarly noted below. --Dmehus, 22 February 2020

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

--Doncram (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (updated 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC))

NOTE:This was non-admin closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was self-reverted following a discussion about it being a BADNAC. 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

off-topic

I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but:

Having multiple AfDs simultaneously open on related but different articles is fine. The outcomes may differ due to the differences between the articles (and each article should receive sufficient individual consideration unless there is a clear-cut case to bundle). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of List of Baptist churches in Leicester and Congregational Churches in Leicester.
I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying.

Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. No notable entries. Also WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite specific part of policy and explain how you are applying it?Djflem (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Certainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Article may be Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How does it not really?Djflem (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The only information value here is as a directory of Methodist churches. That’s not valuable or an accepted reason per WP:NOTDIR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Not valuable is a Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT argument. Wikipedia:NOTDIR says that Wikipedia articles are not "Simple listings" without context information and that information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. There is room in this article for adding prose to annotated list.Djflem (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep and Rename List of Congregational churches in Leicester, per WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

So, as per the nominator and another contributor's "no notable entries", which exactly fits the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Congregationalism in Leicester or a prose Congregational churches in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.Djflem (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned it because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Since quotes were requested in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, here are some from policies and guidelines.
From the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
— WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not: ... 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
— WP:NOTDIR

From the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that you already previously quoted:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
— WP:CSC

WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention directory in AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are more specific considerations that pertain to this AfD than the broad sweeping statements above. The bold is mine:

From: guideline Wikipedia:LISTPURP#1The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

From: guideline Wikipedia:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.

From: policy Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.

From: essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Wikipedia has no deadline.

Any specific relevant, detailed, pertinent quotes that you feel are relevant are welcome. Keep in mind that "valuable/useful" information is subjective, there is no policy that any item on a list has to be notable, and NOT DIR provides for lists with prose explanations of its items.Djflem (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:

Sure, where we disagree on the MOS guideline LISTPURP#1 is whether this list is a valuable information source; I don’t think this list is one.
You seem to have misunderstood CSC#2: your quote from CSC#2 describes why they're created, and the guideline immediately suggests not creating the list in the following sentence.
DIR#7 is explicitly saying that all WP lists should have context, not that all lists with context should be on WP. The WP:NOT policy rules out cases, it does not say anything about inclusion.
Essays are individual editor opinions. In particular, SURMOUNTABLE is very very general.

The clear superseding uncontested fact is that the article is explicitly ruled out by policy NOTDIR#6. Unless new sources demonstrate that the intersection of “Congregational churches” and “churches in Leicester” is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs) 02:07, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on WP:CSC#2

WP:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example...Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

Where does it suggest, as you claim, that these article should not be created? It doesn't. FYI, this is an example of the situation being referred to:Mayor of London, which is a parent article & subsequent list.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please identify the parent article into which this list better placed? Because that is what the the guideline says, NOT that stand-alone lists shouldn't be created.Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this list should exist at all by WP:NOTDIR#6. But supposing it didn't violate that policy, notice that there are multiple parent articles. Pick the closest one. If Congregational churches in Leicester was a prose article, then that could contain a list. If not, then Leicester. If neither of these two exist, then Leicestershire. And so on. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please identify the multiple parent articles, or simply the best one and explain why you think this list should be merged into it. Thank-you. (WP:DIR#6 is discussed below).Djflem (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Read my comment. You'll see three of them and you'll see that I don't think the list should be merged into any of them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So then we agree, carefully considering whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article, there is no appropriate parent article. Therefore, as the policy clearly states, the stand-alone list is appropriate.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your second sentence is entirely false unless you choose to misread non-violation as acceptance, ignore that WP:CSC is not a policy, and ignore that the stand-alone list is inappropriate by the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#7

WP:DIR#7: A thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted. Otherwise descriptions with RS about the items in the list would have been added making it a annotated list. The policy cited says simple lists are not Wikipedia, but that annotated lists are Wikipedia. This has been clearly demonstrated at a similar AfD for Methodist churches in Leicester, where, indeed, information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information as sourced prose has been included.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, DIR#7 excludes simple lists but does not say that all annotated lists are acceptable. Not violating DIR#7 but violating DIR#6 is still a problem. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We discuss what a guideline does say, not what it does not say. See below for DR#6:Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so talking about DIR#7 is pointless. It doesn't say that this article belongs as you seem to suggest. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#6

WP:DIR#6: Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization to which you make reference when citing WP:DIR#6:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. You seem to be suggesting that the following lists, similar in title & scope, and other like, should be deleted. They appear to be very encyclopedic:

Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it?Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed culturally significant phenomenon as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either. Drawing up a list of other cross-categorizations and asking for comparisons is an exercise in futility. AfD is not the place for “oh but this other article exists!” As you also point out, NOTDIR#6 allows for encyclopedic cross-categorization. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.

There’s nothing more to really debate if one can’t demonstrate that this particular class of churches in Leicester is culturally significant.

An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification to An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine: such an article could certainly exist if it was a properly sourced prose article. There's no properly referenced material here worth merging anywhere though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to produce a target article for this list, which actually is a basis for it, should you decide to do so. A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE would have demonstrated that there are RS, some of which are in the list itself.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I sure you are aware that User:MarkH21 does not get to decide what is culturally significant. See: WP:LISTN, which states:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not get to decide, but that's irrelevant. There needs to be evidence given here that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is a culturally significant cross-categorization. Might I remind you that Wikipedia policies supersede Wikipedia guidelines. Plus LISTN literally mentions and defers to NOTDIR#6 for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Was simple responding to your claim Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed "culturally significant phenomenon" as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either., in which you are deciding what is culturally significant. Let's leave it to this RS: "The ancient borough: Protestant Nonconformity: A History of the County of Leicester: Volume 4". Victoria County History. 1958. pp. 390–394. Retrieved January 11, 2020. The Congregational chapel in Bond Street was founded in 1800...., which incidentally, brings the the list over the the general notability guidelines, making this AfD moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

I can't have an opinion on what is or isn't culturally significant? Re GNG, I don't see how giving one reliable listing of Congregational churches demonstrates significant coverage from multiple reliable sources of the topic "Congregational churches in Leicester". GNG (a guideline) also does absolutely nothing to dispel any concerns about violating DIR#6 (a policy). — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As one hopes you are fully aware (otherwise I would suggest recusing yourself) Wikipedia:GNG are the basis for deciding many AfDs. And yes, you are welcome to your opinion about cultural significance, but it's just that, an opinion, based in Wikipedia:I just don't like it, a non-valid argument, which so far is your claim about DIR#6. If you would like to brush off arguments because they come from guidelines and are not policies, I would suggest that you confine your comments to strict policy-based ones and not your POV interpretations.Djflem (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Satisfying WP:GNG is generally suitable for inclusion only when policies are not violated. Anyone can judge here that the arguments presented for how "Congregational Churches in Leicester" is exactly in the same vein as the explicit example from WP:NOTDIR#6 of "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". However, your accusations of POV editing and ignoring policy is now firmly in the realm of unfounded accusations and personal attacks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:LISTN states: (bold mine)

