Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Brady}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandis Westmore}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandis Westmore}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda T. Walker}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda T. Walker}}

Revision as of 22:48, 22 November 2023

< November 21 November 23 >

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 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 23:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Brady

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines (GNG), article create by subject as self promotion Spongie555 (talk) 22:45, 22 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 10:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kandis Westmore

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; 15 of the 34 citations on the page relate to two opinions she authored and verge on WP:CITEKILL Snickers2686 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:16, 29 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! 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - The article on Kandis Westmore, while providing information about a United States magistrate judge, does not establish notability beyond the position held. According to WP:USCJN, magistrate judges are not inherently notable, and the subject does not meet the specific notability criteria outlined in WP:JUDGE or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The citations provided are primarily related to opinions authored by the subject, which may not be sufficient for establishing notability without significant independent coverage. The use of numerous citations for a couple of opinions also raises concerns about WP:CITEKILL where an excessive number of citations may overwhelm the content and suggest an attempt to assert notability through quantity rather than quality of sources. As such, the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards and would be more appropriately covered within the context of a broader article, unless further reliable and independent sources can be found to establish notability.
PD Slessor (talk) 09:57, 13 December 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as the keep !vote is essentially OSE and this is a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda T. Walker

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; possible redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies Snickers2686 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE, however here as a failed judicial nominee we have a redirect target related to it as a WP:AFD, where she is already listed. User:Let'srun 01:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 7 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K. Gary Sebelius

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; could be notable as a first gentleman of Kansas, but that's a stretch Snickers2686 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE, however here as a failed judicial nominee we have a redirect target related to it as a WP:AFD, where he is already listed. User:Let'srun 01:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While magistrate judges are not inherently notable, Sebelius is, due to the combination of being a magistrate judge, having been First Gentleman and having been a failed federal district judge nominee. No one of those items may confer inherent notability, but all three of those in concert should and do. Jarvishunt (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:SIGCOV has the subject received? Just because he has all of those items to his name doesn't give notability on its own. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some WP:SIGCOV -- two citations from The New York Times, no less -- during the Brown v. Board of Education litigation. I'm certainly happy to add more -- there's absolutely other WP:SIGCOV as well, and we all can add it as part of a good faith effort to work to improve the article. One problem is that some of the WP:SIGCOV that Gary Sebelius has received is in articles that currently are behind newspaper paywalls. Jarvishunt (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Jarvishunt to the extent that multiple almost-but-not-quite inherently notable features can come together to lead to someone being notable themselves. Sebelius was the First Gentleman of a U.S. state (which comes with some notoriety/notability within that state), is the husband of a former U.S. cabinet official, is a magistrate judge, and was involved as a lawyer in the later stages of the famous Brown v. Board of Education case. I don't think any of those features standing alone would confer notability, but put together, he seems to have a close relationship to many clearly notable individuals and events, which I think pushes him just over the line to notability. SeenToBeDone (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review sourcing added by Jarvishunt and SeenToBeDone's submission around notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Despite the various roles and associations mentioned, K. Gary Sebelius does not meet the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) as the coverage does not appear to be significant or in-depth. The positions held, such as magistrate judge and First Gentleman of Kansas, do not inherently confer notability (WP:INHERITORG), and the failed federal district judge nomination, while notable, does not by itself satisfy the criteria for a standalone biographical article. The subject's involvement in the Brown v. Board of Education litigation, although notable, is also not sufficient to establish notability without significant independent coverage (WP:SIGCOV). A redirect to a related topic where he is already mentioned may be appropriate.
PD Slessor (talk) 11:35, 14 December 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. Subject fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. What coverage does exist is almost entirely passing mentions in articles about cases that she's served on. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Ryu

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems that what's notable here is the Coalition on Homelessness case. JM (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think we have to evaluate this with NOTNEWS in mind, and in particular how news discussion of her rulings should be interpreted re: direct coverage of her and how routine it is. It is not unexpected for a magistrate judge's rulings to receive decent local coverage, but that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic info that is DUE in a biography. The importance of her role in particular would need to be discussed substantially for such reports on court cases to be SIGCOV, and I'm not seeing that so far. Simply presiding over a case does not mean the coverage of the case transitively applies to the person, not least because the facts/filings of a case, which are generally the bulk of reported material, are completely independent of the judge's actions.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:47, 20 December 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 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmel Quereshi

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 (talk) 22:36, 22 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 23:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Pead

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but nothing more than that. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 01:40, 24 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. None of the keep !votes are policy based and sourcing has been shown to be of insufficient depth. Star Mississippi 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Arbitration and Mediation

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

textbook definition of an advertisement / a majority of the article fails NPOV Itanalot (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has a previous AfD which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Arbitration_and_Mediation Itanalot (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not finding much coverage within the reach of publicly accessible Google Search. I can't really comment on notability. It is a group within a specialized field. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards keep on WP:IAR grounds, as this is a somewhat important arbitration institution, not as big as JAMS but certainly known in arbitration circles. But very hard to find sources partly because its name is pretty generic (for example, FINRA has national arbitration and mediation rules). Some sources about subsidiary ClickNSettle that mention NAM:

  • William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Two Roads Diverged: A Tale of Technology and Alternative Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution[1] - about a page
  • "Law and technology: what does the future hold for ADR?" [2001] ANZRIArbMedr 27; (2001) 20(3) The Arbitrator & Mediator 1 [2] a paragraph on page 19
  • Online Dispute Resolution: Global Issues and Australian Standards" [2002] ANZRIArbMedr 20; (2002) 21(2) The Arbitrator & Mediator 21[3] about a paragraph, similar to the Law & Tech article

Oblivy (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on grounds of WP:IAR. I didn't vote earlier as I was hoping to see greater discussion. There is little rationale for deletion beyond strict application of WP:GNG which would not make sense given the pervasiveness of NAM clauses and their real-world notability. This is the kind of situation IAR was designed for.
I could see a rationale for merging this article with other private arbitral institutions such as:
Ultimately arbitration doesn't generate a lot of headlines because it's confidential, but that makes it valuable to have Wikipedia articles so people can get some level of understanding of what they are. Oblivy (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per @Oblivy -- Imo this is a lazy nomination where a user with less than 300 edits would rather twinkle tag AFD than rewrite or improve the article. NPOV copy issues aren't always grounds for deletion, and the references combined with public status demonstrate notability. Perhaps the editor could make edits to portion of article he believes fail NPOV Cray04 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Insults seem unnecessary RetroCosmos (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not a reason to delete. It is no insult, merely my opinion. As progressive as wikipedia can be, there is a very militant-esque culture of upholding standards and, critiques and feedback are necessary. There was no insult here. Cray04 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
difficult to believe that first sentence was anything but RetroCosmos (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to locate a single source that comes close to meeting GNG/NCORP criteria, I've looked for analyst reports or any kind of neutral third party articles and I'm unable to locate a single one. Invoking IAR is inappropriate at AfD in circumstances where no arguments have been put forward to justify ignoring the community's guidelines. I'm also not convinced a redirect is appropriate, none of the suggestions appear to be connected with the topic company. A better alternative might be Arbitration in the United States but I'm also unsure if this is connected to the topic company. HighKing++ 11:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point, allthough arbitrators (and the sanctioned companies providing them) are a major part of that process, and this company does seem have some notability. Cray04 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 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! 07:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Rich Leonard

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider, failed judicial nominee, lacking sourcing to warrant standalone article Snickers2686 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Best to redirect to a list of failed Bill Clinton judicial appointees, where he already is listed. User:Let'srun 02:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I am reading the wrong article? I do see this guy was a magistrate and failed judicial nominee for another job, but he was also a Bankruptcy Judge and a law school dean among other things? Within a few minute I added sources for what seem like a number of claims for notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 7 December 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, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen E. Garza

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider. Article appears to focus more on misconduct allegations than subject itself Snickers2686 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but some do rise to the level of notability. This judge was the subject of a "rare public order" that "appeared to be the first time that an order had addressed abusive conduct by a federal judge" under judicial employment dispute resolution rules that had not previously been applied. This means the subject's alleged actions were the focus of scrutiny in an order that has implications for other federal judicial employees in the United States, illustrating a broader level of importance than the "run of the mill magistrate judge" cited in the AfD discussion for the cited comparator. And the conduct was publicly attributed to this specific judge, which is not especially common since judges accused of similar conduct often force the closing of any investigations by resigning. I think these factors push this over the line for notability. SeenToBeDone (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Completely agree with the nom that magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but the misconduct allegations against her have resulted in enough coverage from a multitude of sources for this subject to meet WP:BASIC, such as in the Washington Post (in the article), Bloomberg [[4]] and Reuters [[5]]. Some rewriting is likely needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. User:Let'srun 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This particular individual seems notable for the judicial "item" that was used for the first time over the misconduct allegations. No judgement on the merits of the accusations, but this lifts the particular biography into notability for the amount of coverage it had. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 30 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. Subject fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Facciola

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; very little sourcing for a biographical article Snickers2686 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 29 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! 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak Keep - Based on the info, John M. Facciola appears to meet the notability criteria for Judges and legal professionals on Wikipedia WP:LEGALBIO. His long-term service as a United States magistrate judge, his prior roles as an Assistant District Attorney and in private practice, and his academic contributions as an adjunct professor and legal scholar all contribute to his notability. Additionally, his written opinions on electronic discovery and related legal matters, along with his recognition by the legal community, further establish his notability within his field. The references cited suggest that there is coverage of Facciola's judicial and academic work in reliable sources, supporting the case for possibly entertaining the Idea of retaining his article on Wikipedia.
PD Slessor (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Keep vote provided no sources to eval.  // Timothy :: talk  12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 December 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 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald L. Ellis

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 (talk) 21:55, 22 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 23:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Burke

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. User:Let'srun 01:59, 24 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. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wirrn Isle

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. Previous AFD discussion did not sufficiently determine notability. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. Existing references do not determine notability. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Davros.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 29 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! 23:10, 6 December 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Wall (audio drama)

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. Previous AFD discussion did not sufficiently determine notability. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. Existing references do not determine notability. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Davros.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 29 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 WordsmithTalk to me 22:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Davros

