Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sengol}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamale-Louisville Sister City Relationship}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamale-Louisville Sister City Relationship}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 6051}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 6051}}

Revision as of 02:26, 28 May 2023

< May 27 May 29 >

Purge server cache

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. There is consensus among established editors that the sceptre has sufficient coverage. New editor and IP keeps were largely discounted in this consideration. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sengol

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

Trivial topic that hugely violates WP:NRVE, since there is no pre-2023 source that describes the sceptre as anything beyond a gift presented to Nehru. Can be merged with the Indian Parliament page. SubtleChuckle (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sengol is an object that is similar to the Mace of the United States House of Representatives. It may have been treated as a walking stick in the past. But, the current government has installed it as a symbol of parliament's power --PastaMonk 01:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong to Keep This is a current event many new generation people don't know the history of Sangol and it is getting current notable media attention for the new Indian parliament. People wanted to know more even what is described here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushlendratripathi (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Modi Opens India's New Parliament Building as Opposition Boycotts". The New York Times. 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamale-Louisville Sister City Relationship

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

This is mentioned at Tamale, Ghana#Sister_cities and Louisville, Kentucky#Sister_cities. But it is just a fact, not a topic for an encyclopedia article. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Walt YoderThe article is relevant. The cities have done quite a lot together, and @JML1148 is right that the article has not said much about what the cities have done together. So, more content shuld be added, so that the deletion notice is revoked. This particular sister city relationship has built infrastructure, offered scholarships, undertook yearly exchange programs and regular visits. @Tutwakhamoe has a point that more content should be added. So let's add more content and remove it from the delete notice. This sister city relationship has stood for nearly 50 years. I think it is quite relevant. Let's allow a few weeks for more content to be added. Ihikky (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Building infrastructure, offering scholarships, participating in student exchanges and having foreign visits are ALL WP:ROUTINE event, there is not much things about the sister city relationship between Tamale and Louisville that sets them apart from the sister city relationship between other cities. Considering sister city relationship between even larger cities don't even have their articles, I'm not so optimistic about how this one is somehow notable enough in source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The sources and detail is just WP:ROUTINE, and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the relationship @Ihikky: If you have anything else that can be added, please do so in the next few days. AfD notices also cannot be removed until the discussion has ended. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 6051

Southern Pacific 6051 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of excruciating detail, but no indications of notability. Individual locomotives are seldom notable, and those that are almost always are preserved steam locomotives. EMD E9 claims 42 examples are preserved, this locomotive isn't unique and fails GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per Pi.1415926535 Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 15:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think the assertion about preserved locomotives mostly being steam ones in the nomination is true. It certainly once was true, that the only recognized-as-historic ones were steam. But, if one counts locos in heritage railways, i think it's not true, and it may not be true even if you only considered locomotives preserved in static display at museums. (I also am not sure...i need to go browse the relevant lists.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good job misrepresenting my words, I said most notable (for Wikipedia) locomotives are steam locomotives, not that most preserved locomotives are steam. Anyways, this comment is extremely WP:POINTy and I trust it will be disregarded entirely by the closer, especially since you've failed to refute the lack of notability arguments at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trainsandotherthings, I'm sorry that you think I misrepresented anything. In my mind "preserved locomotive" pretty much equals "notable locomotive", and from my editing in lists of preserved locomotives in the U.S. and Canada, I have the impression that there the (preserved) contents of museums and heritage railways includes a whole lot of post-steam ones, perhaps more than there are steam ones (and perhaps more than the set of preserved steam locomotives plus historic notable steam ones that were not preserved). You said "notable locomotives" are almost all steam ones; it is my belief that was certainly true in the past but I think (and I said I am not sure) that may not be true now. This is all sort of an aside, with respect to this specific locomotive, but it does go to the credibility of the nomination. I "!voted" Keep.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the museum, could be a merge target there as well. Nothing particularly special about this locomotive, technical-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's interestingly marginal, but after my BEFORE search, between coverage in two books, the Sacramento Bee blurb, and references in several railroad specific books, including model railroad books, lend me to believe the engine's been commented on enough times in secondary sources to be eligible for an article. I'm a weak because I could probably make an argument that nothing is truly significant coverage in a true "here's a feature article specifically on the locomotive" sense, but significant doesn't necessarily mean long, and there's enough sources here to write an encyclopaedia article on. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I previously closed this as "keep", but reopened the discussion per request at my talk for another admin to take a look, as I'm short on time this evening. LFaraone 00:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close enough for a second relist despite a sizable amount of discussion already.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a "weak keep", but that's the railfan in me speaking. Policy-wise, I'd redirect to the museum. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the options should only be to Keep or to Merge. There is substantial info in the article which should not be lost by merely redirecting. Looking at the suggested redirect target, it doesn't look easy to merge substantial information to there, although perhaps a good amount could be put into a large footnote there. I prefer "Keep". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination asserts that the article EMD E9 claims 42 "are preserved". In fact the article was claiming that "42 survive today" which is different. And, "today" was apparently in the year 1997. This edit in 2019 removed mention of the source ("Andrew Toppan's list") and the fact that the list was prepared in 1997. So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration).
I wonder, did the deletion nominator know the claim was bad? In retrospect, their wording in the nom implies doubt. I am restoring that mention of the 1997 Andrew Toppanm (whatever that is), but I also wonder how many other sources were removed in bad editing before and since. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration). That's both speculation and original research. And even if this were the one and only preserved E9 (which it verifiably isn't), that doesn't make it automatically notable. All I said was that EMD E9 claimed 42 survive, or were you expecting me to go and verify the exact number of E9s which are preserved? This locomotive still does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. LFaraone 22:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Urban Pedagogy

