Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 10: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:47, 10 November 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 09	November 11 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Bernardi

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

The subject fails WP:GNG for the lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While Bernardi did play (just) one match on the main tour level, WP:NSPORT/FAQ states that "the topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." I haven't been able to find much in my searches beyond promotional press releases, passing mentions/shallow coverage, match recaps or databases. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Brazil. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty much your average Joe. 216.236.148.41 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage to warrant an article. Fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:54, 10 November 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. ✗plicit 05:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teatro Metropólitan

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

Fails WP:NGEO. Only source that could potentially be described as RS is [1], all others are self-published sources, or IMDb (and passing mention to boot). Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Mexico. Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not attempting to change your opinion, but would you mind providing some of that? It would be beneficial if you, me, or some other editor could use them to improve the article rather than delete it. Fermiboson (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above. 63.115.34.165 (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historic theater, here [2] and [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some mentions of the upgrade in the last few decades [4] Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 10 November 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 07:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki

AfDs for this article:

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

After twenty years, there have been basically no reliable third-party-sources written about this webcomic. It was mentioned by Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, but notability isn't inherited. There's an interview by ComixTalk, but that seems to be a blog. After twenty years, you'd think there would be some coverage in reliable sources, that when I google the name of the webcomic, I'd get some results beyond Reddit posts, this very Wiki page, and the TVTropes article, but there aren't any except decades-old sources of questionable usability mentioning the comic in WP:PASSING. I don't see how this remotely passes WP:GNG, and I'm kind of confused how previous AfDs haven't been successful. HappyWith (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. HappyWith (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Alas, no mention of it in my books. Looks like all we have is the WCCA win, the Comixtalk interview, and the Sequential Tart review. The only other thing listed in the article is this podcast, which doesn't come across as usable for notability. I have pretty low standards, but this is sadly not quite enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought there might be two claims of notability in the lead paragraph, but upon further reading it turns out that "is a member of the Create a Comic Project" just means the comics were used in a "Free Public Library as an after-school program". And then "won a Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards" just means this won a web poll where "Winners of awards receive an individualized web banner". There is no significant coverage in reliable sources for any of this, and it is unbelievable that the highest achievement this has reached is "won a web banner in an online poll" and "was used in an after-school drawing program at a local library" and we have have articles on these things. I am in agreement with the editors above that this does not meet even the lowest standards and it is crazy to think, after some of the far better sourced articles I've seen deleted, that this article has existed for twenty years and three deletion discussions. It is amazing that articles this bad have existed this long. Elspea756 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 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 - nominator withdrew (non-admin closure)‎. St Anselm (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Blakesley

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

Very few refs on page for many years. Nothing much to suggest notability. Also apparently incorporates text from another encyclopedia, which doesn't seem good. JMWt (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and England. JMWt (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, see the assessment of tertiary sources in general at WP:TERTIARY and a discussion of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition's reliability in particular at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Public domain. Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability and they can be used with care as sources but they are definitely not preferred.

The Encyclopædia Britannica series has been around for two centuries and generally viewed as one of the best (if not the best) encyclopaedias

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is unreliable for the many things that have changed: aereoplanes, relativity, plastics, etc. For historical topics, the concern is that interpretations of history may have changed: Reconstruction after the American Civil War, the Boer War, etc. Also, archeology or the discovery of old texts: Dead Sea Scrolls, Norse colony in Newfoundland, etc.

I think in this case, we're pretty safe. Looking at the Wikisource copy: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blakesley, there's little interpretation done - basically a short factual article with no ideological bias. Blakesley died just 24 years earlier, so there weren't archaeological discoveries to be made. There's no science or technology. I think it's a solid ref for this particular article.

I don't find this article especially interesting or compelling but it is encyclopaedic. Blakely was notable in 1911 and by our rules, that means he still is today.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues. First if we can use encyclopedia for notability, second if we can incorporate text.

On the first I disagree that we can assume that Britannia 1911 uses the same criteria of notability as we do. At the time it was focussed on minor British personalities and does not necessarily give the sibstantial coverage we need.

But even if we do accept it as a reliable source to show notability, we need at least 2 others.

On the second issue, I do not believe we should be "incorporating text" from other encyclopedia even if it is from 1911. JMWt (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Looking at Google Books, it looks like Blakesley was frequently quoted back in the day: [5] That page of search results doesn't establish notability but it does indicate that Blakesley was a 19th century "influencer".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make interesting points -- I'll come back to them tomorrow. I appreciate your thoughtfulness about our content.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote letters to newspapers. If that is the criteria for notability, there are hundreds perhaps thousands of others who could be included on the same rationale. JMWt (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we can presume that any article in the 1911 can have an article here. It's no strecth to imagine that there is a second reliable source about him somewhere. In addition, deans are generally (but not necessarily) notable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest), for example, and the Dean of Lincoln article: we have an article on every Dean since 1722. But he would possibly be notable just for his works on Aristotle and Herodotus. St Anselm (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of priests below the level of Bishop have been deleted at AfD recently. Fwiw. JMWt (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this is the same person [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't open your link but there is also a substantial section on someone who sounds like the same person in this book.