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

Please be mindful that Wikipedia:Consensus is not only a policy it is a pillar.Djflem (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge to List of Congregational churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Surely some of these are list-item notable. It does not require an AFD (and I think opening an AFD is unhelpful, especially without giving notice elsewhere) to propose a merge. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE ITEMS ARE NOTABLE OR LIST-ITEM-NOTABLE. I also do not believe that religion is "special" in Leicester and oppose creating a merged article about all types of churches in Leicester. --Doncram (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Congregational ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Congregational churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Congregational churches have more commonality with the Congregational churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Congregational churches are sensibly discussed together, not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

[In the parallel Baptist AFD, MarkH21 replied as follows, and I gave further reply below. The duplication is aggravating, but I think the deletion nominator wants us to copy over the same stuff to each AFD, but with emphasis not to copy selective passages, but rather to copy over entire exchanges. [Update: I am notified they did not want stuff copied over; i misunderstood their objection to stuff copied which did not include back-and-forth, as worse. Anyhow, points made here are relevant for this AFD. Don't edit my comments.] --Doncram (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)] --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC):

Other's comment:

Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My reply:

You're agreeing that some of these are likely to be notable. I and others are not wanting to play game now of pulling up info right now for you in multiple AFDs, and actually sources brought up in some of the other AFDs probably provide info about some of the Baptist [or Congregational] ones. As we've discussed elsewhere wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP but you are explicitly acting like it is for cleanup. You're ignoring fact that outright deletion would remove the candidate list of churches which might be notable (individually, or list-item-wise), that some other editor thought were notable, and would maybe delete some sources and some context. The existence/closure of the AFD should be noted at the merger target article, and future editors can find their way to the candidate list even if it is merged/redirected. We are obligated to consider alternatives for deletion and there is this good one here, so there is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My comment here was deleted and I have now restored it; it is relevant to this AFD too. --Doncram (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Because you copied my comment without quotes before, as if I made the comment here myself, I reverted it. You insist on me repeating myself. My arguments have nothing to do with AFDISFORCLEANUP which I agree would be wrong. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course, a BEFORE search and referenced material not in the article is the basis of "keep" vs "not keep". My point was that if a topic is already deemed "not keep" then the debate between "delete" and "merge" is about whether there is referenced merge-able material in the existing article. In these particular cases, I do not agree that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is ~~not~~ a notable subject – that's why I then focused on merge-able content in the article. You seemed to agree that you misunderstood on your talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

~~*Delete/partial merge~~ Wikipedia is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Have (temporarily) struck the above by Reywas92 as double-dipping is not permitted in AfD discussions. Please self-edit: strike as you see fit.Djflem (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to strike the entire comment. Pinging @Reywas92:. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, there are three of these lists up and I missed that I already voted here after commenting on the others. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to to the discussion and specify your policy based reasons, otherwise the comment is Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE & Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE Djflem (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and this group is not itself notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTN One of the accepted reasons (not a requirement: meaning there are more accepted reasons), why a list topic is considered notable is that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source, as this list and its entries have.Djflem (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep - the debate on this page seems to be whether the page meets WP:LIST. I consider that it does - the sources currently in the aritcle indicate there have been plenty of books, etc. written on congregational churches in Leicester itself that contitute reliable sources, and this meets the criteria in WP:LISTN - ie.:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

And to satisfy those who think there hasn't been enough discussion of reliable sources, there are plenty in the notes to the article already (even though they need to be better incorporated into the article itself), and a quick check of sources indicates that there is likely to be other sources discusisng congregational churches in Leicester itself and their effect on society, e.g. Rimmington's helpful set of historical articles such as this one.

Yes, the article is a mess and needs significant cleanup, but that is not a reason to delete. It should be kept in good faith to allow improvement. At worst, the article should be draftified and it should be specifically noted in the closure that the editor is allowed to redraft. Bookscale (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep as there are plenty of reliable sources covering this topic as shown in the sources section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the relevant volume of the Victoria County History. As the list provides both information and a basis for future development, it satisfies WP:LISTPURP too and the nomination's contrary claim is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
However, this is the one source that has significant coverage on "Baptist churches in Leicester" as a whole. The other sources presented are for individual churches and not the group as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete I came here from the other two lists. This list fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Lightburst, you can't just apply the same reasoning without properly considering the article and the sources that are available. The consensus on this one seems to be this is more easily fixed and there are even more sources than the Methodist churches one. Bookscale (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  I don’t see such a consensus here, but NOTDIR is independent of that anyways. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  - Comment - that's nonsense. You've really got it in for these articles don't you? Bookscale (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing DIR#6 is vague because it in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the policy Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another clear one is cognitive dissonance. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which is filled with exactly the same type of lists.Djflem (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There has been more activity at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester. About Congregational churches, someone asserted above that more sourcing is available than for Methodist ones (despite 2 Rimington articles available there), but I don't see any online source that is at all helpful here, beyond providing trivial info of address or random useless facts. This remains a wp:NOTDIR-violating list-article. I don't see any assertion that any single Congregational church has a listed building or otherwise has any merit to be mentioned in List of Congregational churches (which I probably argued should be a merge target above). Now I lean towards outright "Delete". I can't directly evaluate the stated off-line sources, but can only note: if there was any source that had anything useful, it should have been used to improve this article by now.

I think any potential closer should close the Methodist one first, or maybe wait for someone else to close it. If that AFD is closed "delete" or "draftify" or "merge", then this AFD about Baptist ones should be closed similarly. The case for "Keep" is way less strong here AFAICT. I see no serious evidence that any source is helpful at all; there has been nothing added to change this article from being a list of random places violating wp:NOTDIR. By the way, the "Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place" source is just literally a catalog, a directory, of no help. --Doncram (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Doncram wrote in screaming capitals that other editors should not comment here but appears to have taken special dispensation to do in order to entangle the destiny of three distinct AfDs, and suggest what happens at one somehow be applied here and elsewhere. The well-known fact is that all unbundled AfDs (as was pointed out earlier) are separate and can and should have their own outcomes and that any closer must abide by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Is that a personal attack against me? Originally, there were 3 parallel AFDs, to which I objected. Then I thought they were all closed. Then I saw a new one on the Methodist article. There, in caps, yes, I was asking people not to start another set of parallel AFDs. However in fact the the Congregrational and Baptist ones never closed (or maybe they were closed and were reopened, like happened to the Methodist one before it was re-closed, before a new one was opened about it, i don't know.) Whatever, this has been a long dragged out mess. The fact that 3 of these are open still re-affirms my original belief that opening multiple parallel AFDs was not helpful. --Doncram (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not, no offense. I will point out that that your edit was placed immediately under notifications and links that were available at the time you made it, so the information as to the status of the AfDs was available. It's a close call, but they were not bundled (and don't believe they should have been). I do believe that entangling the three will only further drag the matter & suggest you don't if avoiding making a more of a mess is your legitimate concern.Djflem (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is off-topic now. But your point is that I should have checked further and not made the mistake of misunderstanding the status of the other AFDs, when I wrote that at the Methodist AFD. Okay, whatever, my bad, and I already acknowledged that I misunderstood that. Just to be clear, though, I did NOT write anywhere that "that other editors should not comment here", as I have been accused of, here. These AFDs are linked, anyhow, including by comments here complaining about comments made elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Despite the claim and attempt to disparage, this list and NOT RANDOM or indiscriminate. It is tightly focused and finite.