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. Previous AFD discussion did not sufficiently determine notability. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. Existing references do not determine notability. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 29 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! 23:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Based on the additional sources provided during the discussion, "The Curse of Davros" appears to meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The sources cited, such as reviews from Unreality SF and Sci-Fi Online, suggest that there is significant coverage in reliable publications that are independent of the subject. the presence of multiple sources that provide independent reviews and coverage of the audio drama indicates that the topic has received enough attention to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for creative works.
PD Slessor (talk) 10:19, 13 December 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 Diocese of Paranaque as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NCORP. The sources provided are self-published or are not independent from the subject, so I don't see a case for GNG. There are plenty of diocesan shrines around the world and this one has no particular specialty of note. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best, redirect to the Diocese of Paranaque in case it has a list of parishes/churches in the diocese. Otherwise, I'm inclined to vote for delete, as there isn't anything much that would make it more notable than other Catholic churches in the Philippines (like, say, the Quiapo Church or the EDSA Shrine or any really old church). --- Tito Pao (talk)
    Tito Pao (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Chris and Tito Pao, let me share with you the important of our church which you may consider to be important part of the catholic church history in the Philippines.
    1. The Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY church in the Philippines and in Asia, dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus. This is why our Bishop of Paranaque elevate the church from a simple parish into a Diocesan Shrine, because of its unique and special devotion to Jesus Five Sacred Wounds. And as a Shrine our mandate started to little by little to spread this beautiful devotion to different parishes and dioceses in the Philippines. Our Diocesan Shrine is under the Diocese of Paranaque and under the vicariate of the Holy Family | See link(s) for your info.: https://catholink.ph/paranaque/
    2. Our Shrine is part of the history of Las Pinas, we are the very FIRST diocesan shrine in the City, surprisingly 10 years earlier than the famous Bamboo Organ Chruch in Las Pinas.
    3. Our 3-brother Stigmatine priests ("the Avenido Brothers") hold the record in the Philippines to be the first 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests on the same day. The missionary works and inspirations brought to our country brings great meaning especially to aspiring young men to be a priest. | see link(s) for your info.: https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines
    4. As a Shrine, our church became one of the pilgrim church in the Philippines. Our church possesses (or hold) the Relic of the "True Cross" one of the only few churches in the Philippines to have it. Even our Bishop Jesse Mercado, DD. recognized it and invite all the faithful to visit our Shrine to venerate the cross because we are the only church in the Diocese of Paranaque to have it. Base on our research there are only 3 churches in the philippines to have it, first is the Manila Cathedral, second our shrine and third is in Monastario de Tarlac (in Region III) northern part of the Philippines)
    Our hope and prayers is that using this platform (wikipedia) we maybe able to spread these information's to different churches in the philippines (and maybe in the world). In concern of self-published, i am willing to give-up my write-ups to potential sponsors or takers to adopt this article. We are also ready to arrange meetings (online or face-to-face) to our parish priest and shrine rector &/or to Superior Delegate - of the Stigmatine in the Philippines to verify and check the authenticity of the write-ups. We are also open that your team and other editors to challenge the write-ups to the chancery of the diff. offices of the bishop of paranaque and manila to verify and check the decrees issued by them to us by the roman catholic church archdiocese of manila (RCAM) and diocese of paranaque (DOP). THANK YOU Fred Luciano (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A quick BEFORE-type search yielded no additional sources towards GNG and nothing present in either the article or extant online sources suggests notability outside the GNG standards. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, just want to share with you the link(s) of Diocese of Parañaque - Catholink | https://catholink.ph/paranaque/ | The Diocese of Paranaque is composed of 6 vicariates with 3 National Shrine and 5 Diocesan Shrine in which the Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ belong. Our Church are rich in history and heritage, to name a few, our church is the only church in the Philippines and in Asia which is dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus; we are the first Diocesan Shrine in the City of Las Pinas, that gave us the mandate to spread our unique and special devotion to the five wounds of Jesus in the entire Diocese of Paranaque and other dioceses in the Philippines and this is one of the main reasons why we are trying to share this information using the wikipedia platform; we also hold the record to have 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests (Stigmatine Priest) on the same day in the Philippines "the Avenido Brothers and now Fathers" see link(s) https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines; our shrine is one of the few churches in the Philippines who hold the splinters pieces of wood of the True Cross of Jesus. We deemed that with this criterias we are worthy to be publish even thru me or thru other editors available in this platform to help us spread our devotion and inspirations that our church/Shrine can contribute to our City and our Country. Thank you Fred Luciano (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, let me share with you the important of our church which you may consider to be important part of the catholic church history in the Philippines.
1. The Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY church in the Philippines and in Asia, dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus. This is why our Bishop of Paranaque elevate the church from a simple parish into a Diocesan Shrine, because of its unique and special devotion to Jesus Five Sacred Wounds. And as a Shrine our mandate started to little by little to spread this beautiful devotion to different parishes and dioceses in the Philippines. Our Diocesan Shrine is under the Diocese of Paranaque and under the vicariate of the Holy Family | See link(s) for your info.: https://catholink.ph/paranaque/
2. Our Shrine is part of the history of Las Pinas, we are the very FIRST diocesan shrine in the City, surprisingly 10 years earlier than the famous Bamboo Organ Chruch in Las Pinas.
3. Our 3-brother Stigmatine priests ("the Avenido Brothers") hold the record in the Philippines to be the first 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests on the same day. The missionary works and inspirations brought to our country brings great meaning especially to aspiring young men to be a priest. | see link(s) for your info.: https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines
4. As a Shrine, our church became one of the pilgrim church in the Philippines. Our church possesses (or hold) the Relic of the "True Cross" one of the only few churches in the Philippines to have it. Even our Bishop Jesse Mercado, DD. recognized it and invite all the faithful to visit our Shrine to venerate the cross because we are the only church in the Diocese of Paranaque to have it. Base on our research there are only 3 churches in the philippines to have it, first is the Manila Cathedral, second our shrine and third is in Monastario de Tarlac (in Region III) northern part of the Philippines)
Our hope and prayers is that using this platform (wikipedia) we maybe able to spread these information's to different churches in the philippines (and maybe in the world). In concern of self-published, i am willing to give-up my write-ups to potential sponsors or takers to adopt this article. We are also ready to arrange meetings (online or face-to-face) to our parish priest and shrine rector &/or to Superior Delegate - of the Stigmatine in the Philippines to verify and check the authenticity of the write-ups. We are also open that your team and other editors to challenge the write-ups to the chancery of the diff. offices of the bishop of paranaque and manila to verify and check the decrees issued by them to us by the roman catholic church archdiocese of manila (RCAM) and diocese of paranaque (DOP). THANK YOU Fred Luciano (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are reliable secondary sources, and as I stated on your talk page, you appear to have a conflict of interest, based on your affiliation with this church, and that you are a self-declared single-purpose editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Luciano: It looks like you've voted twice in this discussion. Please edit one of your comments to either strike the word "Delete" from the beginning of one of the comments, or change one of them to something like "comment". Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh. Thank you for assistance. Fred Luciano (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for consideration of Sanglahi86's source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd redirect or merge to the diocese where it's located; a church built in 1985 isn't a historic structure. Being a mega-church is nothing special as there are hundreds of them around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the first argument (1985, so not a historic structure) but will beg to disagree with it being a "mega-church". It is a sweeping generalization for what is essentially just a Catholic parish (plus being a Catholic parish, it doesn't fit the definition of a megachurch, which applies to Protestant and evangelical Christian churches.) -- Tito Pao (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source above is not the best; it has no by-line and is part one of two parts. If that's all we have, it's a rather flimsy !keep. I'd change my vote if we could find more, better, sources about the building. All I can pull up is this [8], which is ok-ish, but still not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH with sources provided by Fred Luciano and Sanglahi. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the sources mentioned in the article are:
    • the parish' own Facebook page
    • a Yellow Pages listing
    • a personal travel blog that is not considered a quality source
    • a papal decree that has absolutely no relation to this article
    • and the Vatican News press release about the nomination of the diocesan bishop; the article also doesn't add anything about this article.
    --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titopao Ok. I'll exclude the FB page and Yellow Pages directory. But the rest of the sources are reliable and in-depth enough for me. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User-generated content such as personal blogs might not pass muster under Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline (unless it's an official blog, e.g. official blog of an organization like the CBCP), so it's best to avoid citing them.
    Not really sure why the Waze link should also be considered under WP:RS since it may also be counted under WP:UGC.
    The latter two, while they may be considered official sources (they are, after all, taken from the official Vatican website), don't have any information that are directly related to the topic (as I have already mentioned). Like what I said, the Vatican press release about the diocesan bishop's appointment didn't mention the parish, so how exactly does that support the article? --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete. Sorry, I cannot get over the obvious COI here. If another editor, driven by encyclopedic interest rather than by religious affiliation, wishes to rewrite this article, they are welcome to do so. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable church, the article for which has been created with apparent COI. I seriously considered closing this myself based on the strength of the delete arguments above and what I see as problems with some (but not all) of the keep arguments. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge trimmed down (~1-2 paragraphs max of sourced encyclopedic material) NPOV version to Diocese of Paranaque (or another consensus target) as AtD. I agree with the delete source evals above, there is no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, but there is enough primary ref'd material for the start of a section on the target article. If there is a consensus that the COI issue merits a delete, I have no objection.  // Timothy :: talk  12:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 22 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. Star Mississippi 02:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Scientists by Century

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

There exists Science and technology in Germany. Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the editor who created this is very new and has other 'Lists of [Nationality] Scientists' that were deleted or draftified from the mainspace. However I don't think an equivalent of this list exists via Science and technology in Germany - but does there need to be? Either way, this article is not worth keeping in its current format. Kazamzam (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment, and encourage merging new entries from List of German scientists. The full List of German scientists is rather unhelpful to readers. By splitting the list into time-periods, and providing very brief indications of what the person did/was, this new list helps readers find relevant articles. Imagine a reader who's interested in major figures of the 18th Century, or interested in astronomy. The List of German scientists is useless to them, but the new list will help them navigate rapidly to 18th C astronomers. Its entries are also blue-linked people. We should encourage this sort of helpful navigation aid. It may, however, be necessary either to rename the list as by historical period, or divide it truly by centuries. Elemimele (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 22 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. As with the previous AfD, there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus to keep or merge. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native Plants Journal

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

This article was kept after a "no consensus" AfD almost 3 years ago in February 2021. Since then nothing has changed: the journal is still not indexed in any selective databases and there are no independent sources. In the previous debate several arguments were brought forward to argue in favor of notability, but none was supported by sources, making this a clear fail of WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. There does not appear to be a good merge target. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA. Via Newspaper.com search, there's a little coverage in The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71) relating to its fate after the close of University of Idaho Press. Also mention in Southtown Star (31 Oct 2004, Page 72) on it being included in a botanical garden collection. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also can't merge into University of Idaho Press as that's been turned into a redirect (though I don't think that was the best of decisions). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: 1/ consensus can change, 2/ WP:NOTINHERITED, and 3/ we're 3 years further down the road and there's still no independent sources or indexing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Dream is making an inheritance argument (an essay concerning arguments to avoid during AfD). He is saying it's WP:COMMONSENSE (policy) due to the number of sources that cite the journal, and the journal's pedigree in the academic + government world. Also Espresso Addict gave some sources above, and I linked to a bunch that could be looked into more closely. All this combined makes me think it would be a mistake to delete. If the article is kept, I would make an effort to improve the article with these sources. I will not do so while the AfD is ongoing, because it's so late in the process and so many Merge/Delete votes already a WP:HEY would be very difficult to achieve, and I don't know what high-bar HEY standard people will demand to change their vote (and most people never change their vote regardless). -- GreenC 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources??? Those listed by our coffee drinking friend don't seem to meet GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71), relating to the journal's fate after the close of University of Idaho Press, looks OK to me. The gross word count is low, but the coverage is significant enough, in terms of about the journal. The other source Southtown Star is not significant coverage. A general search of the WP:Wikipedia Library finds 1,683 results, if anyone wants to dig deeper. -- GreenC 18:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the second one isn't any use for the article, I just thought it showed holdings of the journal, which does speak somewhat to importance. The first does at least provide an iota of information. I suggested a possible merge above, but I'd be equally happy with keep, fwiw. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: trying for a consensus, although one doesn't appear likely. Prefer not to revisit in 2027
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: a single researcher with less than 2000 cites would not or only barely qualify for an article. For a journal that has been around as long as this one, 2000 cites frankly is rather pathetic. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But we are talking about native plant journals. Not comparing it to eg. Science. There is such a thing as relative size. Wikipedia has room for notable small journals, if they are important within their field. I'm not an expert on native plants journals but we can do some preliminary search engine checks and according to Randy Kyrn below, they found what appears to be evidence this journal has prominence. Your response was "not impressed", OK, well I don't know how to respond to that. Do you have evidence to suggest it is not a prominent native plants journal? -- GreenC 14:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot prove a negative. Once notability is questioned, it has to be shown that there is notability, not the other way around. The closest one can get to "prove" that a journal is not notable is to show that there are no sources meeting GNG and no selective indexing meeting NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure if this helps the consensus any - but I'm going to come down on the keep side. As per A.B., NPJ does appear to be a journal with a significant quantity of citations to meet WP:NJOURNALS and therefore deserving of an article. ResonantDistortion 12:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion here and at the 2021 deletion attempt discussion and the fact that the Journal is an important historical and academic source of literature on its topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three things: WP:NOTINHERITED (we regularly delete non-predatory journals from major publishers if they don't meet our notability requirements) and second, forgive me, but I'm not really impressed by the fact that Bing thinks that "Native Plants Journal" is a good match for a query "journals about native plants". And three: library holdings are notoriously unreliable on WorldCat and often completely out of date. Some libraries list journals, even if they don't carry them. So its very difficult to gage what are "significant holdings". --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that WP:NOTINHERITED, too often used as "a given" in deletion discussions, is an essay. Essays have their place, but not as end-alls or final words. In this case I'm guessing that the inherited notability would be the University of Wisconsin Press which, as mentioned, is not a vanity publisher and, I'm guessing, picks and chooses wisely. The Wikipedia page on the Press mentions their publication of nine journals, Native Plants Journal is one of them (I know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but commonsense seems a rule rather than an exception in this case). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 6 December 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. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Britannica Industries

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

I agree that this fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There was no consensus in AfD in September, it had very low engagement. I hope this time we can find a consensus either way. Boleyn (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The closing admin on the recent AfD had suggested a Talk page discussion about possible WP:ATD changes as the next step, but that didn't happen. So trying to pick up that discussion here... Despite some news coverage of the compan'y former chair, it does seem that the subject lacks WP:NCORP notability outside of the former plant's possible consequential pollution and health risk; Eastmain and Star Mississippi had proposed reorientating the article to that topic. The lingering concerns (most recently in the OU coursebook exercise and in the local media coverage of the building of retirement homes there) may be just enough for that. Alternatively, a merge/redirect to Waltham Abbey might be possible, though brownfield sites with possible health concerns are not unusual and the merge could be WP:UNDUE. A 3rd alternative might be a redirect to Baby Bio, though that would lose the trace of the academic references concerning the possible cancer cluster. AllyD (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping @AllyD. I think there's merit to keeping the info, but rather indifferent to whether it's the cancer cluster @Eastmain and I discussed, the Abbey site you reference. Baby Bio seems personally less a fit to me. Star Mississippi 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company doesn't pass the notability requirements of NCORP but doesn't need to. The stronger criteria in WP:ORGCRIT are there to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As the name Pan Britannica Industries and PBI are no longer in use commercially (PBI Home and Garden was wound up in 2015) coverage in this article cannot benefit it. The AtDs in this case don't sit well in any of the target articles suggested. There's just about enough here for a GNG pass. The company's no longer in operation, so the article is a brief resume of its history with no promo/advertising concern. Therefore, I'm willing to judge it for notability using the GNG as set out under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations and the cancer issue allows it to pass. Rupples (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rupples The logic you have applied does appear sound, and it furthermore solves the issue of no obvious redirect/merge. It may fall over if the PBI name is reincarnated in some way, but in that future case then WP:ORGCRIT can be applied at that point. Regarding PBI Home and Garden being wound up in 2015 - this is not stated in the article. Do you have a citation for this? ResonantDistortion 12:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Companies House: [9] Rupples (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - Keep. ResonantDistortion 16:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 22 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 Tirukkural translations. Viable ATD Star Mississippi 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Finnish

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

As suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani, nominating individual articles.