I appreciate it appears that I'm now arguing against my own nom, but sometimes it is worth continuing to look for sources. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like a SNOW. How do I withdraw a nom? JMWt (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just say that you withdraw, and someone else will close it. St Anselm (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I withdraw JMWt (talk) 17:27, 10 November 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 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. ✗plicit 05:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just Visiting (band)

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

None of the information in the article is cited, completely fails WP:BAND, has no WP:SIGCOV from external sources DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided and it is hard to find anything in Google due to do commonality of the name. Royal88888 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X-Arcade

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, lacks any WP:SIGCOV other than two dubious gaming magazine articles DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If by dubious gaming magazines you mean Pcmag and IGN both have been deemed reliable by wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. ~~I’m not sure if that is enough to keep the article but thr sourcing appears to be fine unless I’m missing something~~.--67.70.101.104 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the 2 reliable sources already in the article, there's an additional 2 reliable source reviews by Joystiq (now hosted by Engadget): [7] and Nintendo World Report: [8] --Mika1h (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep combining the sources in the article plus the ones added in this discussion means we have four wources deemed reliable by the wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources which should be enough to avoid deletion.--67.70.101.104 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 05:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WQDD-LP

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

This radio station was silent even before it shut down, no evidence online that it even existed other than FCC filings DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A quick search of records show this station was off the air more than it was on. It's original license to cover is listed as 11/28/2006, it went silent a day later. I can't say for certain if it ever launched. It supposedly resumed operations on 05/31/2007 only to fall silent again on 03/17/2008. This pattern of silent for months, on for a few days, then silent again would repeat over and over and over until 07/09/2015 when when it's final license to cover was requested to be cancelled, that took place on 07/13/2015. There is a Special Temporary Authority filed in 2016, but it was never acted upon by the FCC. The callsign and license were officially cancelled on 07/13/2015, not in 2016 or 2018 as the article states.

Beyond this, I can find nothing regarding the station outside of Wikipedia mirrors and FCC documents. Nothing on Golden Age Communications either. The addresses for the station, in FCC documents, all track back to residental homes. In short, I don't think this station ever existed outside of paper. Delete per GNG and former NMEDIA rules, while didn't allow for this kind of page in the first place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent July 2015 dating for the license cancellation that might appear in certain FCC searches appears to be little more than a quirk in FCC's CDBS database with regard to reflecting these cancellations; that was actually when a frequency change from 93.5 to 107.9 was licensed. The station itself has its "license cancelled" status dated June 28, 2018. The owners (theoretically) pulled the plug for financial reasons in September 2016 (this is the aforementioned STA request), the FCC informed the station in May 2018 it was on the verge of losing its license for not resuming broadcasts within a year, and a lack of response led to the license being canceled that June.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcquidditch: Thanks for the corrections. When the FCC switched from CDBS (the old filing system) to LMS (the new one), things got lost, messed up, etc. Since that's probably what happened there. Again, thanks for the correction. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is definitely a leftover article from the days when we were so lax on notability for broadcast stations that we were creating stubs on pretty much any licensed facility, regardless of whether there was anything else we could even verifiably say. The GNG requires much more significant coverage than could possibly be provided by FCC records, of course, and even the NMEDIA essay's old overpresumption of notability still required reliable sources (though again, enforcement of that was not particularly stringent for too long). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sourcing is available to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the creator of this stub back in those more lax days, I have no quarrel with this nomination, especially given current standards. Note for the nominator for future, though – it's generally considered good form to notify the article creator and any significant contributors to the article about the nomination on their talk pages. Mlaffs (talk) 23:17, 10 November 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. I Withdraw my Nomination (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Wahs

AfDs for this article:

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

All 3 sources listed are Unreliable, Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:NGEO. (Second Nomination) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Yemen. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its an administrative unit which are generally presumed notable even if sources currently in the article are unreliable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Fails WP:NGEO "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"

Fails WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Fails SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV, making the article fail WP:GNG, and even then it would only be presumed notable.

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would an 'Uzlah not be notable? Schwede 66 07:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:GEOLAND which is our WP:SNG Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still fails WP:GEOLAND, and it says Presumed and WP:GNG still applies and states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Fails SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

The sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV, making the article fail WP:GNG & WP:GEOLAND, and even then it would only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PaulGamerBoy360 You misunderstood what @Schwede66: said, - they stated that Al-Wahs is a 'Uzlah our article calls it a sub-district. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i deleted that part but the fact is it still fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, & WP:GEOLAND. & even if it didn't fail them it would still only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as explained above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no it does not, WP:GEOLAND states the following: "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presumed notable is notable; recognized as a legal place and is populated. Source is not merely a map, so meets WP:GEOLAND. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed notable is NOT notable See this

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and it doesn't even have "Significant coverage in reliable sources" 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The implicit deletion reason here is WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is to say that this article's subject fail[s] to meet the relevant notability guideline (emphasis mine). In this case, we have a very simple set of facts: this is very clearly a geographical entity, and the relevant SNG is WP:GEOLAND. What we have here is quite simply a legally recognized populated place, so the relevant notability criterion is met, and there is no good policy basis for deletion that has been presented. That there is news about events that have happened here (for example, coverage of a murder in the town [9], [10], [11], [12]) is secondary to the fact that the relevant notability criterion is met.
Additionally, the claim that there's no significant coverage of this town seems a bit like a stretch. Even with my extremely limited knowledge of Arabic, I was able to find a digital source covering road paving in the town—I'm fairly confident that an individual with better understanding of the local language/culture and local print sources would be able to build this article out. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and add the sources, there is no point in mentioning them if you aren't going to add them. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you add the sources I will Withdraw the Nomination. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 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 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. ✗plicit 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Sierra Arts Council

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

This is not a notable council, it is for a small county and has little external coverage. The article cites no sources other than its own website. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 10 November 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 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. ✗plicit 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Americas Business Trust

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

Fails WP:GNG, cites no reliable external sources, no media coverage of its efforts at all DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Latin America, Caribbean, and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article currently consists of two dead links. I found some more sources, though I doubt that they are independent as some of them are copy-pasted and all of them have mission statements. Nothing about them appeared on the news either. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:08, 10 November 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Davidson (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Japan, United Kingdom, and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article could be expanded using content from the Japanese article, but could be redirected to Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be redirected to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guatemala. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it could. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep change to keep based on sources found below. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep along with spouse: from Embassy magazine: "For the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, a husband and wife team will be joint heads of a British diplomatic mission". Coverage also in the Financial Times, An innovative model of leadership; The Times, Secret of a double life; The Guardian, Mr and Mrs Ambassador