There are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the Wikipedia:Verifiability they provided to page. Several editors believe satisfies. :Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Currently only those sources which are online are given used. Since such coverage exists online, it can be presumed that there are more sources which are not digitalized including those are offered in source list.

Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place is indeed a database created by the University of Leicester (Archeology Department) as the result of a broader project to record all (types of) churches in Leicester, which clearly establishes the interest making it academic, encyclopedic, and notable.

As per criteria, Wikipedia should not contain indiscriminate lists and only certain types of list should be exhaustive. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. This list is exhaustive, and common sense is keeping the complete list, which is not likely to change.

Though it not necessary that there be any blue links, a common standard used for lists on Wikipedia is that when a list has at least one blue link the whole list is kept, a practice not being applied here. There are entries which would merit their own article (not shown as red links, but could be).

Wikipedia:NOTPAPER and inclusion of this material not in any way undermine Wikipedia's goal to document human knowledge, but rather supports it.

Citing DIR violation without a explanation is vague and frankly useless to the discussion because this list is NOT a list or repository of loosely associated topics; is not genealogical entry; a telephone directory; a directories, directory entry, electronic program guide, or resources for conducting business; a sales catalogue, a simple listing without context. DIR#6 is in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the Wikipedia:GNG, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another very clear guideline is disingenuous. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which contains exactly the same type of lists, despite what appears to be willful attempts to ignore them. (Any comparison of this list with something like Chinese restaurants in Atlanta is nonsensical garble.)

Wikipedia:Merging into an article List of Churches in Leicester or Churches in Leicester (currently a re-direct) (which would dispel any concerns about DIR#6) would produce a page with over 350 entries, which would then lead to Wikipedia:SPLIT. There is no reason to go through that process, when the split has already taken place.

NOT KEEP is not a AfD discussion option and does not, should not, and cannot be taken to mean DELETE.

Community consensus per Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES states that a list such this is kept because it is limited in scope, based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, has verifiable content, and has a logical reason for its construction.Djflem (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To dispell further misunderstandings in the above comment:

Finite is irrelevant here, indiscriminate doesn’t mean infinite...
Not violating NOTDIR 1-5 and 7-8 doesn't mean anything for a keep argument when the other arguments are about NOTDIR6
This article is a clear application of NOTDIR6 (a policy that supersedes LISTN and GNG which are guidelines) which says Wikipedia articles are not: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". This is the same type of article as those examples.
Nobody says “Not keep” = “delete”, and “not keep” certainly doesn’t mean “keep”.

The repeated mischaracterization of another editor’s actions is also getting tiring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

. Finite is relevant in that does indeed contribute to the fact that the list is "well-defined" and yes, "indiscriminate" doesn’t mean infinite, it means done at random or without careful judgement, which is not the case with this list.
Slapping a random NOTDIR on a page doesn't mean anything for a delete argument when it is indiscriminate.
.Real or feigned ignorance of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines strikes me as being ill-formed, and demonstrates an unawareness of the how policies and guidelines (rules and their application, theories and their practices, laws and jurisprudence, etc) interact/are intertwined at Wikipedia and in the real world. That is tiring and tedious.
. KEEP is an AfD option, NOT KEEP is not an AfD option.Djflem (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Draftify/Delete as failing WP:NOTDIR, specifically, criterion #6, WP:AOAL, and WP:CLN. This is, for all intents and purposes, a list, not an article, so the WP:GNG arguments simply don't apply. Draftification would allow those favouring "keep" or "merge" to decide on a potential merger target and initiate merger discussions on the destination talk page. Or, alternatively, to decide to refocus the scope of this list into an article to which WP:GNG would thus apply instead of ultra-short stub-class/sub-stub-class list, which this is. As such, it fails the above, as others have noted. Doug Mehus T·C 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- At least read the most basic part of GNG when referring to it: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Also—to everyone in this discussion—when possible please adhere to MOS:LISTGAP. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  It is a good observation to note that a page tagged as a Wikipedia:List-class article is indeed an list and not article. One would be wise to also note that at WP:DIR that #6 , like all target points, is clearly proceed by Wikipedia articles are not: and does not speak to lists at all is in and of itself mute on the point and does NOT preclude lists of this type. It would also be wise to consider Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which provides the information as to how to proceed with lists, which WP#6 does not. As clearly stated the at the incorrectly dismissed Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. DIR#6 merely touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to disregard the guidance offered is not wise and does not appear to demonstrate a clear understanding of the purpose of policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
  J947, But this is a list; the crucial criterion here is WP:CLN/WP:LISTN and WP:AOAL, which this list fails miserably. It should be draftified. Doug Mehus T·C 12:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear how WP:CLN (and its component)WP:AOAL, which discuss the synergies.between the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is relevant here (particularly since there is no correpondent cat or navtemplate). This list does not contravene Wikipedia:LISTN in any way.Djflem (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled that this has created such a wide discussion. All that is needed, as is the case for many other places, is that there is an article Churches in Leicester that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article. --Bduke (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bduke: There are no churches in this list (or the others at the time of nomination) with their own article, so deletion makes sense. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is the Cathedral, but I agree that is not enough. So, OK, delete, but if there comes a time when there are a few more, such a list would be OK. --Bduke (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the Cathedral is in Anglican churches in Leicester, not this list (Congregational Churches in Leicester). There are also others like a few notable entries in List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester that could be merged into a Churches in Leicester, but there are no churches in this list (Congregational Churches in Leicester) with their own articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are others in Anglican churches in Leicester. There should just be one article (Churches in Leicester) listing churches that have an article. Congregational Churches in Leicester, Anglican churches in Leicester and any similar ones should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, lists containing "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list. While such bluelinks are not a required by Wikipedia:SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, or Wikipedia:LISTN, it is correctly observed that it does follow Wikipedia's common practice to keep those lists which do have blue-links (as opposed to frowned-upon red links), as is the case with the aforementioned pages. This now contains the independently notable, blue-linked Clarendon Park Congregational Church, thus bringing in line with other list-articles and thus negating original claim of the nominator (who stated that this is "a list with no notable entries") and the concern/rationale expressed above. Djflem (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating the article hasn’t negated any deletion argument. It just means that a potential Churches of Leicester article should have one more entry. If lists containing "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list was remotely true, we should have tons of singleton lists with one notable entry, like say Churches dedicated to Saint Peter in the Vatican City. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yet it was important enough to state in the nomination: "a list with no notable entries" as an argument. That has been negated. ~~Please see the guidelines regarding lists for you other claim.~~ Djflem (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC) (07:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC))

It was an observation to highlight the situation of the article, not an argument. Your creation of a single entry, seemingly motivated to invalidate that initial observation, doesn’t affect any of the previous arguments made here nor Bduke‘s argument which clearly calls for deletion even with the presence of a notable entry.