Already covered in Tirukkural translations. No proof of WP:Notability of the the one partial transalation on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Reference #1 is literally just an entry in a table, contributing nothing towards GNG. Reference #4 appears to be the (partial) translation itself, and naturally can't contribute towards GNG either. @Rasnaboy: What do the offline sources (#2 and #3) say about the Finnish translations in specific? How detailed is the coverage? Simply asserting that GNG is met is not useful for this discussion.-Ljleppan (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source #2 is a collection of articles by various authors and, if my memory serves me right, has separate essays on each translation. Source #3 has a chapter on translations in general, where the Finnish translation is included. In general, details for Finnish is meager compared with other translations. Nevertheless, it is discussed on most, if not all, of the Kural translations–related works. Rasnaboy (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is much too vague to be useful for this discussion. What does a chapter on translations in general, where the Finnish translation is included mean? Is it mentioned once in passing? Listed in a table like in ref #1? As for reference #2, we don't count hypothetical sourcing: someone must verify that it discusses the topic in some detail. You can't just vaguely hand wave towards most, if not all, of the Kural translations–related works and claim that Article now passes WP:GNG. Ljleppan (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreus (audio drama)

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. I do not believe previous AFD discussion has identified adequate notability. Torpedoi (talk) 21:09, 22 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 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets WP:GNG. The article needs some work; specifically, the plot summary needs to be cut to well under half of what it is, but the sources added during the previous AfD establish GNG.
    1. Starburst Magazine is a long running magazine.
    2. Sci-fi Online is a professional webzine reliable for such cases [10].
    3. I don't have access to the AHistory book, but apparently it is meant to cover such "canon" productions, so I would AGF on it.
Another source, Doctor Who Magazine is an "official" magazine so not sure on independence but may help as well. —siroχo 04:18, 30 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. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spare Parts (audio drama)

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

I am nominating this article due to a lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. This is one of the more noted within the doctor who fandom and hence I have AFDed this instead of proposing it for deletion. I think there is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 29 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! 23:09, 6 December 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 (snow)‎. (non-admin closure) NM 12:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of public signage typefaces

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

Trivial. Fails WP:NLIST. Could not find a single realible source that discusses public signage typefaces in a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this article clearly needs a lot more citations (books, governmental sources) the theory of someone trying to replicate a look / appearance of a road sign and wanting a single source of information is pretty sound. Are art resources trivial?
In a perfect world, I think the model of this page would be something like the "Lists of Colors" pages. 69.124.168.78 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Typography for signage and wayfaring is a specialist discipline, that had demands that differ from typical typography in that they need to readable at distance and at speeds, and cover a much larger range of sizes. This has resulted in type faces designed specifically for this purpose.
See: Typography Best Practices, some books on the subject, from Google Scholar: Signage and Wayfinding Design: A Complete Guide to Creating Environmental Graphic Design Systems, Signage Design Manual, Edo Smitshuijzen Wayfinding: Designing and Implementing Graphic Navigational Systems
Transport Design Manuals are prized by some and have been reprinted as collectors items eg British Rail Corporate Identity Manual Design Manual for the Swiss Federal Railways Tallus (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Perhaps a WP:SNOWBALL is going to start rolling? S5A-0043Talk 16:40, 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 redirect‎ to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaima Ben Mohamed

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

Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 20:52, 22 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 List of Tunisia women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ameni Boukari

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

Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. No indication of notability; the subject seemingly made a single appearance for her national team. Searches turn up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 22 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 23:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saco, California

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

Non-notable railway point, with little information found, all of it passing mentions. This is also true for "Jewetta", which was another name this location was known by. A previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saco, California) closed as no consensus with only two comments. The article has not been expanded since then. There is really nothing to say about this place, other than that it's another of the low-effort articles based entirely on GNIS entries for "unincorporated communities" in California, all created by the same user in 2009. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this turned up "Saco, a station on the Southern Pacific Railroad, two and 8⁄10 miles from Oil Junction" very quickly in the search engines, and then "Jewetta, a siding on the Southern Pacific Railroad above Bakersfield" not long afterwards. So a post office and a railway siding. Ironically, there's far more about Solomon Wright Jewett and his sons Solomon Jewett and Philo D. Jewett in Kern County history books (e.g. Morgan's 1914 History of Kern County) than there is about the barely documented railway siding that was used for their sheep farm. The GNIS importers are writing about the wrong subject, and clearly didn't even have the first clue what the subject was. The Jewett's sheep farm north of Bakersfield is not the actual topic. In theory, this is renameable and refactorable, and expandable as a biography of Solomon Jewett who with his brother turns up in the history books. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're exactly right when you say the GNIS importers "didn't even have the first clue what the subject was", otherwise they would have written about these early citizens and not about some utterly non-notable rail siding. Can I interpret your answer as support for deletion? If we want to write about Solomon Jewett someone certainly can; there is certainly more to say about him than the railroad stop on his land. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless we can connect the dots and find out why (as reported by Gudde) their Jewett railway siding started becoming "sack" in 1900 just before Solomon Jewett's death (q.v.), I'm not sure that this as a redirect is appropriate. I definitely cannot find out more about the railway siding, and if this should redirect anywhere at all it should be to the rail line, which is now marked as a Southern Pacific one, although someone should perhaps find out which one. If we cannot find out which railway line to point to, or don't have it, my view is let's wait until a railway editor comes up with a railway article with a list of freight sidings before having a redirect for "sack". Uncle G (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per the first nom. It's just a rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per the first nom. It is a non-notable railway waypoint that lacks any verifiable history of it being of any significance. There is not any documentation that is was even an unincorporated community / populated place. I can find no reason to keep this article simply on a vauge, unsubstantiated hope that somewhere / someplace there are undiscovered reliable sources proving that place is notable. If something is found, the article can either aways be recreated or added as a section to the article about Solomon Jewett. (By the way, I looked at the Kern County Property viewer and found nothing useful. Paul H. (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing useful in the current article. An article about an overlapping subject at a different title wouldn't be improved by saving this history. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smyth (runner)

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

Non-notable runner. No major achievements or medals won. Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTRACK - Top 8 finish at 2017 World Mountain Running Championships (and team bronze). Plus, along with what is in the article appears to meet WP:GNG with these: [11], [12], [13], [14]. RonSigPi (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Runner's World and ESPN articles (a few comments above this one) are good sources, the interview can fill in the spaces but is primary sourcing. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 30 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 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Watson (distance runner)

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

Non-notable runner. No major achievements or medals won. Natg 19 (talk) 20:29, 22 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 13:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian State–Charlotte rivalry

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from independent, secondary sources. The only secondary source (#2) currently in the article says that it isn't a rivalry yet, and I don't see any other non-primary sources calling it one. Let'srun (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/charlotte-49ers/article245693775.html
  2. ^ https://charlottesports.org/appalachian-state-and-charlotte-to-play-in-2025-dukes-mayo-classic/
  3. ^ https://www.ninertimes.com/sports/charlotte-mens-basketball-overcomes-23-point-deficit-to-down-in-state-rival-appalachian-state/article_1b7a46a2-740a-11ed-bdfd-b792d6fecd4d.html
  4. ^ https://www.ninertimes.com/sports/charlotte-mens-basketball-hosts-in-state-rival-appalachian-state/article_675b003a-7251-11ed-a3e1-17ca955cabd8.html
  5. ^ https://www.nbcsports.com/college-football/news/budding-rivalry-in-north-carolina-charlotte-app-state-schedule-two-games

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 29 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 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riedell Skates

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 29 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 11:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survival of the Fittest (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed with comment, "Presented by Laura Whitmore , notable figure". But, notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. Rationale to keep must be based on the notability of the series, not the person in the series. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. O'Connor, Sorcha (2018-09-24). "Laura Whitmore's Survival of the Fittest show axed after just one series". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "It was dubbed the 'winter Love Island' but reality TV series Survival Of The Fittest - fronted by Laura Whitmore - has been dumped by ITV after just one series. ... The dating show with a twist saw 12 singletons head to South Africa where they stayed in a luxury lodge, with contestants pitted against each other in boys versus girls challenges. The show was won by the girls' team, with overall winner Mettisse Campbell, who was voted as 'fittest girl', choosing to split the £40,000 (€45,000) prize money among the other three remaining girls, with all four ending the series £10,000 richer."

    2. McCreesh, Louise (2018-02-13). "Survival of the Fittest is confusing fans – here, Laura Whitmore explains the rules of the game". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Survival of the Fittest aired its second episode on Monday night (February 12) with viewers still pretty perplexed about the rules. The series was initially branded by fans as a Winter Love Island but opened as a boys vs girls Gladiators-style battle of the sexes (with the obstacle course to boot) when it premiered, although things got even more confusing in last night's episode when newcomer Lottie was given the option of going on a date with one of the male contestants."

    3. Houghton, Rianne (2018-02-12). "It seems no-one knows what Survival of the Fittest is actually about – not even the contestants". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Whether it's a worthy replacement or not, ITV2's new reality series Survival of the Fittest is here to try to fill that Love Island-shaped hole in our lives. ... Despite a new location, a different premise and the introduction of challenges, tonight's (February 12) Survival of the Fittest felt suspiciously similar to its distant cousin – but not in a good way."

    4. Ling, Thomas (2018-09-24). "ITV2's Survival of the Fittest axed after one series". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "The show failed to grab the viewing figures of its stablemate Love Island, debuting with overnight ratings of 0.59 million, which had dipped to 0.30 million by its penultimate week. Overall, the show just didn't capture the zeitgeist of the nation in quite the same way Love Island did this summer. However, viewing figures may not have influenced the decision to cancel the show too heavily, with a source telling RadioTimes.com: “Some have suggested it is down to low ratings which absolutely isn’t the case.""

    5. Fullerton, Huw (2018-03-03). "Who won Survival of the Fittest?". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "After three weeks of mental and physical challenges, ITV2’s new reality show Survival of the Fittest has come to an end with the Girls on top, defeating the Boys in the Ultimate Team Challenge and taking home the final prize."

    6. Taylor, Frances (2018-02-14). "What is Survival of the Fittest? Everything you need to know about ITV2's new Love Island". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Survival of the Fittest is a brand new reality show from ITV2 that also promises sun, singles and gratuitous shots of skimpy swimwear – and it's starting this week! ... The six boys and six girls will take part in different games and challenges in what's being called "the ultimate battle of the sexes". The winning team will take home £40,000 at the end of the three weeks. ... Manchester-based comic and actor Brennan Reece is going to be doing the narration for Survival of the Fittest."

    7. Lewis, Anna (2018-01-02). "Missing Love Island? Then get excited for Survival Of The Fittest". Cosmopolitan. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Survival Of The Fittest is being hailed as ‘Winter Love Island’, and we can see why. It’s basically a bunch of female hotties and male hotties being pitted against each other in daily physical and mental challenges to determine if boys are better than girls or vice-versa. And all against the beautiful backdrop of the South African savanna."

    8. "Laura Whitmore: 'Survival of the Fittest is not the new Love Island - this is a battle of the sexes'". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Laura Whitmore has claimed that Survival of the Fittest is "not the new Love Island - this is a battle of the sexes”. The show will see a group of attractive singles compete in a range of mental and physical challenges as the men take on the women."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Survival of the Fittest to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, per sources found by Cunard. Excellent work. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:14, 27 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 23:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (September–October)

Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (September–October) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a collection of loosely connected news reports from weeks after the 2006 Lebanon war, and is not a timeline of the war itslef (which ended in August) per WP:SYNTH. No material is notable enough to include in the Hezbollah-Israel conflict article for the inter-war periods.GreyShark (dibra) 20:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - It is notable to have an orderly timeline of the war. However, the article should be worked. Perhaps a tag on the top of the page asking for verification is what's necessary. Article should be expanded. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't describe a war timeline, but long after it ended. It is WP:SYNTH.GreyShark (dibra) 09:49, 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 keep‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Jade Bastién

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

As mentioned on Wikipedia talk page, there are scores of film critics who are at least as well known as this one who do not have Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia pages for film critics should only exist when it comes to ones like Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert etc.

Also, as Staceyt04 said, "none of the language present connotes any kind of notability. Furthermore, the tone with which this article is written suggests self-promotion. There are references to her current output at Vulture and a Twitter page that, as of this writing, does not exist. 6 of the 23 sources provided are just her writing. The act of writing, as well as the fact of being employed as a staff writer, is not itself notable."— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenWilliam (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She meets notability as a creative professional given that she has been nominated several times for a significant award (ASME Awards), she is widely cited across significant RS, and she provides commentary in multiple RS. And despite your opinion, notability for critics isn't determined based on your personal determination. Citrivescence (talk) 03:24, 1 December 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. Ignoring the blanking, which could be a sign of frustration, there's no evidence of an N:MUSIC pass given disagreement on the status of Empire. Star Mississippi 03:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icetre

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

The subject of this article doesn't meet any of the criteria listed at WP:SINGER. I tagged it with a notability tag initially but the tag was removed. A google news search turns up a single article by LA Weekly where two sentences were written about the subject in a "Hottest Artists to Watch in 2023" article. https://www.laweekly.com/hottest-artists-to-watch-in-2023/