Piecesofuk (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7654649.stm gives significant coverage as well. Those who didn't say keep, please look over the coverage found and state if you changed your mind or not. Dream Focus 21:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Career British diplomat, sourced and to the point. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 18 November 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Carter (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Thailand, France, Germany, United Kingdom, England, and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment redirect to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guatemala. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:BIO. Oppose redirect as a very common name. LibStar (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep change to keep based on sources found below. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep along with spouse: from Embassy magazine: "For the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, a husband and wife team will be joint heads of a British diplomatic mission". Coverage also in the Financial Times, An innovative model of leadership; The Times, Secret of a double life; The Guardian, Mr and Mrs Ambassador Piecesofuk (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review recent sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep career diplomat. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I support keep there is no inherent notability in being a career diplomat. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough here for me to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:14, 20 November 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 Frank Zappa discography#Posthumous official albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZAPPAtite

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. Previously deleted, but recreated DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frank Zappa discography#Posthumous official albums: Previous AfD presented a handful of announcement articles from what I take to be reliable sources (including one from JazzTimes which unfortunately appears to be permadead). It's not bad, but personally I don't think announcement articles alone should be enough to keep an article, no matter how many you pile on, since they usually just say the same thing adapted directly from a press release. Couldn't find any more substantial coverage. Not every release by notable artists deserves its own article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:46, 17 November 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 no consensus‎. No comment since the last relisting so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Discussion about a possible Merge or Redirect can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Riana Agustina

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

Although tragic, I am not sure this is for wikipedia under WP:NOTNEWS. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Indonesia, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRIME. No indication of lasting significance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe we can keep it. The issue is that not enough sources were added in the article. The case itself garnered quite the attention, plus it is one of the shortest terms of imprisonment for culpable homicide in Singapore court history. At most I think it needs improvement --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=Riana+Agustina+murder+

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=%E6%9E%97%E4%BA%9A%E6%88%90+%E8%B0%8B%E6%9D%80+%E5%A6%BB

I also found newspaper archives of the case. It is quite a lot of coverage, considering the rarity of a wife abusing her husband, and mostly such cases of spouse killing often involve husbands abusing wives before the wives killing their spouses. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005. The crime was used as an example in a 2021 piece by The Straits Times on how the police handles stand-offs [13], and was also referenced as a precedent in the sentencing another case [14], but that's pretty much it. S5A-0043^Talk 01:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - though not much international attention it seems to have received plenty of national. Sources are ok. Article standard is good. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Inexpiable (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Today source dated 13 October 2006 says it was "a rare move in judicial history, the Court of Appeals sent a case back to the High Court for the trial to be reopened", which could make the case notable. But does it? We have the 'word' of one tabloid newspaper. Unable to access the New Paper source but note it's a tabloid. Quite a bit of the article is based on transcripts of the court cases, which are primary sources. The events immediately leading up to the killing have been presented in the article as if they were straight facts rather than what they actually are which is the accused's version. The Straits Times has a brief resume of the case as a notable example of a police stand-off, helps a little with WP:NSUSTAINED but on its own is not enough. ~~Leaning redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005 unless additional reliable sourcing found.~~ Rupples (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, don't redirect as the narrative in the list of major crimes is sourced just from the transcripts and there's no inclusion criteria specfied for that list. Rupples (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for is some discussion/commentary on the facts of the case or the sentence or the implications of any precedent set or public reaction. All I can see in the sources provided is standard reporting that doesn't fulfil WP:INDEPTH and WP:LASTING. Rupples (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its relevant as a case that resulted in one of the shortest terms of imprisonment for culpable homicide in Singapore legal history.

WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009). Simply does not meet WP:NEVENT (parent of NCRIME) as it lacks WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH and WP:EFFECT. If merge is not accepted, please consider my !vote as one for Delete. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested in the comment above this seems fine. Horrible crime, but not much extensive coverage of it having set any sort of change in public policy for example. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source. The case is referenced in this book from 2013 [15]. Could imply a degree of notability; however, access to the book is restricted. Rupples (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005 as a long paragraph on this event was put in there after this article was nominated for deletion, so don't see the benefit. If the level of detail already in the proposed target page is acceptable, is it not preferable, if Wikipedia is to have coverage in excess of a sentence or two of this case, for it to be presented in the much more readable and clearly formatted manner of this article? If it is, then keep, eventhough notability is borderline. If such level of detail is unwarranted, redirect to the proposed target and shorten the overlong paragraph there. Rupples (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 17 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Cicero Allen

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

Article was moved to AfC and then accepted by the same editor, despite multiple prior declinations. There remains no real evidence of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Within a few minutes of pointing out issues with the article and my marking it for deletion discussion an editor both removed these and also the AfD banner, without any explanation. It appears some liberties are being taken with standard protocols/codes of behavior. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, Nothing intentional, just Wikipedia weirdness. I was actively editing while you made your changes and saved ten seconds after you. I thnk a glitch with a Beta tool saved my version of our edit conflict, without notifying me of the conflict. At least, that is the only thing I can figure out. Rublamb (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, edit conflicts are not uncommon, especially on heavily edited pages like WP:ANI. Saving ones edit can sometimes result in deleting another edit made a second before yours. It looks like this was spotted and no harm was done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted it and reverted it. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless better evidence of notability can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Besides the Dictionary of North Carolina Biography entry, which cites several offline sources, significant coverage exists in these Asheville Citizen-Times profile, obituary, and remembrance, contemporary book announcement and review, and this 1997 journal article (pp. 256–257) that critically examines one of his books. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough to pass WP:BIO - Note extra sources from Hameltion above clipped and added KylieTastic (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I expanded this article in response to a request through the WP North Carolina. The nominator's complaint that the article was largely based on one source and needs additional sources has been addressed. It has now received a C-class rating from an independent editor. Allen was important in the early years of the state’s public education systems. He founded two schools (one which survives today) and was the superintendent of five school systems in North and South Carolina. He also authored textbooks, including one that was used in North Carolina for more than forty years. Notability is proved by three feature-length newspaper articles written when he was alive; these sources are not from his local newspaper but from the Asheville Citizen-Times which was/is the largest circulating newspaper in the western half of the state. Other significant coverage is an article in the Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, published by UNC Press. His death was announced in newspapers across the state; two obituaries are sources, including a lengthy one that was published in the news section and another from a leading newspaper in eastern NC. Of these six sources, five meet WP:GNG as being reliable, secondary, significant coverage, and independent of the subject. In addition, these and other sources fulfill the requirements of WP:NSUSTAINED. A quick scan shows that there are more sources available, including book reviews and details of his work in education. WP:NEXIST instructs to keep articles when sources exist for potential expansion. Rublamb (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I accepted this as an AFC submission because a brief look on Newspapers.com found extensive coverage of him, plus there were some decent ones present already, e.g. the NCPedia one, and then the ones I added (1 2 3). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a 495-word entry in the online Dictionary of North Carolina Biography which cites 5 other sources. None of these sources have been analysed by the nominator. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV exists Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 11 November 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 Castilian War. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kota Batu (1578)