Any fixation or wikilawyering of the original nomination wording is pointless because there are plenty of other rationales and arguments raised and clearly explained during the course of discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no essential difference between a List, where the items get some information added as well as a mere name, and a combination article, which is usually written in paragraph form. It's just a question of format. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, which is why WP:NOTDIR applying to articles obviously includes list articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipefdia's policies and guidelines and the above discussion before repeating your claim.Djflem (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I concur completely with @MarkH21 and DGG:. Hopefully a closing administrator can put this AfD out of its misery and draftify, failing deletion, this list article as there is no consensus for retaining it as-is in Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 21:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well that's a different tune than the claim made on 20 Feb: "This is, for all intents and purposes, a list, not an article, so the WP:GNG arguments simply don't apply.", isn't it? Djflem (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester I would argue that AOAL#8 might be satisfied but as noted unlike parish churches, congregation churches are probably less likely to be notable. Again putting all the churches in List of churches in Leicester might be a good idea but such articles might be too long and the lists have good sourcing as is (noting that this doesn't appear to be a standard list article). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist, if only to fix something borked with the original NAC close and re-open. No prejudice given to closing this "early" due to the age.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - As with the other nomination, this seems like a clear NOTDIRECTORY matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Draftify' because it needs improvements. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was merge to National Iranian Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Confederation of Iranian Students (founded 2009)

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

Fails to meet the criteria for general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and it has been written in a way to mask the lack of notability. The sources found on the internet speak about "Confederation of Iranian Students", refer to the defunct organization of the 1960s and 1970s. Pahlevun (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to have an decent external references. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to National Iranian Congress, the current name of the successor organization. The NIC has generated significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (e.g.:[6], [7], [8]) and passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wasn't properly transcluded for a month, so relisting for more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Alexanderstone Meadows

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

This article needs to be deleted because a one sentence article with no references and no notability. I have also tried finding anything about Alexanderstone Meadows, but nothing showed up, which means there is no significant coverage. I am also nominating Boxbush Meadows for deletion. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete After some searching I did at least find Natural Resources Wales site citation for the place and related documents but that's only of limited help. There is no evidence of any public, journalistic, or academic interest that would demonstrate notability under any applicable guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete That was also the only source I found, no further coverage. The UK has more than 6,000 SSSIs. I'm not aware of a consensus that they are automatically notable. Other unsourced one-liners in this batch of mass-produced "articles" include Boxbush Meadows, Caeau Blaen-bydernyn, and Rhos Garth-fawr. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:RS. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was draftify to AFC. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Signifyd

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

Non notable company with sources that do not establish notability. Article in its current state only promotes the company. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Draftify through AfC/~~Delete~~ The eWEEK profile is a fairly in-depth profile of this company and may qualify as one (1) source, though I do have my doubts because of the way in which the profile was written. Likewise, the Inc. article is a similarly in-depth article about the company and its products. It's at least, conceivable, this company could pass WP:GNG, though I have strong doubts that it would. Nevertheless, there just isn't likely enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Thus, it's a WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH fail. That being said, because it's not the worst of the corporate spam, I've seen, I would be supportive of allowing draftification of this article into non-indexed Draft: namespace and have it go through AfC to provide for a more thorough evaluation. Doug Mehus T·C 05:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Draftify I too like the idea of sending this to AfC. The vast majority of the subject's coverage is WP:ROUTINE or from not fully reliable sources. However, there are some mentions in reliable sources that are in that awkward grey area between trivial and significant. Pushing this to AfC can put the burden wholly on the page creator to prove neutrality and notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Sulfurboy, Yes, I personally wish we'd use AfC both at AfD and DRV more often. How come no bolded !vote, though? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 06:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, Done Sulfurboy (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Sulfurboy, No worries. Doug Mehus T·C 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Draftify through AfC per Doug Mehus !vote rationale. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Draftify through AfC per Doug Mehus.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
4meter4, It's nice to have concurrence from you; I know you and I have disagreed at AfD in the past...a Kansas City Blue Cross Blue Shield Association AfD as I recall. Doug Mehus T·C 01:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur

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

Unremarkable secondary school. Sources that would contribute to GNG not found. b uidhe 15:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 15:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete seemingly all search examples only point to directory listings etc, no independent notability. Fails NSCHOOL.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Syed Bande Ali Husaini

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

Non notable person. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete - even if he could be verified, he was run of the mill - a judge in one smallish city. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Norman Mitchell (comedian)

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

Fails to meet GNG as well as WP:ARTIST Less Unless (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Aside from the 3 sources in the article, there's barely a single source about him. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment WP:ARTIST is for creative types who make things. From the page: "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". Comedians not included.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, comediants are within WP:ENTERTAINER, which he also fails. Less Unless (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Joseph M. LaRocca

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

The only sources I can find for this article are an obituary and a couple of passing refs in snippet view. It’s therefore not clear that the subject passes our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Weak delete Reads like an obituary and does not have enough sources. I wouldn't oppose if a better sourced version were to be created, but now I don't see how this article fits into an encyclopedia. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Chouïa cinema

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

I haven't been able to locate any reliable reviews or other independent content about this documentary. Everything I've pulled up has been short, database-entry style pages, no critical commentary. I don't speak French so I can only search by Google Translate, so I may have missed French sources. I'm happy to withdraw if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Grizzles Orchard, Arizona

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

Another non-settlement in Cochise Co., AZ, it was actually... an orchard. Really. It is marked as such on older topos, and aerial views still show traces of crop rows. All the buildings here go with the orchard, and a basic search gives a ton of geoclickbait and nothing of substance. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete A number of newpapers.com mentions as an orchard, not a populated place. Good peaches apparently [9][10][11] Reywas92^Talk 08:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. I see no indication that the sources presented meet WP:CORPDEPTH, per the detailed analysis of Vexations and HighKing. The arguments for keep simply do not overcome the lack of appropriate sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

NIX (company)