Clearly not enough to establish notability. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Philipnelson99|(talk) 19:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look more into the subject. Do not base it on one article. The subject meets the criteria based off of Guideline #5 which states: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."
    The subject is signed to EMPIRE Distribution, whom acts as a major and independent record label (look into this as well). The subject has released two or more albums, fulfilling the guideline of #5 and to be noted, EMPIRE Distribution's roster consists of highly rated names that you would know of.
    Further more, EMPIRE Distribution promotes their artists very well with promotion and very adequate marketing. LAWeekly's Wikipedia states "The paper covers Los Angeles music, arts, film, theater, culture, concerts, and events." They are very notable but there is no payola so a "script" isn't being placed out there. They write what they feel but claiming a few short words discredits the request for notability is inadequate and I choose to appeal it on the grounds that the subject has in fact enough to prove notability.
    If felt that it only meets half (50/50) then I would be satisfied and would concede with it remaining a stub and it be promptly removed from "requests of deletion" with the sticker being removed from the top of the article, if both parties concede for it to remain a stub article.
    Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the subject's song was not only voted to be chosen for LAWeekly coverage but the subject's song was also voted to be featured on LAWeekly's Hottest Hits of 2023 playlist on Spotify. That more than proves notability, is LAWeekly not a reputable source anymore? I contest the ruling. There are 12 cited sources for the subject, there is sufficient evidence and proof that the subject is notable enough for an acceptance of a Wikipedia article or a continuance of a stub article. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If guideline #5 is accepted for notability but there is still that sliver of doubt that puts it on the fence then the stub article will be an efficient solution. The stub Wikipedia definition states: "A stub is an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion."
In a nutshell, the subject may lack coverage but useful information has been given and is capable of expansion. There will be an acceptance on our end of a stub tag has to be placed on the article. That is fine.
It states: "Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template."
Possible Solution: The subject can keep their page as a stub article instead of an article of creation, the tag for deletion can be removed from the top but the tag for it being a stub article stays, and the subject gain more notability from the Guidelines in order to appease enough to have expansion granted and eventually its stub template be removed and reviewed for an article of creation, but with only enough sufficient evidence and proof towards the guidelines.
How does this solution sound? Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you editing on behalf of Icetre? Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. The rules clearly state "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I withdrew my nomination. The reason I asked about you editing on behalf of the article is because you said something would "be fine on our end". that doesn't change the validity of the #5 claim that you pointed out, hence my withdrawal of the deletion nomination. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I completely understand about the "be fine on our end" part. I do a lot of writing and research but I get busy often so I have a friend on stand by to help with extra research if I can't get around to any of it due to a schedule conflict so that's who I was co-referencing when I said that phrase. You know how that can be when time gets away from you. and in light of the nomination withdraw, thank you very much for the re-consideration on the situation. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to close the AFD for Icetre out? An auto-bot re-marked it and the AFD tag appeared on the top of the Wikipedia so it went back into rotation on your original ruling except others were wanting to void it even though you made your decision to withdraw the nomination. If we can close out the AFD for the subject then just let me know. Please and thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually decided to let this sit and I've retracted my withdrawal. comments from @duffbeerforme below are the reason for my retraction. It's also not a good idea to remove AfD templates until someone closes the AfD which I did not do, I merely withdrew my nomination. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was admittedly unclear about the AFD templates so I will take that as a learning lesson as I did not know that before hand about the withdraw. There is no problem with that. As far as @Duffbeerforme I have made a very strong and well written argument as to why EMPIRE is considered a record label. A logical defense for EMPIRE has been provided and unless @Duffbeerforme can provide sufficient evidence that rules against EMPIRE as a record label.
and to be clear he is stating that its one or the other, not both and I am stating the case that it is both but operates separately in operates entities.
There was a legal issue between the show Empire that aired on FOX and Empire Distribution. One of the biggest issues was who gained control over "Empire Records" since EMPIRE is a record label their artists were signed to EMPIRE Records but FOX had Empire Records for their TV show and the result was FOX proved to be the winner which resulted in EMPIRE dropping "Records" from EMPIRE Records. From there they rebranded as Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc.
This is solid proof that EMPIRE fits under the record label stature of Guideline #5. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that does nothing to tell us whether or not the Icetre records were on the EMPIRE label... Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely establishing EMPIRE as a record label which was an ongoing debated issue. Please refer to my other current responses as I have responded with more evidence. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    False. Here is cited information by Universal Music Group stating that EMPIRE is a record label. For the record, on Guideline #5, when you click on the "major record label" section, Universal Music Group is one of the record labels that appear. I have bolded the words that speak evidence to my case that EMPIRE is not only a "distribution company" but in fact an independent label and valid for Guideline #5.
    Here is the article
    https://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-group-empire-form-strategic-distribution-agreement/
    SANTA MONICA, April 25, 2018 — Universal Music Group (UMG), the world leader in music-based entertainment, today announced a multi-year global agreement with EMPIRE, the San Francisco-based independent music company founded by Ghazi Shami, to provide strategic distribution services to UMG’s labels and artists to complement UMG’s existing global distribution network.
    Under the agreement, UMG and EMPIRE will work together on select artist projects from UMG’s labels that will benefit from EMPIRE’s unique approach to distribution, digital sales, promotion and marketing.
    About EMPIRE
    Founded in 2010, EMPIRE has grown to become the leading independent distributor and label for urban music in the United States. Its clients include labels and artists, both developing and veteran stars, across hip hop, R&B, Latin, reggae, pop, rock, gospel, and country. The company has provided distribution, label services, and promotion forsingles and albums by artists including Anderson .Paak, XXXTENTACION, Cardi B, Kendrick Lamar, DRAM, Fat Joe & Remy Ma, Migos, Shaggy, Snoop Dogg and many more. Find out more at: https://www.empi.re/
    About Universal Music Group
    Universal Music Group (UMG) is the world leader in music-based entertainment, with a broad array of businesses engaged in recorded music, music publishing, merchandising and audiovisual content in more than 60 countries. Featuring the most comprehensive catalog of recordings and songs across every musical genre, UMG identifies and develops artists and produces and distributes the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful music in the world. Committed to artistry, innovation and entrepreneurship, UMG fosters the development of services, platforms and business models in order to broaden artistic and commercial opportunities for our artists and create new experiences for fans. Universal Music Group is a Vivendi company. Find out more at: http://www.universalmusic.com.
    Date: April 25, 2018
    A distribution company only would handle distribution, they do not handle promotion or marketing as stated above. Further more, the section where it says "label services" can be argued that promotion and marketing are two fundamental aspects needed and necessary in terms of "label services." It is also repeatedly stated that it is independent while acting as a music company, record label, distributor, and publishing. I argue that Guideline #5 is still valid as EMPIRE is a record label and that distribution does not prevent it from being a record label the distribution only further adds onto the record label's resources but it does not make it solely a distribution company.
    Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I cite the Wikipedia definition of "record label"
    A record label, or record company, or simply records, is a brand or trademark of music recordingsand music videos, or the company that owns it. Sometimes, a record label is also a publishingcompany that manages such brands and trademarks, coordinates the production, manufacture, distribution, marketing, promotion, and enforcement of copyright for sound recordings and music videos, while also conducting talent scouting and development of new artists, and maintaining contracts with recording artists and their managers. The term "record label" derives from the circular label in the center of a vinyl record which prominently displays the manufacturer's name, along with other information.
    Distribution is defined as this:
    Distribution is the process of making a product or service available for the consumer or business user who needs it, and a distributor is a business involved in the distribution stage of the value chain. Distribution can be done directly by the producer or service provider or by using indirect channels with distributors or intermediaries. Distribution (or place) is one of the four elements of the marketing mix: the other three elements being product, pricing, and promotion.
    Distribution only makes up one of the four elements of the marketing mix while as product, pricing, and promotion is under the record labels' umbrella.
    1. Distributors do not make the price, they simply distribute the product.
    2. Distributors only distribute a product if they have said product, they have no involvement otherwise with creation of said product.
    3. Distributors do not handle promotion, even if a product is distributed to a special event they are not within the knowledge or have the power to change the distribution destination otherwise that would be considered a conflict of interest and would justify criminal charges.
    EMPIRE is considered through technicality a record label based on evidence that it can provide 3 of the marketing mix while as a distribution company can only provide 1 of the marketing mix.
    I rest my case. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and to cite from EMPIRE's Wikipedia:
    "they have distributed and/or are still distributing artists such as Kendrick Lamar, Schoolboy Q, Problem, Snoop Dogg, and Crooked I. They've also been involved in New York with releases from Fat Joe, Styles P, Cam'ron, and Busta Rhymes. On the R&B side, they have signed artists such as Eric Bellinger, Jacquees, Jesse Boykins III, Jonn Hart, and Lyrica Anderson."
    These are high name acts that you may or may not have heard of. Those are artists who were signed by EMPIRE to their record label while as other artists were simply distributed but not signed to the label itself. Those R&B artists who were signed were signed under a recording contract, which constitutes and adds weight to the claim that EMPIRE is also a record label. If they had sign a distribution deal then they would be under the "they have distributed and/or are still distributing artists such as" section. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so looking into to it. I don't think you can find a source that says Icetre was actually signed to EMPIRE. And the albums on the page don't appear to published by EMPIRE at all. Discogs isn't a valid source for that info and neither is MusicBrainz. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The validity of EMPIRE has been established, which is good. The subjects's paper trail of EMPIRE is within the licensing. Apple Music and Spotify do not provide EMPIRE's title but Youtube has the records and further evidence. Youtube indexes Youtube Music to their Youtube descriptions which shows that Icetre's music is under the EMPIRE record label.
    Here is a cited example:
    Icetre - House Party
    The description goes as follows: Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution
    House Party · Icetre · Miscellaneous House Party (feat. Miscellaneous) ℗ 2017 Blazington Music Group Released on: 2017-10-20 Auto-generated by YouTube.
    This version of
    House Party
    says:
    EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group); BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., UMPG Publishing... This is viewable in the description and scrolled down to the licenses section on the Youtube app .
    All 3 albums of the subjects read "Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution"
    Pisces Gold 2.0
    28
    Slime To Tha 5
    and the subjects latest song as of 6 months ago shows the same "Provided to YouTube by EMPIRE Distribution" description on the video
    Here is the song
    Old School (2004)
    This is irrefutable proof that the subject is a legitimate artist with EMPIRE.
    Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That still doesn't tell me if the albums were on the label, simply that a distribution company provided the info and you're running into the problem @Duffbeerforme pointed out. The evidence you've provided doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The site https://empire.empi.re does not have a roster for any artists, their roster list is on Wikipedia. EMPIRE has the subject under them and the subject has a record label underneath EMPIRE, Blazington Music Group. On the subject's album 28, on Youtube the licensing says "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)." The subject is an artist with EMPIRE and has their own faction under EMPIRE, the Blazington Music Group. This is why it is says "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)." Bunkytrap34 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence I provided proves sufficient enough for Guideline #5 which is the subject has released two or more albums on a major record label or an independent record label. Licensing data exists and shows that the subject's music listed in their Wikipedia aligns correctly with Catalog Numbers, UPC and ISRC codes that come from the EMPIRE catalog. The catalog numbers begin with ED which is short for EMPIRE Distribution. The subject's was signed, began a record label underneath EMPIRE, and their music is distributed under Blazington Music Group but released under EMPIRE.
    Evidence has been given and shown that the subject has legitimately released two or more albums under a major record label or an independent record label. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you had time to think everything through and consider the evidence provided? There would be satisfaction with the original solution of the subject's Wikipedia remaining a stub but for the stub tag to be removed the subject has to provide necessary information in the future for expansion in order for a larger article to be created. Also Happy Thanksgiving I hope you have a great one @Philipnelson99 Bunkytrap34 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have and I strongly favor deletion. This person does not come close to meeting WP:SINGER and your walls of text have done nothing to tell me if those records were actually on the EMPIRE label. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So I have consulted with the support team at EMPIRE about this matter and they informed me that they are willing to provide screenshots of royalties and earnings within their own database with the UPC codes of the records that were mentioned so that can provide the necessary information that the subject is indeed with EMPIRE. I would not be providing large amounts of information if I did not believe that the subject has met a guideline for acceptance.
    There is an issue
    You initially said that the subject met Guideline #5, then the legitimacy of the record label was challenged, I proved the legitimacy of the record label, then the legitimacy of the subject being on the record label was challenge, I am in the middle of proving the legitimacy of this but if the legitimacy is proven then the subject meets Guideline #5 which is they have released two or more albums on a major or independent record label.
    Under your same terms its about proving legitimacy of Guideline #5 I vote that the rules stay that way to prove there is no bias or conflict of interest. This should be fair for all parties considered. We should not be moving the goal post. That is not playing fair and I feel that would almost violate some sort of rules for the editors. Let's do this fair.
    If the legitimacy can be proven then under fairness the subject's Wikipedia stays under Guideline #5. Even @Duffbeerforme's initial issue was whether Guideline #5 was valid for EMPIRE. I proved that it was so that was satisfactory evidence in all technicalities. The legitimacy of proving the subject's records being released on EMPIRE is underway but if that can be proven then I feel that by the fairness of the Wikipedia community that it should be valid for the subject to retain and keep their Wikipedia stub. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Final comment from User:Philipnelson99: You said before that the EMPIRE site doesn't have a roster for artists but they do have pages for individual releases. If Icetre is on the label it would be on Empire's site and I've confirmed his most recent albums is not listed there. Furthermore, iTunes even has an EMPIRE records page which Icetre isn't on.[16]
    It's clear that all of your claims above do not show that the records above are on the EMPIRE record label, and aside from the obviously unmet record label claim, there is no evidence that Icetre meets the criteria outlined in WP:SINGER.
    A comment posted by the artist on Genius (company) claims that EMPIRE and Blazington Records are connected and have been since 2014[17], but it still appears that Icetre's records are published by Blazington not empire. Furthermore, the artist published content on WP:GENIUS is WP:BLPSELFPUB and thus completely unreliable. Same goes for anything published on Blazington Music's socials given their apparent ties to Icetre. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I mean by moving the goal post. There is clear evidence that the subject's music was released under the EMPIRE label with the evidence cited but you are making the claim that if it is not done a specific way then it does not count. A second or third opinion is definitely needed for this. I feel like you are being biased with the subject and therefore unfair.
    The subject legitimately released the music on EMPIRE and evidence was provided that it was released but you are requiring extra steps that once proven then require more extra steps. It was proven the subject was on the label, then it was proven EMPIRE was a record label, then it was proven that the subject's music was released under EMPIRE on YouTube, and now you are requiring the release be on the website and iTunes, how many times are you going to move the goal post?
    I feel like the community needs to be apart of this decision because I feel there is clear bias from you @Philipnelson99 Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for @Bunkytrap34, can you 100% without a doubt proved he is signed to EMPIRE and that the albums on the page were released on the EMPIRE label? I'm looking at the iTunes pages and see no mention of EMPIRE in the copyright section. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I can, please refer to the reply that I had just posted a moment ago. Spotify and Apple Music have seemingly hidden the data for many artists while only providing sometimes just a single label name but not the main record label but Youtube has the information including licensing information which helps provides further evidence. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the SoundExchange website https://isrc.soundexchange.com/?tab=%22simple%22&artistName=%22icetre%22&currentPage=4&showReleases=true, the subject's music is listed along with the ISRC code and the matches to the songs.
    EMPIRE signed the subject and with the creation of the subject's record label there was no necessary need for EMPIRE to be listed if the subject was already underneath the record label. The phrase "hat on a hat" applies here. This is why the subject's label says "Blazington Music Group". There was no necessary need to put both as the subject already releases music under the EMPIRE record label but underneath the subject's record label Blazington Music Group.
    This is why the Youtube data reads the way it does versus the way it reads on iTunes and Spotify.
    The subject is legitimately an artist with EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes here is the evidence.
    I can you 100% without a doubt prove the subject is signed to EMPIRE and that the albums on the page were released on the EMPIRE label
    On the mobile version of Youtube, the subject's releases "28", "Pisces Gold 2.0", and "Slime To Tha 5" are properly licensed and since the subject has their own record label, Blazington Music Group, underneath EMPIRE it becomes recorded on the licensing information.
    I cite that the information says under "LICENSES"
    "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group)
    Licensing information comes from the record label itself, not distribution.
    This is solid evidence that the releases are under EMPIRE otherwise it would not show EMPIRE on the licensing information. Also evidence of releases under EMPIRE is that it says on behalf of Blazington Music Group but if it was distributed through Blazington Music Group then it would say Distributed by Blazington Music Group.
    I argue that this is solid and concrete evidence that the releases were released under EMPIRE and that the subject satisfies the original ruling of whether the subject meets Guideline #5 or not.
    @Duffbeerforme @Philipnelson99 @Shellwood @Skynxnex @Wcquidditch Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't tag us all. That's completely unnecessary and arguably WP:CANVASSING. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad I did not mean to make it seem like canvassing, only tagged everyone involved just to see how everyone felt about the evidence provided.
    But I think the "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group) proof is solid for a case that the subject is under and has released said albums under EMPIRE and that the subject is fit for a stay of stub article due to fulfilling the Guideline #5.
    Is this satisfactory enough for you to withdraw your nomination? I hate that I am keeping you online back and forth with the matter of this subject. I hope you and I can get this taken care of and we can close out the article for deletion for Thanksgiving.
No, I feel this deletion discussion should continue and more opinions should be considered. I understand you want it to be over but that's not how this process works. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that is no problem. The solid 100% without a doubt evidence is the response that has everyone tagged in it. I had a feeling that there would be other opinions needed and so that's why I tagged everyone in there so they could see it for themselves and draw an unbiased decision based on the evidence I provided and not because they were swayed by your opinion. All opinions are welcome so it will be better to get the opinions from others on the cited evidence for acceptance under Guideline #5.
I feel as if the evidence is concrete. I noticed that you did not mention anything further about the subject so maybe there was satisfactory enough evidence to suffice but that further opinions would be needed. Something as a community vote if you will.
I do not mind if the subject has to have their stub article reviewed by the community in order to draw a final conclusion on if it fulfills Guideline #5. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so the nominator, Philipnelson99, said they were withdrawing (the withdraw itself was withdrawn as I was writing this comment) the nom but didn't close the discussion (and no one else did); afterwards extensive discussion occurred here instead of the article talk page. A editor has since suggested deletion so it feels a bit iffy to speedily close based on my reading of WP:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). But, I am open to other ideas/not saying my interpretation is definitive saying that so some attention will be paid. Thanks. (this was written while the withdraw was still active but leaving it mostly as-is.) Skynxnex (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) 03:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex, my withdrawal was on the basis that someone else voted for deletion. Sorry if I inadvertently broke the process. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philipnelson99 I didn't mean to imply you did anything incorrect, just that we were in a slightly unusual situation compared to other AfDs I've seen. Since the discussion remained open, I think you're fine with deciding to not withdraw the nomination. In the future, if you do decide to withdraw a nomination, feel free to close it as well assuming it meets the criteria listed at the link I shared. (For example, I think the discussion that continued was reason enough to not close it.) Skynxnex (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, I read the policy but was unsure if closing a discussion which I brought was a good idea given that only myself and the page creator had commented here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was the issue with the original AFD not being closed out. I mistakenly removed the tag on the thought that that's what would close out the AFD I did not know it had to be closed out by the nominator. This resulted in a second discussion based around the record label the subject is currently with. While this is great for diligence I feel as if the case that I made in defense of said record label was adequate enough to satisfy any doubts.
    I have used a lot of proof and cited information for the case so I hope everyone involved thoroughly reads the evidence based around the second discussion and the record label's authenticity.
    Thank you. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to my delete comment. Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform for people with a obvious conflict of interest, looking at you Stephen Best, your claim otherwise is not even remotely close to being believable. Stick to other platforms where there is a big push. Search finds PR on sites like a bombardment at Medium by the same author (google icetre stephen best) such as crap like this but Medium is not a reliable source. Lacks independent coverage from reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion about COI in regards to this subject and Philip is right here but you are on the wrong page. It is under the COI tag. I have proven there is no COI and I have proven that the subject is on EMPIRE. As Philip stated, writing abut the article subject multiple times is not a COI in and of itself. This entire nomination is whether it meets Guideline #5, so not to be mean but lets stay on subject here. We are not discussing any other claims of this and or that, it all stays on the subject of whether Guideline #5 is met. We are not discussing Guideline #1 which is reliable sources and independent coverage we are discussing Guideline #5 and it also states "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." and the claim that the subject is an artist on EMPIRE is found within reliable and reputable sources.
    Here is the claim for the subject being on the record label on TheOrg: https://theorg.com/org/empire-distribution/org-chart/icetre
    And it is not the only site that claims the subject as an artist with EMPIRE that is independent from the subject and verifiable
    Here is the debate on COI raised by Philip, the original nominator
    COI possibility[edit source]
    After reading through the page creator's (User:Bunkytrap34) user page, I've determined there is a high likelihood of a conflict of interest. I see that the user says they are "Stephen Best" and they have written about the article subject multiple times (that's not a COI in and of itself).
    Furthermore, the apparent record label the artist owns and operates has "Stephen Best" listed as the person who wrote the artist biography on several associated platforms.[1] (one of the platforms is not linked due to it being on the spam blacklist)
    I'm extremely concerned about an undisclosed COI, especially since I was told there was no COI before. Additionally, I found that this account had uploaded a photo to Commons that appears to be of IceTre Media:IceTre in 2020.jpg and the description says