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

This article was created without citations. I moved it to the draftspace for incubation. After a brief period of andditions and the draft being declined by two editors (including myself), the article's creator appended a handful of citations and moved the article back to the mainspace. I can find no indication of significant reference to the battle in any of these sources besides one blog post. Additionally, at least one of the sources appears to be a middle school-level textbook. Much of the information in this article is not cited to any reference. I don't think this is a hoax so I think deletion back to draft is probably the best option. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Brunei, Philippines, and Spain. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come articles like Brunei People's Awareness Party can get away with it before? its has literally no effort putting on the article? it totally ridiculous. Battle of Kota Batu (1578) at least had effort put into it. Meanwhile Brunei People's Awareness Party has zero effort. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Castilian War article, when being made. Only had an INFOBOX. only in 22 September 2007 it had context. They didn't even had REFERENCES. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the Battle of Kota Batu (1578) was also MARKED as a Stub. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Other Stuff Exists. Curbon7 (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good citations on Bruneian history are sadly hard to find. The current text is written with a slant, but the core details seem roughly right. This source (pp. 16-17) provides a ship number of 30 to 40, and provides a bit more political background, but devotes no time to this battle itself. It doesn't refer to "Kota Batu" but simply "Brunei", but it's clearly the same place. It gives a similar number of cannons (62, article has 64). This source (page 30) mentions Seri Lela and Seri Ratna, but otherwise skips right through this period. (Both sources are notably reasonably old at this point, reflecting the difficulty of finding information.) Given the current paucity of sources both here and at Castilian War, corresponding to a very short length in each case, I would suggest redirecting to Castilian War, merging The Battle section and the Aftermath detail. CMD (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on and writing Brunei wikipedia articles for a year now and I do agree that sources for the Bruneian Sultanate era are indeed very hard to come across, and are hardly reliable or valid with many different sources giving different informations for the same topic. This convinced me to stay away from writing articles of that era as it could be challenging to fight for. With how this article stands, I can only give my best of luck to justify its existence on Wikipedia. Please do not be discouraged from writing future articles, other topics from the 1900 onwards are much easier to start from and more likely to be accepted (if done correctly). DuckieWackie (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deferring to subject matter experts here. I consider redirect to Castilian War a good solution, per CMD's digging. Thanks for adding your two bits, too, DuckieWackie! Your work in a poorly illuminated corner of history is a credit to this project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I am confused with the "62, article has 64" part. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source said there were perhaps 62 cannons (although it notes this was not a count from during the battle). The article says 64, citing "Lloyd, Yeo (2010). Explore Social Studies...p. 39. ISBN 978-981-280-979-7" whose existence I cannot validate. CMD (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Kota Batu (1578) article said 62 Cannons. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, yes, but not in the text of the article: "Bruneian defenders were already outnumbered the Bruneians which had only 64 cannons". ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was accidentally Syazwi Irfan (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are we gonna delete (or draft) it or not? Syazwi Irfan (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the name to Siege of Kota Batu as it was a siege (of course.) Syazwi Irfan (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Battle of Kota Batu (1578) to Siege of Kota Batu (1578). As its siege rather than a battle. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move. Please do not move articles that are being discussed at an AFD, it complicates the discussion closure. After it's closed, feel free to move the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already made a topic in the main article. it should be here. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should talk about the article and not moves. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking about article moves because you mistakenly moved the article. Now the discussion can return to notability and sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others. The sourcing just isn't there. S0091 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has at least three sources that are scholarly and directly relevant which is enough to support the article. I don't see how deleting or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, and draftify is for improvement when the article seems ready for mainspace as written. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that other material cited in the article does not actually verify the content of the article, so we are partially relying on AGF under those rocky circumstances to believe there are academic SIGCOV sources on this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misreading that, it feels like it falls under WP:DINC, or it's WP:BABY writ large. If instead you mean that the subject meets GNG only by inflating the attention that the sources pay to this event, I would still !vote to Keep. I think it would be wiser to err on the side of WP:NOTPAPER and give the benefit of the doubt. To clarify what I said above, I don't see how deleting this entire article or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, even though the article could certainly use improvement. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in can you or @Syazwi Irfan point to a reliable source that has written in-depth about the event? I struggle to understand how, for an example, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, covers it as at least according to outline it begins in the 1800's but this event occurred in 1578. Some details about what the sources actually state will be helpful. Also @Chipmunkdavis states there is one source they can't find evidence it exists and @Pangalau states reliable sources largely do not exist covering the time period. S0091 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castilian War per CMD's argument. Not notable in its own right. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 18 November 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 Ariel Rivera#Albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph (Ariel Rivera album)

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

Article challenged for sources since 2006. I can't verify its Gold album claim as PARI doesn't have this record. Alternatively, redirect to Ariel_Rivera#Albums --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 06:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The project was rated 1 and half out of 5 (3 out of 10) by Allmusic and there's also a review from stuff here, other than that I could not find anything. WP:AtD, redirect to the performer, please ping me if sources possibly from archives are presented. dxneo (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ariel_Rivera#Albums. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:33, 18 November 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. A merge could still be proposed. There is no consensus for deletion Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic (Semitic) languages