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject Vexations (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's my fault that I failed to include all these sources and I am going to fix the article. However, right now I can provide a range of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject: 1) About Innovation Campus in Kharkiv ~~^[1]~~ ^[2] 2) Company in Global rankings ^[3]^[4] 3) HQ in St. Petersburg in USA ^[5]^[6]^[7] 4) Blockchain Expo 2019 ~~^[8]~~ 5) Regional Development in Florida ~~^[9]~~ ~~^[10]^[11]~~ 6) An Exceptional Pioneer in the Ukrainian IT Industry ^[12]^[13] 7) Law enforcement officers interrupted the work of one of the largest IT companies ^[14] 8) The best Ukrainian IT employers 2018 were announced ^[15] --Wellring (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Wellring, you list https://www.pr.com/press-release/796624 and https://www.prlog.org/12797548-nix-at-the-blockchain-expo-2019.html. The first says it's a press release, the second says "by: NIX". How are those "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Vexations (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Vexations, I do not dispute, because I answered in a hurry. However, it seems to me that I have cited many other sources. -- Wellring (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  Wellring, OK, can you strike those two please? Just wrap a <s></s> tag around them or use the {{Strikethrough}} template? Vexations (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  Vexations, no problems, but I have also added two more sources about "Regional Development" Wellring (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  Wellring, https://www.tampabaynewswire.com/2019/10/15/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida-81128 is also a press release. Vexations (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  
  Wellring, https://itukraine.org.ua/en/nix-solutions-will-participate-in-the-onstruction-of-innovation-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students.html says: "Publication from:NIX Solutions". Is Bossynews a reliable source? Have a look at their head office I don't think so. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  Vexations, you are right. I have striked them. --Wellring (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There are two more relevant sources. ^[1]^[2] --Wellring (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Wellring, Valentin Pivovarov is a Former Contributor. Please see WP:FORBES. Vexations (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, Fails WP:GNG. As all the sources seem to be trivial, primary, or attempts at establishing notability through association. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The initial nominator's claim was: "No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". We were having a good discussion with Vexations. I have provided the sources and while some of them were refuted, most of them were not. Now this is turning into groundless and excathedral attacks on the article. This is not the principle Wikipedists should use. Thus, what is your argument about? If you want to dispute about WP:GNG, we should start from the beginning. However, if we continue to discuss the initial cause of the nomination for deletion, then please study the sources provided more thoroughly. As for your general claim that sources seem to be too trivial and so on, it is unclear which criteria do you use to conclude this. Additionally, please read my answer (to HighKing) below before continuing the discussion. Wellring (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete None of the sources contain Independent Content as per the definition in WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it's outrageous. You are just ignoring a range of sources. Please, clarify for us how come such sources as https://it-kharkiv.com/en (Kharkiv public union); https://ain.ua/en (one of the largest Ukrainian online magazine dedicated to IT business, startups and entrepreneurship); https://tradepostusa.com (U.S. news website); https://www.insightssuccess.com (World Business Magazine); https://stpeteedc.com (St. Petersburg Area Economic Development Corporation); https://thekharkivtimes.com (local news website); https://www.kyivpost.com (The oldest Ukrainian English-language weekly newspaper) contradict the WP:ORGIND and especially Independent Content claim. Your argument looks very superficial. It seems that you just want to grab these various sources of information and strike them by one shot without good reasoning. Most likely, you are not familiar enough with the sources or are quite biased. In general, the initial nominator's claim was: "No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I have provided the sources and while some of them were refuted, most of them were not. Thus, I hope for a sensible and thoughtful decision by the Wikipedia community. Wellring (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Wellring I'm the nominator. I'm biased against what, exactly? Vexations (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Wellring, well, lets see about me being not familiar enough with the sources tradepost USA is an aggregator (click on the read more link). The article was originally published by the Tampa Bay Business Journal (bizjournals.com/tampabay), an outlet of American City Business Journals. There is no original reporting in that article. The only statement it is used for is the claim that NIX has an office in St. Petersburg. When in doubt about a source, one clue that an article is based on a press release is the phrase "... said in a statement". Press releases don't establish notability. Independent reporting does. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, please read my answers more carefully. I wrote: "We were having a good discussion with Vexations". My latest answers do not concern you. I think that the comments of other participants of the discussion are not well founded. Wellring (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a whole lot of WP:IDONTHEARYOU going on right there. Vexations has been kind enough to point out your misunderstanding on WP:ORGIND. You'd do well to take notice rather than doubling down and insisting that I respond to your post which only reinforces the perception that you are not familiar with WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wellring You are correct in that my original !vote only provided one reason whereas not every single reference fails WP:ORGIND - although most of them fail. So, for completeness, here is the full reasoning. I am unable to locate any references containing significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. It is a common misunderstanding of "references must be independent" to mean that the publisher and the topic company have no corporate links. Most miss the fact that the *content* must also meet certain criteria (most of the ones I've linked to). My analysis of the sources you mentioned are below.

This reference from it-kharkiv.com has no credited journalist or source (always a red flag) and is in the format of a press release. The exact same article was also published by Kyiv Post where the entire thing is credited to "Business Wire" (for issuing press releases) and says the article it "By Nix Systems". Therefore no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
There are three references from ain.ua. This one is a mere mention of the company name in a list, no detail whatsoever about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The next fails for the same reason. The third is a straight-forward comment on the position Nix appears ... in a list. Fails for the same reasons. Those references also fail since that is not considered significant coverage.
This tradepostusa reference is not the original publisher which is from Bizjournals. This reference is classic churnalism and is essentially PR. There is no Independent Content - most of the article relies entirely on information provided by the company see the original Press Release here and quotations from connected sources (fails WP:ORGIND). In this article in a totally different publication, the same quotation from J.P.Dubuque is also used - maybe they went to the same "announcement"? There are a lot of other references covering the same event in the same way and they all fail WP:ORGIND.
There are two references from insightsuccess. The first doesn't have any accredited source or journalist (a big red flag). The second appears to be a slideshare of the magazine itself containing the same article. Another example of churnalism. Check out the language for example: "the dream of forming the largest IT company in Ukraine", "against all odds", "unique direction", "grown and reinvented itself time and again", "unique approach and software engineering excellence", "prestigious position in the industry" - and that's just the lede. All of the articles on that site are churnalism. Not only does the article fail WP:ORGIND but I'd argue that the source fails WP:RS.
The STPE reference is PR and published by a connected source - the St. Petersburgh Economic Development Corporation - who also lend some quotes to the official press release - see link above. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This from The Kharkiv Times and provides no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It's essentially a couple of paragraphs that says that the police searched their offices with an explanation by the CEO. It is also not significant coverage and fails WP:SIGCOV.
This article from Kyiv Post (The oldest Ukrainian English-language weekly newspaper) relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives. There is nothing in this article that demonstrates original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, or fact checking that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (as per the definition of "Independent Content") and fails WP:ORGIND.

Wellring, I can acknowledge that it is very difficult for technology companies, even large ones, to be written about in a way which satisfies the criteria for establishing notability. Most articles are regurgitated company news and PR - but one of the easier ways is if the company has been covered by any independent analysts. I am unable to locate any reports on Nix but perhaps you might have more luck? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, HighKing, for the answer. However, I still have some doubts regarding "insightsuccess" and KyivPost.

The slideshare link was included to prevent the argument "doesn't have any accredited source or journalist". It is an accredited source and the above-mentioned slideshare is a confirmation. Moreover, it is not a "material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)" (WP:ORGIND). I mean the article is wide enough for not to be considered as one that is based on a press release. Thus, is it just about style? Business magazine is not an encyclopedia and shouldn't follow the appropriate style. Churnalism is not about the style and the phrases you have provided. Consequently, it is not a churnalism. Therefore, I am not sure if it is a sufficient argument to reject this source.
As for KyivPost, you wrote: "relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives". The article includes some author's opinions, some widely available information, and some quotations that cover just a little part of the text. It is not enough to say that it "relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives". Additionally, in WP:SIGCOV it is stated: "It does not need to be the main topic of the source material". This article does give a general description and overview of the company (it's about Vexations's claim below).--Wellring (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to respond briefly. The slideshare link is further confirmation that there is no accredited journalist but this, by itself, wouldn't put me off. To clarify, it's a red flag to be cautious and a little suspicious, not a red flag to reject the source entirely. But reading the article itself makes it clear that it was largely written by someone associated with the company. An article with genuine Independent Content (or a journalist using their own words) would not use phrases like "the company has taken a unique direction to meet the demands of clients offering specialized managed IT services". That's corporate speak. There's no explanation of any "unique direction" and nothing of any substance or depth in the article. The entire article is corporate speak. The headings use phrases such as "An All-Embracing Vision" and "A True Driver of Excellence". This article isn't even close to containing Independent Content and is most definitely churnalism because it is a corporate brochure dressed up as real journalism. As for KyivPost, can you point to any part of that article that you believe contains the author's opinions? Again, it is classic churnalism and a template of these types of articles - history (make sure of humble beginnings), define problem, describe growth, describe current success, sprinkle some forward looking statements and quotations from execs. The only thing missing for a complete set is a photo with smiling people. I understand you have a different opinion, that's fine, but in my opinion you're kidding yourself if you believe these article meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep there are numerous sources, some of them are reliable and deep enough. Some of them are additional and helpful to understand the topic of the article. Concerning in-depth information on the company, here is a link to reliable KyivPost newspaper source with not CEO's citation but only a reportage: Kyivpost.--KressInsel (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
KressInsel, would you be so kind to point out which sources are reliabe and deep? Of course we occasionally use a minor source to verify a fact, but then, which sources do establish notability? Vexations (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, I found this one: Kyivpost--KressInsel (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