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

Fails WP:NORG. Falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. At first sight, you'll see coverage in sources who pass reliable sources in name, but as you dive in, there is a lot of said/explained executive director of the Center for Urban Pedagogy, courtesy of CUP type contents making them fail intellectually independent, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Plentiful of routine announcement type coverages of routine nature do not count towards notability.Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've done a little clean-up editing on the prose, structure, and sourcing, which it needed. This is a pretty influential firm in Brooklyn, as evidenced by the grants and awards. I only skimmed the surface on that, but it will do. Libray of Congress validates its notability and lists detailed info about the center, which includes "Civic improvement, City planning, Political participation, Art, and social action". World Cat pulls up hundreds upon hundreds of books and other information about Center for Urban Pedagogy. For some reason, Authority control retrieved an erroneous WorldCat link that doesn't work, so I've listed the current WorldCat link under "External links". — Maile (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment Which reliable secondary broad audience actual sources have intellectually independent, deep coverage on the organization? The Smithsonian magazine already in the article for example is a lot of "executive director says..." which fails independence criteria. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which fails independence criteria - No, there's independence of a source for the purpose of establishing notability, and then there's independence of a specific quote for the purposes of including a claim in the article. The Smithsonian is an independent source writing about this subject, and thus contributes to notability. If I were to include a bold claim based on a quote from the ED in the article, you'd be right to say that the quote is sourced to the ED, which is not independent. No need to get into that here, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 redirect‎ to California State Railroad Museum#Diesel locomotives. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak 281

Amtrak 281 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find even a single reliable source discussing this locomotive. Highly unlikely for an ordinary diesel locomotive to be individually notable outside of its model (EMD F40PH). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. This was a weak deletion rationale and equally weak arguments to Keep this article. But I see a consensus to Keep the article from those participanting in this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Piriz

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

I had redirected this article, but it was reverted. Fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Abdin

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

Doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC as I only found databases on him while expanding the article, nor WP:NOLYMPICS as he didn't get a medal. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks to have a really good chance of notability - I've found when Olympedia gives bios, especially decent-sized ones - they turn out to have enough coverage. The Olympedia piece alone could actually be considered SIGCOV in my opinion, as it has three decent-sized paragraphs. Also, the offline source in the article looks like likely sigcov, as his name is in the title (it seems to be titled "The Death of Mahmoud Abdin").

BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the obituary already cited on the page (which is not a paid obituary, but a feature in the sports page), whose title is translated as mentioned by User:BeanieFan11, there are plenty of articles that satisfy WP:GNG in Al-Ahram. As an example, the main headline of the sports page on February 13, 1936 is "تكريم الاستاذ عابدين بطل مصر في لعب الشيش" (Honoring of Professor Abdin, Egyptian Champion in Fencing). The online database for Al-Ahram is subscription only, but I am happy to send PDFs if necessary to confirm (although they would be in Arabic). Canadian Paul 03:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It did pass WP:GNG. Agreed with Canadian Paul. CastJared (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well. The Olympedia gave me a dead link, that's why I replaced it with what I found and nominated for deletion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can withdraw the nomination and close it yourself with a non-admin closure if you've changed your mind. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be possible. I tried, but 7 days have not yet passed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the guidelines here. But I will do it for you as you have clearly withdrawn the nom, no worries. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_28&oldid=1157352422"