    The music video for IceTre’s song “Understand Me” was filmed in 2020. Behind the scenes footage and photo shoots were to be captured as requested on the set of the music video. A team of videographers, press, and social media managers were present for correct handling of the project at hand.

    This file is labeled as Bunkytrap34's own work.
    So, User:Bunkytrap34, could you explain this? I don't mean to be accusatory but paid editing and conflicts of interest are very important issues for Wikipedia.  Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
    Hello there, I am able to provide explanations:
    1. Yes I have written about the article subject multiple times as that's not a COI in and of itself as you stated.
    2. The biography I wrote was well received so the subject took it upon themselves to include it and properly cited with "Stephen Best." This is why the name is listed as the person who wrote the artist biography on several associated platforms (I am not aware of all several.) But I am happy that they kept the name out of respect for the person who wrote it. As far as writing for the subject's record label I am not currently employed or on their payroll. I cannot pass that along to the subject to change it but I am glad I could clear that part up that I am not a writer under their label but merely wrote the biography used.
    3. Yes I uploaded the image but it is not my own work. Admittedly I tried to upload it the other way but it would not display the photo once it was uploaded. It did work when It was uploaded under own work so that is my bad for the confusion. I did not take the photo and that is why I phrased everything the way I did from an editors perspective since I wasn't there. I had mentioned that "Behind the scenes footage and photo shoots were to be captured as requested on the set of the music video." but I wasn't there to witness whether it was captured as requested or not.
    Bunkytrap34 (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
    One thing I did notice is that the biography I wrote has been reworded a few different times and not all biographies are an exact match on some of these platforms. I would most likely conclude that the subject's biography was edited with different information or updated with new information but the original that I wrote was still the backbone of the biography hence why the name "Stephen Best" was still included.
    and now that I think of it, with that many biographies floating around and my name attached with them I can see how someone even at EMPIRE could draw a conclusion that I write for the subject's record label when in fact I wrote one biography and its been edited and posted multiple times in relation to the subject. I think that is honestly what we are dealing with here.  Bunkytrap34 (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
    That was my reply on the COI page.
    Bunkytrap34 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duffbeerforme Have you taken a chance to review my response?
    Honestly I think you both are taking this personal.
    for example: Your first issue was whether or not EMPIRE was a record label or not.
    That was proven it was.
    Now its whether there is a COI or not.
    Evidence was provided about this but what else are you going to come up with after the COI or are you going to be satisfied? That's why it seems like it is personal because every time something has enough evidence to hold up then there is something else that has to become satisfied. I have enough evidence for a solid case for Guideline #5 and each time it is shown clear and concrete evidence then @Philipnelson99 simply denies it or moves the goal post and says it needs to be "his way or the highway." He said "can you prove 100% without a doubt that the subject's releases were through EMPIRE?" and I provided sufficient evidence but I can clearly show that he is goal post moving because he said "well those releases are not on the website or on the EMPIRE iTunes page." That is goal post moving and he does not want to admit it because I feel like he is taking this personally. He could say "well even though it shows he released it on the label it needs to be proven to me with a video that someone took of the subject signing the paperwork with the EMPIRE president in the photo as well." This is extreme and shows that there is never going to be satisfactory evidence for the editor due to goal post moving.
    I feel like this is "taking it personal" especially where as I showed the subject's releases were in fact released through EMPIRE then Philip simply says "it needs to be on the website or it does not count." It is a clear abuse of power to use your own singular thought as the "only" option which I think is why he wanted to keep the discussion opened. The subject's music on EMPIRE can be proven by licensing and record label data on the websites, the subject's music does not need to be on the very front page of the EMPIRE website co-signed by the EMPIRE president himself in order for this claim of the subject's music releasing through EMPIRE to be met.
    We need others to chime in on this entire discussion. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cite that page from The Org, but it says at the top that it's an unverified company.[18] That site is not enough to verify that Icetre is truly on the record label. I'm not "moving the goal posts" as this process is necessary to determine a subject's notability. Regardless of my initial argument, the argument @Duffbeerforme raised is an important one because you used the record label criteria as the claim to notability. If you cannot verify that he is on the empire record label, then you must use the other criteria specified in WP:SINGER.
    In order to verify Icetre as being on the EMPIRE record label you must provide a verifiable source and all of the sources you have provided are questionable or self-published at best.
    Furthermore, this is not personal. This is simply a discussion to determine if an article should remain on Wikipedia based on the notability guidelines agreed upon by consensus. I'm sorry if my comments have appeared as personal attacks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After taking time to rebuild I wanted to bring up a few things
    1. If the subject signs to EMPIRE, creates a record label while on EMPIRE, does that technically mean that he is still on EMPIRE or does that mean he is no longer on EMPIRE? and does this mean the subject's created record label is under EMPIRE?
    2. If the answer is "yes he is still technically on EMPIRE" and that "yes it means the subject's created record label is under EMPIRE" then all releases under the subject's created record label that was created under EMPIRE would technically still be released under EMPIRE. It could not be released solely on the subject's created record label because it was specifically created whilst the subject was already under EMPIRE.
    3. It's a bit of a tricky situation in the first place from what I've gathered: The subject releases music on the EMPIRE record label through the record label they created while on the EMPIRE record label but the subject's releases say the subject's record label name. If the subject wanted to solely have "EMPIRE" as the record label name on Apple and Spotify then the subject would have to unfortunately cancel out their created record label and have it wiped from the EMPIRE system. On Youtube it says "EMPIRE (On behalf of Blazington Music Group" because it is still on the EMPIRE record label but they included the subject's record label for posterity. Even I can see possible licensing issues if it only said EMPIRE instead of the subject's record label included.
    4. If the answer is yes to the question of if the subject created a record label under EMPIRE is that record label is still under EMPIRE then I follow up with this next piece of evidence from SoundExchange. Here is the definition: SoundExchange is an American non-profit collective rights management organization founded in 2003. It is the sole organization designated by the U.S. Congress to collect and distribute digital performance royalties for sound recordings. It pays featured and non-featured artists and master rights owners for the non-interactive use of sound recordings under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 112 and 17 U.S.C. § 114.
    5. SoundExchange is a verifiable source from the U.S. Congress and is not self published. You mentioned my sources were questionable or self published at best. The definition: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process... SoundExchange has a very high reputation for checking proper facts (for example they may say "does this artist's song belong to this artist? and then do their fact checking from there". SoundExchange has very meaningful editorial oversight with no conflict of interest as the U.S. Congress would be in extreme violation of such things. SoundExchange does not rely on promotional content, extremist content, heavily unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Predatory open access does not apply in this case.
    6. SoundExchange has the subject's music and data available here. The three albums in question are "Pisces Gold 2.0", "28", and "Slime To Tha 5", all information including Artist, Title, Version, Year, Duration, ISRC, Release, Release Label, Release Date, Release Artist, and UPC are displayed once the "Show Releases" switch is toggled on.
    7. If the answer is yes to the question of if the subject created a record label under EMPIRE is that record label is still under EMPIRE then I say that SoundExchange is a verifiable source and non self published source showing that the two or more album releases by the subject were under EMPIRE and the subject meets Guideline #5.
    8. The ISRC search feature of SoundExchange is still apart of the SoundExchange website.
    Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and I wanted to add a little bit more context to my first question.
    1. If the subject signs to EMPIRE, granted to create a record label while on EMPIRE and does not leave EMPIRE and continues releasing music, does that mean that he is still on EMPIRE when he releases music or does that mean he is no longer on EMPIRE when he releases music?
    2. If EMPIRE allows someone to create a record label under EMPIRE does that mean the subject's record label's releases are ultimately under EMPIRE since the subject's record label is under EMPIRE and the subject themselves are under EMPIRE?
    Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to include the SoundExchange link I mentioned earlier. Here it is:
    https://isrc.soundexchange.com/?tab=%22advanced%22&artistName=%22icetre%22&fileType=%22all+file+types%22&showReleases=true Bunkytrap34 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So the connections behind this is that SoundExchange shows the albums were in fact from Blazington Music Group and it shows the dates when they were released. YouTube shows the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE as their licensing data shows on the videos. Manipulation of licensing data is not able to be done even when uploading videos to Youtube. Licensing data is handled by Youtube and other parties involved (EMPIRE in this case). I checked and there is the subject's Youtube and there is a topic version of the Youtube. The licensing data displays on the subject's Youtube information but since licensing data cannot be manipulated then that does not go against a conflict of interest nor is licensing data "self published". The licensing information is in an entirely separate section that is unable to be edited by the general public. In this case only Youtube and EMPIRE have access.
    I am merely using Youtube as extension of proof between the two. In this case, Licensing data should count to prove the connection. If the president comes out with an official statement on Youtube, does Youtube's reputation enough to say that the video is "invalid"? Since licensing data is across multiple sites it would be silly to say it doesn't count on Youtube but counts on Apple Music.
    I have an idea, I want you to answer a question for me, 100% without a doubt but if Blazington Music Group was not under EMPIRE then how could it possibly say "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group"
    and mind you if it was distributed by Blazington Music Group then it would say "Distributed by Blazington Music Group" and if it was distributed by EMPIRE then it would say "Distributed by EMPIRE"
    so can you 100% without a doubt say that EMPIRE and Blazington Music Group have no connection and can you 100% without a doubt explain why the licensing data says those two names together?
    If "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group" is not a connection to EMPIRE then I don't know what is. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SoundExchange acts as the reliable source and Youtube acts as the supporting evidence. Licensing data cannot be manipulated and UPC and ISRC codes. so the supporting evidence should still count and not be thrown out so it can support the claim that Blazington Music Group has the connection to EMPIRE.
    "EMPIRE (on behalf of Blazington Music Group" shows a direct connection and since the licensing data is in a section that cannot be manipulated and is directly supplied by Youtube, Blazington Music Group, and EMPIRE themselves, It should be counted as legitimate. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my last comment here. I don't believe the youtube video description is enough justification that this musician is on the record label, and thus the notability guidelines aren't met in my opinion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So I am uploading a video to Flickr to cite. The subject's manager got ahold of me via email and sent a screen recording from inside the subject's login information for the EMPIRE database. You will be able to see everything from there and it will be indisputable. I have seen the recording and it is transparent and shows the direct connection. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the information provided was enough but please see this last piece of evidence before you make your decision. It is a 4 minute video in order to see everything for what is. It is more than enough to satisfy any doubt that it Blazington Music Group is connected to EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the video that was emailed to mehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360805218/in/photostream/lightbox/
    This is undeniable proof. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    replying to my own comment but was informed that they used the subject's login information in order for it to display this information on the EMPIRE website. I don't know what that all meant in terms of if it was necessary or not but from what the video showed anyone can make a clear connection to Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was emailed this over by the manager as well its the EMPIRE Content Team confirming the 3 releases from the subject were released on EMPIRE. They had requested the subject contact them about this matter but I wasn't made aware of this until their manager informed me. I did not want to have to go to these lengths to prove the connection but it was good to do. Between the video and this photo its undeniable proof and that the nomination should be withdrawn and that the subject can keep their stub article.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360664731/
    I was informed me that nothing was blacked out that way there was no accusations of fakes or digital imagery. It appears it was sent to the subject. I would imagine this whole matter has made the EMPIRE team question what is going on so with the video and the photo I think it all goes under Guideline #5 and that the subject can keep their stub article. @Philipnelson99