KressInsel, We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. You mentioned numerous sources, some of them are reliable and deep enough. The article you cite as the example of that dedicates barely 15% of its content (20 sentences) to NIX and that includes a quote from the senior vice-president for corporate clients. Sorry, but we need more than that. Vexations (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would add that I already commented on that source above and pointed out that it does not contain Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have written some thoughts on that source above--Wellring (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Concerning the claims that some sources of the article don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Hm, it's not true that in 100% cases all the sources in Wikipedia articles should meet. At least the practice tells that. Take a look at any not-a-stub Wikipedia article and you will find numerous sources that fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. That because such sources support/cite some specific facts or numbers in a particular article. --KressInsel (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Response That's a very common misunderstanding. References are mainly within an article including to support facts and assertions within an article. But that doesn't mean that those references meet the standard required to establish notability of the topic. You can have an article with numerous references that don't meet the requirements for establishing notability. What we are concerned with here are identifying those references that meet the criteria for supporting notability and those references must meet the criteria in GNG/NCORP and those references must meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV in addition to being WP:RS. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you find other articles you believe don't have references that establish notability of the topic, nominate them. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  In fact, that's why I nominated this article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveroad). It was cited as an notable example for another (similar) company, Cleaveroad. I don't think equivalence is a good argument, because it works both ways: If Cleaveroad should be kept because NIX is (supposedly) notable, then NIX should be deleted if Cleaveroad is not notable. Instead, look at what sources exist (beyond merely cited) and if the article is not supported by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then the subject is not notable, especially if it is not in some way unique, important, pioneering, or otherwise remarkable. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, why do you consider Cleveroad to be a similar company? NIX Solutions is a pioneer of Ukrainian IT founded in 1994. It was #7 in the list of the largest Ukrainian IT-companies for 2019 (https://ain.ua/en/2019/02/12/top-50-ukrainian-it-companies/) and #6 for January 2020. The company employs about two thousand employees. --Wellring (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wellring, try to come up with better sources and NIX can have an article. If those sources don't exist, no article; it's really as simple as that. Vexations (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Puff piece with a lack of WP:RS. Dorama285 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Although there are many mentions of the company, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (as shown by the source analysis above). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms

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

Procedural nomination to stop editors from edit warring over whether it should be in draft space. The sources in the article are nowhere near WP:GNG. It doesn't look like there's any coverage in English, and I was able to find some trivial coverage in Japanese. I wasn't able to search in Lithuanian, which is another language that may have coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Draftify until ready for main space. --Slashme (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete non notable opera. Chiune Sugihara is notable and this play is not. In addition, there is no significant coverage in Lithuanian language aside from some mentions about the opera's playing date and links to ticket websites to see the play. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete I've cleaned it up and found a couple of sources, but not nearly enough to establish notability. As Sabbatino, says, they are basically announcements of performances—no reviews or even background stories. At most, a brief mention could be made in the legacy section of Chiune Sugihara (the opera's protagonist). I'm not sure, its worth draftiying unless there is a significant chance of finding further sources which could establish notability. I sincerely doubt it. Incidentally, there have been two other earlier operas based on Chiune Sugihara, an equally non-notable one in English called Incident in Lithuania (2006) [12] and a somewhat more notable one composed by Toshi Ichiyanagi (2006) [13]. There was also the musical Sempo, composed by Miyuki Nakajima (2008) [14]. Leaving the article as a redirect to Chiune Sugihara#Legacy is also a non-starter, because it is very unclear what the actual English title is. Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Vent-Axia

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

Fails WP:NCORP as written due to lack of substantive sources, and I was not able to find anything additional. Being an old company is not a claim to notability by itself. shoy (reactions) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The notability arises from the invention of the electronic window fan and not the age of the company. ^[1] Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.familytreemagazine.com/premium/cooling-trends/

Comment: The Vent-Axia#History section is lacking in detail. This OUP book could help enhance the history during the 1990s if some details about the prior history (APV?) and subsequent history ([15], [16]) can be found and blended. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep coverage is significant enough, and it's a well known brand. Peter James (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. See the following peer reviewed sources:

Silverman, Suzann ; Cinguina, Jennifer (July 1994). Waves of investment; More than hot air. Vol. 7(7). p. 84. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Service, M.W (1969). The use of insect suction traps for sampling mosquitoes. Vol. 63(5). p. 656-663. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Senave, Marieline ; Reynders, Glenn ; Sodagar, Behzad ; Verbeke, Stijn ; Saelens, Dirk (5 August 2019). Mapping the pitfalls in the characterisation of the heat loss coefficient from on-board monitoring data using ARX models. Vol. 197. p. 214-228. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Walker, David (March 2014). ON TOP OF THE WORLD?. p. 22-27. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep per 4meter4. The firm also appears in the OUP book A Long Time in Making (edit: which I realise AllyD already mentioned above), a history of Smiths Group, which bought Vent-Axia in 1992; the book also refers to it as then being "the leading commercial fan manufacturer". If not keep, then Merge into Smiths Group. YorkshireLad (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Striking previous Delete !vote. I do not have access to the references posted by 4meter but given that they are described as peer-reviewed sources and that they contain in-depth information on the company, plus the book reference posted by AllyD previously, there is a high probability that multiple references exist that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Do these sources provide WP:ORGDEPTH? If they don't, a merge might be more appropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Pulau Besar Museum

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

fails WP:GNG and ORG. Nothing in gnews for both English and Malay names. One would expect a museum that has been open for 9 years would get some coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. I checked and found a couple of references but agree than nothing notable. Lonley planet guide was one. Another was a passing mention in a research handbook, but nothing demonstrates notability. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Tupocracy

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

new neologism, no evidence "Tupocracy" is a notable or even real term and this is all original research. The few sources that even contain the word aren't reliable and the rest make no mention of "Tupocracy" Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Used a total of one time by another Nigerian scholar in passing. All other mentions are blog posts promoting the inventor. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Slo Top 30

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

A replication of the article SloTop50, it is poorly written and provides little context with almost little or no sources. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 08:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RS. --BonkHindrance (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

STOCS lite

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

Lacks notability. One source given, no other ones found in Gbooks or in the 48 Ghits[17]. No article for company, no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

ILVE appliances

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

Primary coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Magister (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete Magister claim that they have received significant coverage here in Il Sole 24 Ore. I haven't been able to find a copy of that article though. I was unable to find any more sources. Vexations (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete: The brief unsigned piece from the "Business and Job" section of Il Sole 24 Ore does claim that this company has an established market position ("Fra i marchi al top un posto solido") but is that more than noting a company sustaining its business? Searches find listings for their machines and spare parts, as well as inclusion of one of their machines in a "Top 5 espresso machines for coffee lovers" item on the Fox News site, but I do not see the detailed coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete - besides the the total lack of coverage, does making supplies for coffee machines really rate an encyclopedia article? Bearian (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

AnimOuch!