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vasconic languages

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

Long article for minority theory which never saw any wide support. I don't believe a version of this article is salvageable due to how widely rejected the theory is and the fact that the theory is only being advanced by a single author. Fails WP:NOTABILITY as a standalone article, though likely warrants mentioning in Theo Vennemann's article. Essentially this is an entire article dedicated to a single rejected theory by a single author without any mainstream support. Warrenmck (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenmck (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this nomination rationale is that since the last time someone argued this at AFD in 2008, and it was pointed out that there were people independent of the creator writing about it, even if only to reject it and explain why, the world has only gained more experts covering the subject. 2 years after the AFD discussion Paul Roberge (professor of Germanic languages and professor of linguistics) gave it a detailed write-up, explaining the hypothesis and then how xe thought it was flawed, in Roberge 2010, p. 408–409 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRoberge2010 (help), for example. 1 year after the AFD discussion Marc Pierce (professor of Germanic linguistics) did a assuming-that-the-hypothesis-is-true-does-it-explain-anything paper in Pierce 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPierce2009 (help), for another example.
It isn't becoming less covered in-depth by third parties with credentials in the field, as the years go by.
- Roberge, Paul (2010). "Contact and the History of Germanic Languages". In Hickey, Raymond (ed.). The Handbook of Language Contact. Blackwell handbooks in linguistics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405175807.
- Pierce, Marc (2009). "Modern English key and the Problem of Loan Words in Germanic". Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics. 122: 305–310. JSTOR 41430712.

Uncle G (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with this line of reasoning is the underlying theory itself is functionally static; there's no wider acceptance or development. Occasionally somoene points to it to criticize it, but WP:NOTABILITY would arguably require more than two (!) paragraphs in a text about the topic from a mainstream perspective saying "this theory exists and doesn't have wide support", which is about the sum of the mention in "Contact and the History of Germanic Languages". In fact, the mention there seems to be only to highlight that this (potential substrate) problem has existed for a while and has been tackled in several ways, by highlighting one novel approach, rather than discussing it with any serious depth. I think the suggestion below, about a possible redirect/merge to Theo Vennemann, makes more sense than an article itself. Warrenmck (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please note that the previous AfD was for Vasconic languages, which is a much different thing than the current AfD even if the Vasconic substrate hypothesis has the same author as its source. Warrenmck (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. See the edit history in 2009. As well as the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to its progenitor Theo Vennemann. Curbon7 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- Sometimes it is useful to have an article on a subject such as this even if the consensus is that it is wrong. This means that the argument on the subject are available for the uninitiated to read. Such an article needs to end by explaining the arguments for the consensus view that the theory is wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am bit torn here. The Insular Celtic part of Vennemann's Atlantic proposal is nothing new, as the article also states. Speculations about a Semitic substratum in Insular Celtic predate Vennemann's project of trying to relate the unfamiliar (potential traces of pre-IE languages in specific branches of IE) to the familar (attested language families, thus completely ignoring the likely fact that pre-IE Europe was home to lost language families). These earlier speculations make up a topic that is clearly notable with WP:SIGCOV (for a review see e.g. this article[16]). AFAICS, only the article Atlantic (Semitic) languages hosts at least some information about this notable topic.

OTOH, the combination of the Semitic substratum hypothesis for Insular Celtic with the assumption that "un"-IE elements in Germanic languages go back to the same substratum, that's clearly a one-scholar project that has gained much less scholarly attention than the "classic" Semitic substratum hypothesis, and also less attention than his "Vasconic" hypothesis. Vennemann's work is notable as a package, but his "Atlantic languages" aren't. So I am inclined to propose to merge the Atlantic hypothesis to Theo Vennemann#Theories, and to incubate the notable parts (about Morris-Jones and Pokorny) somewhere for a future article Insular Celtic substrate hypothesis. –Austronesier (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Keep is weak and there is no support right now for Deletion. I'd like to hear from more editors and know where Uncle G ultimately stands.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced, notable if obscure topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because the theory is flatly rejected doesn't mean the article magically becomes less notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Sligo Intermediate Football Championship

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

A series of game score articles that were mostly unreferenced. Some that do have sources, like the 2008 one, cited "Sligo Champion (Summer/Autumn 2008)" and "Sligo Weekender (Summer/Autumn 2008)", without other identifying details for newspaper sources (dates, pages, etc.). The 1996 one cited two news articles about manager appointment, none of which talked about the scores in the 1996 games. I could not find any online sources confirming these stats, at least not the ones that don't source back to these Wikipedia articles. The difficulty in verifying the stats makes me to doubt if each of the individual games was notable enough to have a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Football, and Ireland. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel it requires work on additional sources being added to the articles rather than deletion. Much of the source info will be hardcopy newspaper as already outlined by the nominee. MartyTheArty (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With a bundled nomination like this, we need to hear from more editors, ideally some who are experienced with nominations like this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet anything at WP:NSPORT or WP:NEVENT, and coverage on newspapers at newspapers.com seems limited to routine match results. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless a one of its ~22,000 residents dedicates the time to recover those hardcopies, expansion will likely remain unviable. Extending ARandomName123's concern, any nearby coverage would be unlikely to significantly cover this sports event. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:00, 16 November 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Metzler

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

Dying while trying to qualify for the Indy 500 is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO and Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Not sure if this is worth a redirect/merge to 1949 Indianapolis 500. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Motorsport, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 10 November 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican supercentenarians