    * I do not own any copyright to these videos or photos these are not products of mine they are used with permission merely for wikipedia purposes* Bunkytrap34 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per discussion { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A connection has been made between record labels. The nomination meets Guideline #5 and the afd will be withdrawn soon. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not withdrawing the AfD. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I effectively proved the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. That was what you asked for and that was what was delivered. I thought you were not moving the goal post? Did you watch the video and see the photo? The subject meets Guideline #5 and should be granted the stub article. Mind you this is only a stub article we are talking about. You said there is a process to this, well any and all processes include being fair and I was able to prove there was the link between the two. By not removing the afd after this evidence has been shown this shows me that you are moving the goal post.
Why are you not being fair? Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
video evidence:https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360805218/in/photostream/lightbox/
photo evidence:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/199677379@N08/53360664731/ Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer you to Duffbeerforme's first comment on this AfD. It's pretty clear that the albums are being distributed by EMPIRE distribution. That doesn't mean the subject was signed to the record label. That's the absolute last thing I'm saying here. I don't like to be accused of being unfair. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue he was saying is that EMPIRE isn't a real record label, it had nothing to do with whether the subject's work was distributed by EMPIRE, you are moving the goalpost and being unfair.
Duffbeerforme's first comment:
Delete. Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
I already proved EMPIRE was a record label, why are you going in a loop? You asked for a clear connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE and I proved there was and now you are saying its pretty clear the albums are being distributed by EMPIRE distribution. That is taking it in a complete opposite lane.
The issue is whether the albums are ON EMPIRE and I already established that EMPIRE was a real record label and then I established that the releases were on EMPIRE and then I established that the subject was on EMPIRE and then I established the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE. You are being very unfair.
We need others to chime in on this. I have provided everything you asked and you are moving the goal post. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bunkytrap34 A bit of advice meant in good faith: I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process given the number of your replies. Whoever chooses to close this AFD will see your responses so repeatedly making them normally are not valuable and may work against the position you're arguing for. AFDs are normally allowed to run 7 days; at which point an uninvolved, experienced editor will close this discussion (or relist it for further discussion if that seems fruitful). Skynxnex (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I do not want to sound impartial but many of my replies are either providing evidence that the nominator asks for or replying back to the nominator about them saying the evidence is not sufficient enough. I could have chopped down those replies but I felt as if the evidence needed explanation even though the nominator repeatedly turned down all shown pieces of evidence.
I genuinely feel I provided enough evidence that the subject meets Guideline #5 which states:
  1. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But thank you very much for letting me know that. This process has been an ordeal with countless amount of research. I really thought the nominator and me had an understanding at first. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew my nomination on the belief that Icetre was signed to EMPIRE records. I retracted it after Duffbeerhome pointed out that Icetre was merely being distributed on the EMPIRE distribution side of the company. This wasn't meant to attack or disparage you. This is how an AfD process works. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No he did not. What he said was "Empire is a distribution company, not a label as asked for by wp:music. No pass there." He did not say anything about the subject being distributed on the EMPIRE side. Please cite where he said that because I cannot find it. and further more Guideline #5 says two or more albums released on "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." and the wikipedia for EMPIRE says "Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE) is an American distribution company and record label founded in 2010 by Ghazi Shami."
The entire name is "Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE). It clearly says its stylized as EMPIRE but it is not simple EMPIRE Distribution. Obviously that title would be too long for a wikipedia name. This is what the nominator does not understand is that EMPIRE handles all 3, not just one separate from the other, its all the EMPIRE. The nominator is "splitting hairs" on whether the releases were on EMPIRE Records or on EMPIRE Distribution when in reality its all the same thing coupled together into one record label and that's exactly why it says: ""Empire Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. (stylized as EMPIRE). Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the issue we are dealing with:
The nominator said: "I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case."
so I sent them a video and photo confirming the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE from the official EMPIRE website. UPC codes and images confirm the connections between the two.
After I posted the evidence they simply said "I am not withdrawing the afd". The nominator is ignoring the connection, is refusing to accept Guideline #5, and will not withdraw the afd. They are talking about the release of the albums but in earlier conversations I have already proved my case legitimate so the nominator is refusing to remove the afd based on them "moving the goal post". I talked to the nominator about this and they said they are:
  1. fair
  2. not moving the goal post
  3. not taking it personal
but I am not seeing that here. I am speaking from my perspective. We need others to read through this and chime in. I have proven over 5-6 claims from the nominator and I feel like the nominator is going in a different direction even when I proved their claim down to a T. I feel like this is sabotage. I do not understand why the nominator is being this way. Each time I prove evidence then there is another claim and once I had provided the indisputable evidence then the nominator takes it a few claims back and speaks on the legitimacy of the albums when i had already proven the legitimacy.
This nominator is on a rampage and i do not understand why this nominator is being this way. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to comment a lot but I'll add a few points:
  • The nominator cannot withdraw this AFD at this point (and could not as soon as any one voted delete)
  • As WP:BLUDGEON explains, once you've explained your rebuttal to a specific point, unless someone else asks you a question, assume the closer will read, and assess, your comments against other user's comments.
I am very confused by the provenance of the video and picture in the Flickr account you linked to. They're not a reliable source or verifiable. The email content and the video to my eye doesn't prove that Icetre is "signed" to a label; everything, to me, seems consistent with sort of B2B business relationship where someone is paying Empire some fee to manage uploading and licensing.
And even assuming Icetre did meet WP:SINGER#5, that doesn't automatically make him WP:NOTEABLE and since WP:BLP applies, even if WP:NOTABLE if there aren't sufficient WP:RELIABLESOURCES, we can't have an article. In short, there need to be reliable, independent sources (I don't see any, at best there's one or two extremely marginal sources). If you want this article kept, it'd be best on focusing finding and providing the best sources available, about Icetre, that haven't been presented or in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I wasn't sure but okay to both points. Sorry for the late responses.
So the nominator had denied evidence and said "In order to verify Icetre as being on the EMPIRE record label you must provide a verifiable source and all of the sources you have provided are questionable or self-published at best" so I provided a verifiable source SoundExchange a non profit organization by the U.S. Congress, and showed that the subject's albums were released on Blazington Music Group and that UPC and ISRC codes could be used to check against any database including EMPIRE's.
So then the nominator says "I don't see anything on SoundExchange's page indicating a connection to EMPIRE. Blazington Music Group claims they are affiliated with EMPIRE but I have yet to see a reliable source that says this is the case."
So right there he is asking for a reliable source that says this is the case and he is asking for a connection between EMPIRE and Blazington Music Group.
I provided the video that is within the EMPIRE database and the image as these are only meant to prove my point that Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE are connected and that the information on SoundExchange is reliable. He did not say that SoundExchange did not count he only wanted proof of connection so that's where the videos and images come from. I merely uploaded those to that site I am not using Flickr as a reputable site, that would be silly.
Labels.empi.re bring you right up to the EMPIRE backstage login.
You say there is no proof but here is cited information of the subject when the subject signed with EMPIRE back in 2014
https://www.facebook.com/share/6WfQF1A6G77FJqLk/?mibextid=Zmo65R
The nominator requested the subject be apart of the "roster" but go to https://store.empi.re/pages/artist-roster you'll see that there is no artists there but the subject had screenshotted years ago the roster list when it was still made available:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=777517018967656&set=a.446109862108375&type=3&mibextid=Zmo65R
Now I can't explain why the list is gone but just because EMPIRE decided to remove the roster list that does not mean that the subject is "suddenly" off of the label and if that was true that would mean there is no more artists with EMPIRE and that would be silly to think that just because it shows no artists on their roster.
I mentioned the subject has their own record label that they created specifically underneath EMPIRE. It was within their contract otherwise it couldn't just "appear", those situations require paperwork behind it. The screenshot on the subject's Facebook clearly shows the email was designated specifically towards the subject. I mentioned also that if they wanted "EMPIRE" to be on the label list then the subject would have to cancel their record label's contract and all of that would be extreme for a Wikipedia community to want the subject to do that just for posterity. This is why I proved the connection between Blazington Music Group and EMPIRE.
You say there needs to be sources but what are we basing the sourcing off of? Guideline #5 on The two or more albums that were released on EMPIRE or are we basing the sourcing off of documentation that the subject is on EMPIRE? I cannot simply tell the subject these things but you basically saying that there needs to be more articles that say point blank "the subject is with EMPIRE"? because if that is what you are saying then that's exactly why I am trying to get a stub article approved so more information can be done. Its kind of like job experience, the job's used to train you on site but told you to have some skills to bring but now a days job experience they want you to have 5 years experience before hand....a stub article is the former. The things you all are saying is great information on how to expand a stub article and the fact that you are all doing the research and fact checking the information I give its basically already a stub article on its way for expansion but it just got jumbled up in a Afd.
Stub wikipedia defintion: A stub is an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion. Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, lists, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs.
So we can all at least agree that the subject's stub article provides some useful information and is capable of expansion? I do not mind doing more extensive research but I am only pleading for the stub article to remain so the community can help me expand on it.
Does that make sense?
There are many sources about the subject and their music but if there needs to be more sources about the subject being with EMPIRE then please consider allowing the subject to keep their stub article while expansion and research is done. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:BLP is policy and it requires strong sourcing. I'm not seeing anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  // Timothy :: talk  14:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Im withdrawing the article. Wikipedia editors involved are unreliable, biased, unfriendly, and moving the goal posts. You all have made this a terrible and unfriendly experience AND ALL FOR JUST A STUB ARTICLE. The editors have changed my entire views on Wikipedia I did not think this would be such a terrible experience. They have been nothing but unfriendly, biased, and they were not afraid to move the goal post when they were shown up with evidence. This the last comment I will be making here. Can someone please remove the subject's page so I am not getting notifications from you guys anymore? Thank you and I hope you all have a bad day! @Duffbeerforme@Jjj1238@Philipnelson99@Shellwood@Skynxnex@TimothyBlue@Wcquidditch Bunkytrap34 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page author blanked the page, presumably because they were unhappy with the AfD. I think it's best to let this process play out before requesting speedy deletion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I request a speedy deletion. I am uninterested in this and do not wish to partake in it any longer. You all have made this a terrible experience and I am not going to deal with it any longer. The subject will be fine without a Wikipedia and at this point a Wikipedia or a stub article is not worth all of this drama. Goal post moving is one thing but continuous Goal post moving? id rather would opt out of the game then continue playing with cheaters. I request a speedy deletion. My life does not revolve around Wikipedia so this will be the last comment I make on here. Bunkytrap34 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bunkytrap34: I would rather not get into this discussion, but I think you are being very immature in regards to this discussion. No goal posts were moved, maybe you just misunderstood the criteria or had it poorly explained to you. As Skynxnex tried to explain to you, meeting #5 alone does not guarantee an individual will receive an article. Assuming he does meet notability guidelines, he also needs to have reliable sources and significant coverage that warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. I have seen none of this coverage for Icetre that would warrant an article even if #5 is met. And further, I have still yet to see proof that #5 has been met. From everything I've looked at, the sourcing you are attempting to use to claim Icetre is signed to the EMPIRE record label instead points to a distribution deal, also I'm seeing a lot of failures of WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:OR, plus pretty much none of this is coming from reliable sources overall. I urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before you decide to undertake major editing projects such as creating an entire article. It should be obvious that a screenshot on Facebook of a website cannot be considered a reliable source for information on Wikipedia. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:56, 29 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 Samuel Edward Konkin III#Political opinions. Star Mississippi 03:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Libertarian Manifesto