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

No good sources found in Gbooks or in the 58 Ghits[18] beyond the one listed in the article. Fails WP:N. No obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

MiG Arogan

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

can't find any sources to verify the billboard claim, no other coverage and pretty much everything here is primary or unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important to have voices from the Caribbean and from the hip hop communities help judge what is notable source material and what is unreliable. None of the citations are primary. I hesitate to delete articles like this when there are so many other articles by musicians at similar stages in career with similar, but English, sources not being flagged.--Heathart (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per Praxidicae. I am not finding reliable sources, and if the sources don't exist to write a good article, it shouldn't exist regardless of how much we like the article topic. b uidhe 14:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Johnpacklambert and for want of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources might not be primary, but neither are they reliable. In 2020, everybody knows we are a charity whose mission is to write about notable people, places, things, and ideas, not a free web-host to lift up people. It's longstanding practice for the whole community, not just experts, to decide on notability. For what it's worth, I am a member of the executive committee of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law section of the New York State Bar Association, I live in New York City, and have edited many articles on outsider artists who are nonetheless notable musicians. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure that "everyone" knows what the purpose of Wikipedia is. There is such a long history of inprint items that look at some level and claim on some level to be encyclopedic but allowed people to pay to be included (such as Who's Who), so there may be some expectation that Wikipedia can be gamed as well. We also have articles that have existed for over 14 years that are actually just campaign brochures for candidates who were never elected, so it is still easy for people to get the wrong impression which is why we have to try harder to remove articles that do not fit our guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Tinnama Padukunnama, Tellarinda

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

Undeveloped, undersourced article. Fails: WP:Notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of any notability or even if the film was released, although social media sources suggest a release in 2008. Searches reveal the usual raft of social media and advertising. The whole video is available to watch on YouTube but nothing that I could find to suggest notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters

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

Characters in a WP:MILL anime series that is "based on dinosaurs and explosions". Almost entirely unsourced, except for a bit of trivia which could also be added to the main article. Fails WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT. No indication that these characters as a group, or any of them (as opposed to their anime series) have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources, though. At any rate, the natural habitat for such fancruft are fan wikis. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger. ~~The series itself is only borderline notable and~~ Even if the series itself is notable, we really don't need a plot-heavy list of the characters. This isn't Wikia. --Slashme (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Slashme: Borderline notable? You kidding me? Super Sentai lasted for decades and their annual sales are billions of yen. ミラ P 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Move back to draft space. Although it’s doubtless a valid content fork, I still incubated it there to address possible issues with the article’s quality, but I guess nom moved it there just so it could die there. Yes, fancruft and all that stuff, but deletion is not cleanup. That said, I see no reason to move it to main space just so it could be deleted. Ping Sgeureka who was the first one to come up with the idea and also Lullabying who also suggested the idea. ミラ P 15:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Some more background: I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Lifeforms Evolien, where opinions were all over the place, but I thought that the most consensual outcome was to implement Miraclepine's proposed merger and allow another AfD of the combined list. I acknowledge that it wasn't really clear whether people thought that the merged list should stay in draftspace first, though, and there might have well been reasons for keeping it there. I'm not opposed to moving it back to draft space if people think the content has some potential for inclusion - I'm just not seeing it, for the reasons mentioned above. Sandstein 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 15:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Move back to draft space per Miraclepine. I'm sure it was a good faith move on Sandstein's part, but moving it back seems the most appropriate course of action to me. — Hunter Kahn 15:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Move back to draft space, with the understanding that all of the content will need to be removed and rewritten completely. This is exactly the sort of excessively long unsourced meandering cruft that gets uncontroversially deleted at AfD. Reyk _YO! 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Move back to draft space and remember to preserve the full edit history of the articles that were merged. If someone believes they can fix the article, then they should be given time to try. Dream Focus 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources says it all: our latest Signpost report states that, There have been many articles on notable topics deleted here simply because we didn't have access to the sources in Japan. The deletion process here is extremely biased against non-English sources and topics. If it hasn't been discussed in an English-language source, there are a fair number of editors who have to be reminded that sources are not required to be in English, and that it is much more difficult to get sources from a country where there has been less effort at getting older sources online. It's live-action, not anime, and explosions are routine in the franchise. ミラ P 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Move back to draft space and remember to preserve the full edit history of the articles that were merged. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

[1] ttps://itukraine.org.ua/en/nix-solutions-will-participate-in-the-onstruction-of-innovation-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students.html

[2] ttps://it-kharkiv.com/en/nix-solutions-participates-in-creating-innovations-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students/

[3] ttps://ain.ua/en/2018/12/11/ukrainian-it-companies-in-software-500/

[4] ttps://ain.ua/en/2020/02/19/20-companies-from-ukraine-among-global-outsourcing-100/

[5] ttps://tradepostusa.com/ukrainian-software-provider/

[6] ttps://stpetecatalyst.com/nix-united-sets-up-u-s-headquarters-in-st-pete/

[7] ttps://stpeteedc.com/ukrainian-tech-provider-nix-united-opens-u-s-hq-in-st-petersburg-fl/

[8] ttps://www.prlog.org/12797548-nix-at-the-blockchain-expo-2019.html

[9] ttps://www.pr.com/press-release/796624

[10] ttps://www.bossynews.com/news/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida/

[11] ttps://www.tampabaynewswire.com/2019/10/15/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida-81128

[12] ttps://www.insightssuccess.com/nix-solutions-ltd-exceptional-pioneer-ukrainian-industry/

[13] ttps://www.slideshare.net/Insightssuccess/the-10-best-performing-software-testing-solution-providers-2018

[14] ttps://thekharkivtimes.com/2015/09/21/law-enforcement-officers-do-not-let-personnel-one-of-the-largest-it-companies-to-work/

[15] ttps://ain.ua/en/2018/12/17/best-ukrainian-it-employers-2018/

[16] ttps://www.kyivpost.com/business/kharkiv-taking-steps-to-become-business-and-tech-powerhouse.html

[17] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/valentinpivovarov/2019/01/22/legaltechbrexit/#7a1da14bbea8

[18] ttps://www.familytreemagazine.com/premium/cooling-trends/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[2]