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

Contested PROD: This article is unsourced, and at present, none of the individuals on the list is notable enough to warrant their own articles. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Jorge Duran Coral: If you (or anyone) had access to sources for this, it would fit in well with the others on Category:Supercentenarians by nationality. @Significa liberdade: not everybody on the other lists has their own article, but it would be helpful if at least few on this one did. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Maile66: Perhaps not everyone will justify the creation of an article, but everyone on the list requires a citation of a reliable source to support their inclusion. At this time, this list has none. General Ization ^Talk 00:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This topic is not terribly notable and as stated above, nobody on the list is important enough to have their own article. The article is not supported by any reliable sources. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the people do not have BLP articles, fails WP:GNG and can be merged to List of supercentenarians. I don't see said list being beneficial in the future. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The claim none have articles is false: María Capovilla, Emiliano Mercado del Toro, and Juan Vicente Pérez are in English whilst Francisca Celsa dos Santos and Inah Canabarro Lucas have sourced articles in Spanish. As such, sources are readily available; others can be found to include those without articles [17][18][19][20][21]. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this deletion is also contested here. How does this list meet, or doesn't meet, WP:NLIST guidelines? Also, please do not move articles to a different page title in the midst of an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails as a navigational list because the only blue-linked entries are people notable only for their age, and there are only a very few of them. It is likely that readers looking for these people are interested in supercentenarians in general; such readers would be better served by an article listing supercentenarians in general. In fact we have a list at List of supercentenarians but we've chosen to stick to people notable for other reasons besides age. And navigational lists have to navigate to articles, which isn't likely to be possible for people who haven't done wiki-notable things beyond living long lives. Fails as a stand-alone list because although the press from time to time likes to write articles about people surviving to great age, implying that supercentenarians might be a an independently-notable set, (1) these articles aren't focussed on Mexico (except in Mexico), so again a global list would make more sense than a Mexican list; (2) they are often borderline, rather trivial interest articles analogous to those on particularly tall actresses, or worst seaside towns. (3) the press tends to write about old people rather than specifically supercentenarians. Elemimele (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: After reversion to the proper content, Mexican supercentenarians alone are not notable. The creator is also blatantly attempting to circumvent procedure. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 00:35, 18 November 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. There is a clear current consensus for keep among participants of this discussion, and there is no prospect of the consensus changing. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalgaon

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

I'm unable to locate any reliable references to this location. Terrickisaiah555 ^[T]/_[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Terrickisaiah555 ^[T]/_[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed as a village on the 2011 Indian Census, as the reference in the article says. So passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:GEOLAND is a bad guideline and this needs some WP:TNT so someone who knows something can create a decent article. This is likely a real place, but a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article. The only geographic claim is vague, unsourced, and as best I could check fails verification. GNS is very sketchy and I don't know what other source we would use to reliably source the location. I assume all these issues are going to be ignored and the article we be kept as-is, but really we need to stop keeping junk permastub articles just to satisfy a guideline which people complain about constantly. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you think it's a "bad guideline" or not is irrelevant. It is one. Some people complain about it. Many people support it. A few of the usual suspects complaining about it every time it's mentioned doesn't mean it should be scrapped. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article". Actually, one line for a village in one of the Indian Census's spreadsheets carries a lot of information. Hundreds of columns. No prose but a lot of stats. You could get a pretty good 1-2 paragraph stub out of that one line. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But More work needs to be done!Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expansion is desirable but not strictly necessary. Real villages with census entries get articles per WP:GEOLAND a guideline which is correct in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:GEOLAND. Bhalgaon (भाल्गओं) has 3,119 inhabitants, as of 2011. It has the Postal Index Number code of 344706 and a government office, which grants it legal recognition. Site https://localbodydata.com/gram-panchayat-bhalgaon-35028 indicates key people like the sarpanch which proves inhabited. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:16, 26 November 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Pokotylo

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced biogaphy article which fails notability guidelines for musicians and biographies. I couldn't find notability guideline-passing sources from a BEFORE search, in American and Kazakh. Tails Wx 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kazakhstan. Tails Wx 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete: Absolutely nothing to find of this individual, only wikis mirroring this site. They claim the subject placed fifth in a competion, however there's no proof of that and the SuperStar KZ show is also Unreferenced and has limited sources online which are probably not reliable. Not sure if this was about the same subject but this discussion (WP:Articles for deletion/Nikolai Pokotylo) resulted in no consensus 17 years ago, I don't know what was going on as they weren't citing any sources. dxneo (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 01:28, 25 November 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 kept, per comments by kwami, JBW and Uncle G. ‎. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceless velar implosive