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

This article has existed more or less as a perma-stub since its creation in 2008. All of its references are primary sources, with only brief one-line reviews taken from the "Praise" section of the book itself. I found only one passing reference to it in only one of my sources (Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought, 2020), as a small part of a broader section about Konkin. As this manifesto doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines, I propose that this article be merged into/redirected to the article on Samuel Edward Konkin III. Grnrchst (talk) 18:11, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ST Mary's School Chattogram

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

Sources indicate the school does exist. It does, however fail WP:GNG/WP:ORG. Kleuske (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see the slightest hint of notability here, and there's a severe lack of any useful information at all. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable elementary school. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:41, 23 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 Bandarawela#Tourism. ✗plicit 04:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porawagala

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND/WP:GEONATURAL or WP:GNG. 2015 prod was removed but no reasons given. Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 18:18, 29 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. Daniel (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice! Musical Soul Food

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a radio format. Let'srun (talk) 16:43, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Records

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

Non-notable record label. No google hits except Wikipedia mirrors. I think this may be a hoax. --Viennese Waltz 15:31, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Chimney Falls

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

Can't find really anything online in reliable sources about this waterfall. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 22 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 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Misra

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

Seems like there are COI issues since page was first written and reads as promotion. Nothing to suggest the subject meets the notability standards for inclusion on en.wiki - even if there is, the page needs complete rewrite and WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 14:54, 22 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 NHS trust. Star Mississippi 02:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Primary Care NHS Trust

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

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, article full of unsourced trivia and conjecture. Single reference is a public health report for the borough on Enfield, not able the trust itself. Elshad (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:51, 7 December 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 merge‎ to Krypton. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vathlo Island

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

Prodded in 2019 by User:TTN, slightly improved but sadly this is still effectively a plot summary with passing info on what (few) media this niche location appeared in. Fails WP:GNG. The best I can find is the cited [20] (Gizmodo), but that mentions it in passing (few sentences). It has a bit of analysis but I think that's too little (WP:SIGCOV is not met). Unless someone can find better sources (my BEFORE, as noted, failed), I can only suggest an WP:ATD-R to the List of DC Universe locations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again I am fine with a merge to Krypton (comics) (but not to List of DC Universe locations), too, as much of the discussion in the secondary sources is of the relationship of the population of Vathlo Island to the rest of Kryptonian society. Not on the basis of WP:GNG but Rorshacma's WP:NOPAGE argument. And the content then spills over into Kryptonian and Ethnic stereotypes in comics#Black. Daranios (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Krypton (comics) - The The Ages of Superman book does look like a good source, but the other available sources are pretty brief mentions. But, regardless, I do believe this is a WP:NOPAGE situation, where the topic is better covered as part of the broader subject for the added context that presenting the information in that way would provide. Rorshacma (talk) 22:38, 22 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 14:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WALTR

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

Non-notable software. Sources are routine news coverage. Developer also has no article, so no reasonable redirect term. Jdcooper (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I looked for sources, and all that comes up is Mac World, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors, and similar sources. I'd say merge with the article about Softorino, but that doesn't exist, and Softorino also doesn't seem to be notable.Cortador (talk) 13:51, 22 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. Graham87 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holyman House

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

It exists and has some mentions in sources, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: Here’s a source that I found that seems to establish WP:N:

[[21]]. AriTheHorse 14:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 12:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Hill Lodge

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible ATD is a merge/redirect to Yongsan Garrison article, but I think that may unbalance the garrison article unduly. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 22 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! 06:18, 29 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! 04:48, 6 December 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavan Sadineni

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

Non-notable film director or screenwriter. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know about him that's your problem. He is well known in states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Aaseeshpreetam6 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OTT is a minor award. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 24 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 Morden (AtD). Daniel (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morden Baptist Church

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this church in Merton, London, and added five references. One is a primary source (the Charity Commission website). Two of the others are local papers and are short articles of a few sentences. The fourth is significant coverage in the Baptist Times. The fifth is one sentence about the church's war memorial. There is a passing mention of the church in this book, which I have not added. I cannot find other coverage to add. I do not think the church is notable under WP:NCHURCH, WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Coverage is run of the mill. It has been tagged as a local interest article which may not be notable since 2010. Tacyarg (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's odd - I see the sentence you quote, but the guidance also reads "Individual religious organizations (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". So it both explicitly excludes and includes churches? Tacyarg (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very clear but I think it means if they pass WP:NCORP that's great but if they don't they can just pass WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its a building not an organization though the church may have one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prob delete - on the one hand, it is highly likely that a British religious institution of this age would have RS. Late 19 century churches often had local newspaper coverage and maybe well feature in books written about local history. On the other hand, it seems curlish to expect anyone other than interested editors to have to go to the effort of finding them. So unless someone finds more RS we can assess (I can't at present even though I believe it probably exists), I'm going to say WP:TNT on a largely promotional page until/unless someone who has access to appropriate sources can rewrite. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Morden and add a couple of the found sources (particularly the 1935 one) there. It's a somewhat prominent building with an active congregation, but not of wide enough interest to warrant its own article. It appears the original article was written for promotion, rather than to describe a genuinely notable building. Sionk (talk) 16:59, 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 no consensus‎ and opinions remain split so none is likely to emerge. A move can be handled editorially, with RM if needed. Star Mississippi 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Abdallah

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

Seemingly falls short of WP:BIO: no military decorations mentioned, deputy commander (rather than commander) of a brigade, circumstance of death doesn't stand out among others - KIA (exchange of fire). Likely WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeistertalk 12:00, 7 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) 13:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Typical WP:BDP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's clearly WP:GNG from international and international WP:SIGCOV on the article subject. Not sure how this qualifies under WP:MEMORIAL (so we shouldn't have articles about dead people?). Would note that editors are claiming that WP:BDP1E is not a deletion rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issam Abdallah (obvious caveats for WP:OTHERSTUFF), but we should be consistent, especially in the context of this contentious topic area. Longhornsg (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (weak) and move to Death of Alim Abdallah. Sources in the article show this meets GNG as an event; as a BIO, it is WP:BIO1E, but this guides to write an article about the event. This often occurs with 1E bios. I think the Haaretz, Xinhua, plus [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] are the sources that I think can sustain an EVENT article. There is a legitimate question of WP:LASTING, but I think the international level of coverage cancels this out and WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies.  // Timothy :: talk  12:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Death of Alim Abdallah as Timothy suggested above - there are sources, but they are about the guy's death i.e. the event, not the person.
  • Comment. Some of the participants here claim that Abdallah was not covered prior to his death. Such claims should not be counted as the sources from 2022 are right in the article. gidonb (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Death of Alim Abdallah. I have struck my previous delete !vote and changed to move as TimothyBlue suggested above. The event has much greater claim to notability compared to the person - I would expect WP:VICTIM to apply. The delete votes however remain correct - the coverage prior to the event of his death does not appear to sufficiently demonstrate notability. The 2022 coverage appears to constitute 2 sources; one of which is a passing mention ([27]) and the second offer appears to be a brief 3 sentence profile which appears to be routine local coverage [28]. ResonantDistortion 19:25, 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. ✗plicit 02:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen T. Martin

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

Though I created this article, looking back to it after gaining more editing experience I find it as only list of non-notable books by a non-notable writer. Just one award by person can't justify the whole article in my opinion and experience at Wikipedia. --BeLucky (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the WP:A7 because the article contains a credible claim of significance, specifically that the subject received the Gusi Peace Prize the "Nobel Peace Prize of the East". Further, WP:NACADEMIC point 2 states that a person is notable if "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". A Noble Peace Prize would automatically confer notability, is receipt of the "Nobel Peace Prize of the East" significant and prestigious enough to confer notability? That is for the community to decide. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is wise to derail the AFD by drawing in other editors to comment on the discussion on BeLucky's talk page, the ANI post, and the issues revolving around the PROD. All of that has no bearing on the AFD. We should keep our attentions on notability policy in this discussion thread as it relates to this particular article.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 We can cleanup the list of books as it doesn't pass the WP:AUTHOR criteria? --BeLucky (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an editorial decision to address after this AFD closes. WP:AUTHOR is a policy about determining the notability of authors for article inclusion. It isn't meant to address what content should be included within an article on a notable author. For that you should read WP:Verifiability. We generally keep content that is cited to reliable sources as long as it is presented with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as the subject "has received a well-known and significant award". In looking for sources on the Gusi Peace Prize] itself there appears to be enough coverage on the award in google books and media to make a claim that the award is both well-known and significant. As such, any winner of the Gusi Peace Prize will pass ANYBIO and does not need to demonstrate that they also pass GNG as ANYBIO is an officially recognized WP:SNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a WP:PRIMARY source. It is a video of the Gusi Peace Prize ceremony and his speech upon receiving the award. As such, I don't think the claim of lack of verifiability or unreliability can be made. It would be preferable to have an independent secondary source.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – We cannot write an encyclopedic article about someone who's only won a reward and no one ever wrote about them. Business Standard and The Hindu aren't terrible, but I don't think they're enough to build a biography off of, seeing as they are not about Martin specifically. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The organization of which he is president had its article deleted by AfD in 2019, although it was later re-created. The winners of the Gusi Peace Prize that I could find listed do not convince me of its significance. I don't think either of those things can be taken as conferring notability by themselves. And although one could imagine that these accomplishments could have led to the in-depth published sources that do confer notability, we have no such sources. So I don't see a pass of WP:GNG, and as I said above I also found no evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Notability too weak. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Freemantle

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. There are a handful of reliable-looking sources out there, but even with them, it still seems like an edge-case. I'm also weary of some of the sources out there, because this seems like such an obvious COI-created article. Whisperjanes (talk) 08:23, 22 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 merge‎ to Protestant Christian Church in Bali (selective merge). There hasn't been a whole lot of participation here so per Timothy, encourage a standalone article as a replacement for the impending redirect should sourcing develop. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Bhoga Marga

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

Fully advertising (even in all of the history), and as far as I can tell most of the sources aren't reliable or aren't independent of the subject. At the very least this article needs a rewrite, but in my opinion this looks like a WP:TNT situation. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:46, 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! 08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Suntooooth, this article and the Indonesian Wikipedia version, id:Maha Bhoga Marga, both cite offline refs. Can you give us your assessment of each?
Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give a thorough response for a few reasons:
  1. I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus;
  2. I don't speak the language of the sources, so everything I'm gathering is from inference and some machine translation; and
  3. I think I probably overstated when I said most of the sources are unreliable or aren't independent, since I can't tell for sure either way with most of them. I'm not sure why I thought most of them were unreliable.
After looking at the sources today, ref 6 (Mastra, I Wayan (2010)) jumps out to me as an autobiography making claims about third-parties (which if I'm interpreting WP:BLPSELFPUB correctly seems dubiously reliable) and possibly not independent, although right now I don't have energy for research to determine if I Wayan Mastra is independent of the organisation or not. Ref 4 (Suama, I.N. (1992)) is a thesis, which could be reliable but also may not be, and as I don't speak the language I can't verify whether it's reliable
Sorry I can't give a better answer; I think I was probably a little hasty to condemn the sources when writing my original comment, although the issue of the article being entirely promotional in its entire history is still maybe worth a deletion, and at the very least needs a complete rewrite. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Suntooooth. Well, now it's my turn to claim "I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus" I will try to come back to this in a few days, if possible. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any opinions on what should happen with this article aside from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 22 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 Omnicom Group. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepen Shah

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Plenty of mentions and quotes but everything on the page and what I find in a WP:BEFORE is about the company, not him. CNMall41 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CNMall41, please be requested to exclude Mr. Deepen Shah article for deletion as the details of it are all facts. We will be at your disposal on how or what we can do to make it better and not have it deleted. Thank you.
ToxELB1025
PA for Mr. Shah ToxELB1025 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Shaw's personal assistant? Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear…. Mccapra (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Oaktree, Yes. I'm his PA/VA and we are requesting for his article to not be deleted. We will do our best to improve it and provide more supporting details, references and links to it.
Thanks,
Errol ToxELB1025 (talk) 05:09, 16 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! 08:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to a newly created Buzzd article; the coverage given is exclusively about that Blackberry app. Coverage in the New York Times is basically an interview with this person and another individual... Otherwise, !delete as not notable due to lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be a good WP:ATD. I think Buzzd is now called "LocalResponse" but not sure if it would meet WP:NCORP. Maybe to Omnicom Group where we could mention that company's purchase of eztxtmsg? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not at all clear what article those advocating Redirect want to point this article to. Please identify an existing article. Just one, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Omicron Group seems ok, with a discussion of the purchase. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 22 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 merge‎ to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Autobot Cars. There's a consensus below (between the delete, merge and redirect opinions) that the article shouldn't be retained. Closing as merge as an AtD that was extensively discussed and I saw no significant opposition to. Daniel (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smokescreen (Transformers)