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 02:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 06:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Brendan Buckley|Brendan Buckley]]||{{Time ago|20200203051215}}||1||2033||0||'''2140.69'''
+|[[#Brendan Buckley|Brendan Buckley]]||{{Time ago|20200203051215}}||1||2033||0||'''2154.42'''
 |-
-|[[#List of Baptist churches in Leicester|List of Baptist churches in Leicester]]||{{Time ago|20200119081727}}||13||45426||0||'''2026.54'''
+|[[#List of Baptist churches in Leicester|List of Baptist churches in Leicester]]||{{Time ago|20200119081727}}||13||45426||0||'''2040.26'''
 |-
-|[[#Congregational Churches in Leicester|Congregational Churches in Leicester]]||{{Time ago|20200119081606}}||8||66488||0||'''2026.51'''
+|[[#Congregational Churches in Leicester|Congregational Churches in Leicester]]||{{Time ago|20200119081606}}||8||67186||0||'''2040.24'''
 |-
-|[[#Confederation of Iranian Students (founded 2009)|Confederation of Iranian Students (founded 2009)]]||{{Time ago|20200207122741}}||0||2829||0||'''1880.93'''
+|[[#Confederation of Iranian Students (founded 2009)|Confederation of Iranian Students (founded 2009)]]||{{Time ago|20200207122741}}||0||2829||0||'''1894.66'''
 |-
-|[[#Alexanderstone Meadows|Alexanderstone Meadows]]||{{Time ago|20200211021523}}||2||3126||0||'''1473.49'''
+|[[#Alexanderstone Meadows|Alexanderstone Meadows]]||{{Time ago|20200211021523}}||2||3126||0||'''1487.22'''
 |-
-|[[#Signifyd|Signifyd]]||{{Time ago|20200226053459}}||0||5040||0||'''513.78'''
+|[[#Signifyd|Signifyd]]||{{Time ago|20200226053459}}||0||5040||0||'''527.5'''
 |-
-|[[#Used Car Roadshow|Used Car Roadshow]]||{{Time ago|20200227024700}}||0||3231||1||'''485.22'''
+|[[#Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur|Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur]]||{{Time ago|20200227093900}}||0||2879||1||'''478.14'''
 |-
-|[[#Subhankar Sarkar|Subhankar Sarkar]]||{{Time ago|20200227035632}}||0||1461||0||'''481.72'''
+|[[#Syed Bande Ali Husaini|Syed Bande Ali Husaini]]||{{Time ago|20200227024700}}||1||2347||1||'''448.92'''
 |-
-|[[#Andhra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee|Andhra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee]]||{{Time ago|20200227041342}}||0||1804||0||'''480.58'''
+|[[#Norman Mitchell (comedian)|Norman Mitchell (comedian)]]||{{Time ago|20200227025100}}||1||3437||1||'''448.64'''
 |-
-|[[#Chhattisgarh Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee|Chhattisgarh Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee]]||{{Time ago|20200227041829}}||0||1840||0||'''480.38'''
+|[[#Joseph M. LaRocca|Joseph M. LaRocca]]||{{Time ago|20200227025200}}||1||2744||1||'''448.52'''
 |-
-|[[#Driving-Tests.org|Driving-Tests.org]]||{{Time ago|20200227032705}}||0||3051||0||'''467.98'''
+|[[#Chouïa cinema|Chouïa cinema]]||{{Time ago|20200228014400}}||0||2693||1||'''429.84'''
 |-
-|[[#Malghani Balouch|Malghani Balouch]]||{{Time ago|20200227033003}}||0||2277||0||'''467.93'''
+|[[#Grizzles Orchard, Arizona|Grizzles Orchard, Arizona]]||{{Time ago|20200227041639}}||1||2118||0||'''429.25'''
 |-
-|[[#Thornhill Francis Broome|Thornhill Francis Broome]]||{{Time ago|20200227083246}}||0||1373||0||'''467.92'''
+|[[#NIX (company)|NIX (company)]]||{{Time ago|20200227145635}}||0||5431||0||'''427.36'''
 |-
-|[[#Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur|Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur]]||{{Time ago|20200227093900}}||0||2879||1||'''464.41'''
+|[[#Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms|Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms]]||{{Time ago|20200227071251}}||1||2558||0||'''420.45'''
 |-
-|[[#Nektony|Nektony]]||{{Time ago|20200227102208}}||0||1698||0||'''462.36'''
+|[[#Vent-Axia|Vent-Axia]]||{{Time ago|20200228120500}}||0||3779||2||'''414.05'''
 |-
-|[[#AHG Industry|AHG Industry]]||{{Time ago|20200227110900}}||0||1899||0||'''459.8'''
+|[[#Pulau Besar Museum |Pulau Besar Museum (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20200227143123}}||1||1927||0||'''413.65'''
 |-
-|[[#Shang Na|Shang Na]]||{{Time ago|20200227125337}}||0||1300||0||'''454.84'''
+|[[#Tupocracy|Tupocracy]]||{{Time ago|20200227153305}}||1||1842||0||'''410.63'''
 |-
-|[[#Mirasoft|Mirasoft]]||{{Time ago|20200227145040}}||0||1298||0||'''448.92'''
+|[[#Slo Top 30|Slo Top 30]]||{{Time ago|20200228083610}}||0||1642||0||'''409.45'''
 |-
-|[[#HYS Enterprise|HYS Enterprise]]||{{Time ago|20200227145351}}||0||1310||0||'''448.68'''
+|[[#STOCS lite|STOCS lite]]||{{Time ago|20200228085956}}||0||1201||0||'''408.26'''
 |-
-|[[#Kanishka Gupta|Kanishka Gupta]]||{{Time ago|20200227171829}}||0||1531||0||'''441.48'''
+|[[#ILVE appliances|ILVE appliances]]||{{Time ago|20200228112312}}||0||1475||0||'''400.94'''
 |-
-|[[#Ilmi Kitab Khana|Ilmi Kitab Khana]]||{{Time ago|20200225111657}}||2||2576||0||'''438.53'''
+|[[#Magister (company)|Magister (company)]]||{{Time ago|20200228114214}}||0||1792||0||'''400.04'''
 |-
-|[[#Argentina Trade and Cultural Office |Argentina Trade and Cultural Office (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20200227140802}}||0||2379||0||'''435.87'''
+|[[#AnimOuch!|AnimOuch!]]||{{Time ago|20200228114441}}||0||1451||0||'''399.76'''
 |-
-|[[#Skyscraper (software)|Skyscraper (software)]]||{{Time ago|20200227023331}}||1||1526||0||'''435.86'''
+|[[#MiG Arogan|MiG Arogan]]||{{Time ago|20200228120800}}||0||3022||1||'''398.77'''
 |-
-|[[#It Was a Mutual Decision|It Was a Mutual Decision]]||{{Time ago|20200227024200}}||1||3187||1||'''435.28'''
+|[[#Tinnama Padukunnama, Tellarinda|Tinnama Padukunnama, Tellarinda]]||{{Time ago|20200228014300}}||1||3746||2||'''395.13'''
 |-
-|[[#Syed Bande Ali Husaini|Syed Bande Ali Husaini]]||{{Time ago|20200227024700}}||1||2347||1||'''435.19'''
+|[[#List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters|List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters]]||{{Time ago|20200227093604}}||1||6608||0||'''393.33'''
 |}
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexanderstone Meadows}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signifyd}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Used Car Roadshow}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhankar Sarkar}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhattisgarh Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driving-Tests.org}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malghani Balouch}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornhill Francis Broome}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nektony}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AHG Industry}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shang Na}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirasoft}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HYS Enterprise}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanishka Gupta}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilmi Kitab Khana}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina Trade and Cultural Office (2nd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyscraper (software)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Was a Mutual Decision}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Bande Ali Husaini}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Mitchell (comedian)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph M. LaRocca}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chouïa cinema}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzles Orchard, Arizona}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIX (company)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vent-Axia}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Besar Museum (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tupocracy}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slo Top 30}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STOCS lite}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ILVE appliances}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magister (company)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimOuch!}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiG Arogan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinnama Padukunnama, Tellarinda}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters}}