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

The voiceless velar implosive is used in no language, and therefore is not notable as per WP:Notability. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @PharyngealImplosive7: It is not obvious to me what part of WP:Notability you think supports your claim that a sound that does not constitute a phomeme in any human language is not notable. I am not arguing the opposite, just asking you to flesh out your argument a bit more explicitly. The article cites (albeit incompletely) at least one scholarly work describing the sound, suggesting that it might satisfy WP:NPOSSIBLE. Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is not about WP:Notability, but it literally is not used in any language and has one source which is a book about phonetics, so of course it contains info on it. And if this article is allowed to not be deleted, we should make other drafts such as Draft:Voiced bidental fricative actual articles. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. One mention in one source does not create notability. The policy requires multiple reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does note that it is a sound made by some humans to imitate the "glug glug" sound, so it is in use and the article itself is useful. Expand and rewrite if necessary. Do not delete or merge. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I checked the source (Pike Phonetics) on archive.org and it never mentions the voiceless velar implosive. Also the source was made in 1943, so we would need some indication that this dated study is not wrong.
  PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pullum & Ladusaw 2013, p. 100 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPullumLadusaw2013 (help) gives this a lengthier discussion than our article does, and ironically provides a source for parts of the article that cannot possibly be supported by a 1943 source. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pullum, Geoffrey K.; Ladusaw, William A. (2013). "Hooktop K". Phonetic Symbol Guide. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226924885.
Delete: a sound not used in any language and having one old source isn't notable.
24.4.108.69 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You edited this right into the middle of a list that has a citation of a second, not nearly as old, source. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Still, it isn't notable because it's used in no language. No source can change that unless they prove it is inside a language. 24.4.108.69 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMO any sound that receives an IPA letter is notable for that reason alone, but we do have attestation in language. Bennett et al (2023) Phonetic variability of glottalized stops in Uspanteko reports one token of [ɠ̊]. They find that the labial varies as [ɓ̥] and [pʼ], and the uvular as [ʛ̥] and [qʼ], and that the velar is nearly always [kʼ], but not 100%. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could help expand the article with this source? 24.4.108.69 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There are similar reports for other Mayan languages, so Uspantek is probably not unique, but regardless it appears to be an extremely rare sound lexically. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (See also my comment above.) Pullum and Ladusaw (hat-tip Uncle G) suggest that the sound sometimes occurs in American English, and Bennet et al. (hat-tip — kwami) describe an occurrence in Uspanteko, and its difference from a velar ejective. The sound is apparently not phonemic in any described languages, but that does not mean that it is never used; compare Phoneme versus Phone (phonetics). In addition to Pike 1943 (hat-tip PharyngealImplosive7 for the online version), these sources should be cited. The article should also note that the phone is rare and not known to be contrastive (as opposed to the ambiguous "not used"), but AfD is not for cleanup. Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the nomination and the subsequent "delete" comments are based on the premises that the sound is not used in any language, and that it is mentioned in only one source, but both of those are false. The current version of the article says, apparently correctly, "A phonemic /ɠ̊/ has not been confirmed for any language ... In Uspantek, and perhaps other Mayan languages of Guatemala, [ɠ̊] is a rare allophone of /kˀ/." (My emphasis.) Saying that a sound is used in languages as an allophone but not as a phoneme is not the same as saying that it is not used in any language, even if we ignore the further information that it has been "claimed" as a phoneme for Lendu, but disputed. The sound exists, it is used in some languages, whether as a phoneme or as an allophone, and, contrary to what has been said by those advocating deletion, it is covered in several sources, as shown by Kwamikagami and Uncle G. JBW (talk) 21:36, 17 November 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. The overall consensus is there is sufficient sourcing available to write an appropriate article on this event. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of February 25, 1914

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

Modern eclipses are routine, predictable events of little significance; there is no special notability guideline or policy indicating that they are automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I think they should therefore be judged according to WP:NEVENT, and unfortunately most Wikipedia articles for eclipses, including this one, fails the test:

WP:LASTING: It was a routine event. No wars happened because of it, no emperor was deposed for it. It happened as predicted (prediction of solar eclipses being a nearly perfected science even by then), people noted it, and then promptly forgot about it. All coverage of it would be from around the time it occurred on, other than entries in eclipse databases. It finds its place in various databases of all solar eclipses that ever occurred.

WP:GEOSCOPE: It was probably covered internationally, in all the countries the eclipse happened in/passed through. But this is routine stuff: the local press of various countries makes note of the solar eclipses that pass through their territory.

WP:DEPTH: There is nothing much indepth to say about most eclipses unless they precipitate some other important event in history; this is specially true for eclipses in modern times, as events where people claim them to be a supernatural sign or prophecy affecting worldly matters anymore.

WP:DURATION: All coverage of it, aside from what are essentially database entries, happened around the time it occurred.

WP:DIVERSITY: It was probably covered by a variety of sources, but nearly all coverage would be of the same type.

WP:ROUTINE: Perhaps no other class of events are as certain and accurately predictable as solar eclipses; it certainly seems like "routine coverage of planned events".

I'm bringing only a single article to the AfD to not be too disruptive, but the consensus on this would be relevant for many other eclipse articles in Category:Annular solar eclipses, and possibly other categories. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the wealth of astronomical information available about solar eclipses it is valuable to keep them. Regarding WP:GEOSCOPE, eclipses almost always receive coverage by local news when they occur. Eclipses are not WP:ROUTINE, each one has a unique path, duration, etc. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the map, this annular eclipse passed over Antarctica and ocean, so it wouldn't have been widely observed, if at all. I could find no evidence of a solar eclipse expedition, which might otherwise have made at least slightly notable. It could probably just be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Praemonitus (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular eclipse had no significance, and received no news coverage. Owen× ☎ 10:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine and unlikely search term. AryKun (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. This event was observable only in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, with some partiality in a sparsely populated part of South America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the last couple weeks I have been on a project to expand some of these stubs with additional sourcing; in fact, the reason I had this article open was because I had just finished with 1913 and was moving onto 1914. I guess we will have to see, but I am quite opposed to the sight-unseen assumption that it "received no news coverage". There are very few eclipses for which this is the case, including ones that are "stupid" or "pointless" et cetera. I will have to go check my resources; I've found sources for about thirty or forty of these eclipse articles so far, and for some it is harder than others. jp×g 🗯️ 22:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @TryKid, DirtyHarry991, Praemonitus, OwenX, AryKun, and LaundryPizza03: per below jp×g 🗯️ 23:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: this was the article being commented on prior to here, hence the ping. jp×g 🗯️ 18:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the seven reports on two continents I was able to find for this expansion. The nominator mentions WP:NEVENT, but the very first bulletpoint of NEVENT is the general notability guideline. Looking at this article, I can assess it thus: is there significant coverage? Yes, since all of these seven articles are about the eclipse. Are they reliable sources? Yes, they are all reputable newspapers, and they're writing based on the observations of others. The NASA source is from 2004. Are they independent of the subject? Yes, I would be quite shocked to find out that they were writing these results as a result of payola from Big Moon.

Is the coverage "routine"? Well, in a sense, yes, but so is all coverage of anything -- it's "routine" for newspapers to write about the person who is elected president, it's "routine" for newspapers to write about when a tornado destroys a city, it's "routine" for newspapers to write about every single time two countries go to war, et cetera. Something does not have to single-handedly turn the wheel of history to be notable; there is no part of notability guidelines that says "emperors must be deposed". I don't know what the coverage being "of the same type" means. I don't think it makes sense to look at something that was covered extensively by reliable sources, is still mentioned in the context of historical eclipses, and say "well passing GNG doesn't count because the thing was stupid". jp×g 🗯️ 23:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, GNG requires that the sources be secondary. News reports published near the time of the eclipse do not constitute "secondary sources", they are primary sources reporting on how to best view the eclipse or what others saw during the eclipse and so on. The NASA source is essentially a database entry, the database includes a chart of every eclipse that ever occurred within some time period. It is not significant coverage. Nearly every eclipse article on Wikipedia relies on this type of sourcing, recounting what various news papers said about an eclipse around the it occurred. None pass the GNG bar of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's circular logic to say that sources can't be significant coverage, because the event wasn't significant, because there was no significant coverage, et cetera. The "significant" in WP:SIGCOV does not mean "important and grandiose", it means "devoted primarily to the subject". That is to say, it's meant to exclude an article about the Tsar's ulcer that says "the surgery, which happened on the same day as an annular eclipse, went off just as elegantly as the moon across the sun." It's not meant to exclude an article about the eclipse that says "People went out to see the eclipse and here is what they said about it". jp×g 🗯️ 17:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, I think you misunderstood me: my contention was that the NASA entries are not significant coverage; the newspaper reports, on the other hand do constitute significant coverage, but they're not secondary sources. cf. WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I don't see any kind of "retrospective" coverage, it's the same type of report one would see any other routine event. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't really see the utility in reinterpreting the guidelines this way. There have been thousands of AfDs voted, judged and closed on the basis that verifiability, news coverage and inclusion in secondary sources suggests something is notable. But with this nomination you're explicitly setting out to go through about a hundred eclipse articles, so first of all there is a mountain to be moved: and second, why? You think they are "of little significance", okay, but there is tons of stuff on Wikipedia that is dumb and lame. The standard you seem to want to apply here, that things should be deleted unless they have some kind of perpetual worldwide relevance, is at odds with a lot of consensus and a lot of content. jp×g 🗯️ 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:5P1 suggests Wikipedia has features of almanacs. Eclipses have long been a feature of almanacs. (In fact here's an almanac listing this very eclipse [22]). Additionally, (relatedly), in response to the above, news reports about upcoming eclipses are indeed relying on scientific predictions and thus are secondary. And of course, the NASA source is indeed a strong one. Personally, I can't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting such articles, though I could see a compelling argument for WP:NOPAGE merges-in-full of these articles in some way that improves the way these are presented to the reader. A delete or even redirect to a table row leaves the encyclopedia weaker. —siro χ o 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convinced by JPxG's arguments and additional sources to change my opinion. Thank you for your work on this! Owen× ☎ 19:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not convinced by the nominator's arguments, especially after JPxG's expansion (and also don't see the sources used as primary, like Siroxo said). Definitely not convinced by the "unlikely search term" argument, otherwise we'd have to delete a better half of the Wikipedia. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Just the routine coverage during the short news cycle, lacking WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It didn't produce any secondary coverage (in contrast with the solar eclipse in August 1914) and being mentioned in a NASA's database doesn't mean it is notable. --C messier (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus. But I'd like to the thank the nominator for floating this AFD to be about one article rather than posting a huge bundled nomination. Let's test the waters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent nomination statement (really a redirect is fine too, but meh). Except for the recent additions by jpxg (I'll get to those in a second), this is a pure cookie-cutter article of statistics that could essentially be auto-generated from a database, every single eclipse article would be virtually identical with only the particular details of that eclipse differing. Not only that, but the vast majority of this article isn't even about this eclipse, but is just tables of other eclipses and an explanation of the basics of eclipses that has no business being in an article as specific as this. The basics of the stats can and should be in summary list-type articles; that much is perfectly fine.
But none of the keep !votes address the lack of any sustained coverage or lasting impact of this event. Adding in a couple blurbs from routine (yes, it's routine) coverage in the press of the day does nothing but confirm that yes, people knew when and where this eclipse would occur, even over 100 years ago. There's nothing even remotely in-depth about any of the coverage. The first one I checked, for example, was all of three sentences long. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are sufficient to support an article. In particular WP:V is clearly met. WP:GNG is debatable, but not really key, IMO. Since most contemporary eclipses are highly notable it makes more sense to organize our coverage so that each 20th century eclipse has its own article rather than spending time debating exactly how much news coverage is necessary to support notability. This is really just about the organization of content since the basic facts will be included in list articles about this series of eclipses either way. Removing the article leaves a gap in our eclipse coverage that is annoying to some editors bust doesn't really help readers in any way that I can see. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on contemporaneous news reports, some of which note where it would have been visible, even if only a few people would be there to see it (e.g., "Two Eclipses of Moon in 1914", The Kansas Evening Star (February 28, 1914), p. 3):

Four eclipses, two solar and two lunar, will occur in 1914. The first one of these has already performed and left the stage. Maybe you didn't notice it, but it occurred February 24. This was what is known as an annular eclipse; the moon finally seems to cover up the center of the sun, leaving a ring-like fiery border all around the former. Our moon at her distance from us cannot apparently conceal the sun's disk from sight and what is seen of his disk appears like a complete blazing circle. The eclipse of February 24 was not particularly interesting from a popular standpoint and was not to be seen in North America. The moon not only crosses the fiery disk of the sun, but also intercepts some of the solar light from the earth. Wherever this lunar shadow falls is called the "path of eclipse," and the inhabitants of that region see the moon partially or totally cover for a while the face of the sun. Our earth and moon are both in motion, particularly our earth. The widest shadow cast by the moon is only 167 miles, and accordingly, a solar eclipse can be seen only from a limited part of the world. On February 24 this lunar shadow did not fall upon North America, for the path of the annulus remained entirely within the Antarctic and South Pacific oceans. Therefore it was witnessed by the inhabitants in the southern part of Patagonia and the eastern coast of New Zealand. But though the citizens of Independence were not able to see the solar eclipse of February 24th, they will be able to see some of the solar eclipse of August 24. On that day the moon will wholly hide the face of the sun; but unfortunately this eclipse will appear to the citizens of this city only as a partial eclipse.

BD2412 T 01:51, 25 November 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Bernardi}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teatro Metropólitan}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki (3rd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->