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

Found only toys from my WP:BEFORE; has toys =/= notable 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC) clerked by Mach61 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa An misunderstanding of how IPv6 works is why this has blown up. IPv6 editors frequently change IPs within (generally) a tight range assigned by their ISP. This is completely outside their control. This IPv6 editor has been editing for months and has requested other AFDs in the past. See Special:Contributions/2605:B40:1303:900::/64. This is all one individual, across the different IPs their ISP has assigned them. This is essentially the very first step any sysop takes when reviewing an IPv6 editor. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 2 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! 07:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This AFD discussion went astray with speculation on the nominator so let's focus on notability and sources. If you are proposing a Redirect, please specify the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This article has no inline citations and very poor sourcing. I don't see which are RS and which aren't and I'm not going to re-write the article using the sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No reliable sources, pure plot summary and WP:FANCRUFT.The arguments made are without a doubt some of the most atrocious examples of WP:But there must be sources! I've seen in the short time I've been editing here. There have been no compelling arguments made, and "your before sucks, therefore this must be notable! No I'm not providing sources, I'm too busy!" drives me absolutely batty.
    Industrial Insect (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't think I or anyone else said shit Before means notable, just that shit Before means shit Before. Maybe stop trying to drag AFDs into sub-fanboard fallacies to make your case, eh? FWIW I'm not crazy about my work schedule either but being a freelancer in a cost of living crisis means going through issues of Toyfare sometimes has to wait. Sorry you seem to have taken that personally. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I for one appreciate what you can do, when you can do it. :) (I think you knew that already, though.) BOZ (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for this trainwreck of a nomination. Before closing this as No consensus, let's give it a few more days. Maybe the eyes of a different AFD closer can see a rough consensus where I just see chaos.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 22 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Industrial Infrastructure

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

Unneeded CFORK of Reliance Industries#Reliance Industrial Infrastructure, stub article is actually shorter than the entry on the main Summary page. There is no need for a one paragraph article when the Summary page already has the information.

Gails GNG and NORG. Single source in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.

No objection to a consensus redirect (a bold redirect would be rv) to Reliance Industries#Reliance Industrial Infrastructure.  // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 1 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! 07:41, 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! 07:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Eastmain's comments above are compelling.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Disagreement rests on whether or not these are two separate companies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 22 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V (2021 film)

V (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entire article survives on a single Maalai Malar review. I don't think that Malini Mannath's reviews outside The New Indian Express, Chennai Online and The Indian Express are notable (website is blog like). There are no sources about her unlike Komal Nahta. Other Tamil films that have a single Maalai Malar review have plenty of outside notable production sources: Engada Iruthinga Ivvalavu Naala, Vilayattu Aarambam, 50/50 (2019 film). DareshMohan (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutral Fan: Can you add another review? I only see Maalai Malar as being notable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 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! 07:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:29, 29 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. Editors remain divided on the quality of sourcing available. signed, Rosguill talk 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Gabriel

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

The page as it stands now is basically unsourced. Most of the included refs point to articles BY the subject, which makes them OR, or at best primary sources. The sources not written by the subject are mentions, not sigcov. It's possible the subject is technically notable, but my admittedly simple search failed to turn up anything which can be used to build a page out of.

If someone wants to try and TNT it and start over, go ahead, I was unable to. Meanwhile we have an unsourced page mostly written by three editors with no other edits, one of whom would seem to be related to the subject. That reeks of COI editing. As an aside, while I'm not familiar with the subject, this edit by one of the single purpose accounts seems to indicate that the name of the article is not even the subject's given name. The same user removed other personal (unsourced) information about him. Hydromania (talk) 04:01, 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! 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely pointless unless someone is going to work on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 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! 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've had another look at it, I think it's fine. Source 3 (the NPR) is one of their extended/rambling interviews where they discuss everything about the subject. Based on the numerous articles written in the NY Times, he'd be notable for simply being a correspondent there, appears to have been a rather prolific Times reporter. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a first-person case account of transient global amnesia the individual had [36], in a peer-reviewed journal. It provides context around their life, and it's in a journal, so the sourcing is above bar. I think we're ok... Gscholar has pages of articles he's written for the NYTimes, appears to go back at least to 2011. This isn't some random Joe writing an article here and there; even if we stub this, it can be about a long-time NYTimes political correspondent, doing coverage of early 21st Century American politics, in probably what has been the most "interesting" time to cover politics in a generation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And just for fun, here's a neurologist reviewing the case the individual describes in the other article linked above. [37], it's about the individual in question here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had another look at it, I think it's fine. Fine in what way? Currently properly sourced, satisfying a certain notability guideline, or generally interesting? This is a first-person case account of transient global amnesia the individual had, in a peer-reviewed journal.... first-person accounts are not reliable secondary sources. Hydromania (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine to be have me change my vote to !keep. Sources are acceptable, as explained in my long description I suppose. I can't state it otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct again, but the companion article I linked discussed the first, so is about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable for being an important NYT correspondent, as proven in the NPR article, the medical journal speaking about his medical condition and the extensive bibliography in the NYT and other publications. The New Yorker article also notability. Two or three RS, which is usually what we ask for in Afd, hence the article passes notability and can be "!keep" voted. I hope that explains it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AaronVick (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale in Special:Diff/1183767902 continues to stand a fortnight later, I see. The article's sources are still corporate autobiography, press releases, and things authored by the article subject. This is a terrible definition of "It's fine." for a biography. We have an entire Project:Biographies of living persons policy on how content policy is strict on these articles. No-one has shown by action that either Hydromania's (If someone wants to try and TNT it and start over, go ahead, I was unable to.) or my concerns can be satisfied. Zero attempts at even a good re-stub. So maybe actions speak louder and it is, indeed, impossible despite the counting of phrase matches. Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the NPR piece, the two medical journals discussing the interview and the almost three decade history with the NYT, we're passed just being "fine". Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 29 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 Jeppu#Educational institutions. But I will subsequently handle the ambiguity by making this into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cascia High School

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

A search for sources could not find anything indepth to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Note there is a school in Chicago of the same name. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 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! 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hoping to generate more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:30, 29 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 merge‎ to Boko Haram#Campaign of violence. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 Monguno bombing

June 2015 Monguno bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable news story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Not a subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage or secondary analysis. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems to have reasonable coverage and to be an important event. I'm a firm believer that an event in the present day requires different sourcing standards than one that happened 40 years ago, in the same vein if this event took place in the USA or western Europe there would be significantly more coverage, as it is you have two high quality sources covering it and that feels appropriate as a keep given the geography. BHC (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Boko Haram or something. 1 sentence in the "campaign of violence" section about how a bomb went off at an abandoned camp of theirs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as is always an issue with crime article AfDs, I must stress, notability ≠ death toll. Yes, several people died, but there is no other information available on this, and by all accounts I can't even tell if this was on purpose or not. It was never covered or mentioned after as far as I can tell. Add to the section Boko Haram#Campaign of violence - there is nothing else to say besides this one paragraph so we are losing absolutely no information. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 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! 07:39, 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! 07:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Editors are divided between those arguing to Keep the article and those pushing for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 22 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 02:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parmatma Ek Sevak

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

Not noteworthy organization. No WP:RS coverage found. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Chief Minister of Maharashtra praised their work. https://x.com/cmomaharashtra/status/815528360415621121?s=46&t=WEvzL9ICcN6GgmjJ3HjA4g

3. Govt of India, Department of Post, released a post ticket featuring founder of the sect, released by vice-president of India. https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/amp/vice-president-of-india-released-a-commemorative-postage-stamp-of-baba-jumdev-1380607652-1

4. The article does need a cleanup, but it certainly meets notability criteria. Not many sources available in English as the sect works in marginalized sections and is not well-documented in academia. GD (talk) 18:08, 1 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! 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Being thanked by someone on Twitter isn't notable. This article has one source and the rest appears to be copied verbatim from the scriptures/holy texts this religion uses. I can't find mention of them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 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! 07:37, 22 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient for notability Star Mississippi 02:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Seasons Place, Penang

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

Last AfD had minimal participation. Does not have coverage to meet GNG. One source merely confirms a bus runs to the centre, another source confirms the statement "a flea market opens within the mall every weekend, offering apparel at discounted prices" LibStar (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd appreciate some assessment of the changes made since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Source 1, coverage of opening press event, interview. Source 2, coverage of developer, interview. Source 3, developer website. Source 4, developer website. Source 5, single sentence mention of supermarket opening. Source 6, press coverage of supermarket opening, interview with supermarket director. Source 7, mall directory. Source 8, two-line mention in Time Out listing. Source 9, property website listing and finally, and pretty much representative of the quality of sourcing on offer here, Source 10 is a bus timetable (the mall is on the route). And that is precisely why I said it's all WP:ROUTINE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sourcing has been argued, looking for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 7 December 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 02:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic Publishing

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:50, 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! 07:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sources currently in the article are either an interview, or a few database entries for some of their products - none of which help establish notability. I couldn't find any any additional sources either. As is, fails the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 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. ✗plicit 03:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Playdon

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has only appeared in one episode of Supernatural and two B-movies, according to her IMDB. Novemberjazz 06:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete awfully sourced page. Doesn't meet WP:GNG
Cray04 (talk) 08:22, 30 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. While I'm sympathetic to the nominator's opinion about the state of this article, I see a consensus to Keep it. Here's hoping that it can get some attention from interested editors. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive_utilization_theory

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

This page is a extremely obscure set of economic theories which isn't terribly useful to have as a separate article. The article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's page. The issue with the earlier review is that it is inconclusive due to the idea that this theory was being used or implemented, however this is not the case. It's a obscure theory from over 50 years ago with and hasn't been used since. Perhaps, at most it's a social movement started by Sarkar, all the more reason to have it be on his page. Similar to social credit, but as far as I can tell unlike social credit no government aligned with this movement has been in power which brings into question it's notability. This is a theory that isn't used either in economics or in any polity. This article isn't notable enough to have its own page and needs to be reviewed.

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. The sourcing table has not been responded to or refuted and hence consensus can't exist here given the relatively low participation. No prejudice to an immediate relist if so desired. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Whizin

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

Non-notable local business person. Fails WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 03:29, 22 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! 05:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Harvey, 2009, LA Times [44] Yes please keep in mind this article was published more than 10 years after subject's death Yes Yes example quote

The way Art Whizin told the story, he was sitting at the counter of a downtown burger joint called Ptomaine Tommy's, trying to visualize the restaurant he wanted to build.
Then a truck-driver friend next to him slid over a chili bowl and said, "Here, Whizin, do something with this."
And that's how Whizin, the one-time amateur boxer, decided in 1931 to construct an eatery in the shape of a chili bowl. Why not? Merchants were putting up businesses that resembled ice cream cones, tamales, coffee kettles and sundry other objects -- all trying to catch the eye of passing motorists.
The 25-year-old entrepreneur opened his first Chili Bowl on Crenshaw Boulevard near Jefferson Boulevard after raising $1,200 by selling, among other things, his wife's wedding ring and his roadster. The couple moved into a house nearby.
"Because he sold his car, he had to have his business within walking distance," explained Jim Heimann, author of "California Crazy & Beyond," a study of offbeat roadside architecture.
Whizin told Heimann in a 1978 interview that he sketched the design of the restaurant on the corduroy pants he seemed to always be wearing. Perhaps he didn't want anyone else to get their hands on the plans.
Or perhaps "he was embellishing the story," Heimann said with a laugh. "He was an interesting character."
The Chili Bowl had no tables, just a 26-stool circular counter, and Whizin bragged that his young workers, most of them college boys, could "flip a pat of butter from the center of the counter to the edge of any of the 26 plates."
The place was an immediate success with its specialty dish called the chili size, an open-faced hamburger smothered with the homemade goodness.

 ✔ Yes
Pascal, 2013, Arcadia Publishing[45] Yes Yes Yes (p. 79)

Art Whizin became known throughout Los Angeles for having established the Chili Bowl restaurant chain in Los Angeles in 1931. After purchasing land in Agoura for development, his decisions often clashed with city planners and environmentalists. Some of the businesses he attracted to the area included the Bear Cabaret (a topless bar), a go-cart raceway, low-income housing, and a mobile home park. Though he received a humanitarian award in 1988 for "40 years of continuous dedication, service and unselfish contributions to the City of Agoura Hills," he often stated that he was the most hated man in Agoura although he did not understand why. Below is a photograph of his restaurant menu. Today, Whizin Market Square is a popular community and tourist destination.

... (p. 105)

The first water was delivered to residents in 1963, thanks to the efforts of residents like Art Whizin. When Whizin came to Agoura in 1949, there was no water and no sewers. The Agoura community at large (500 residents at that time) wanted to preserve the rural flavor of the life style in the area. Whizin was one of 11 that bypassed Agoura residents and used their property as collateral to finance bonds to bring water and eventually sewers to Agoura.

 ✔ Yes


Sherry, 1998, Daily News Yes Yes ~ quotes:

On Wednesday, Moran again stood and watched workers attend to the sign, outlawed by an Agoura Hills sign ordinance, passed by a city that didn't even exist when Whizin's was built.
Moran said he always wanted to play by the rules, so he promised the city that he would remove the sign a "reasonable amount of time" after the death of Art Whizin, his business partner. He gave the city no more assurance than his word, and that was good enough, Adams said.... Whizin died two years ago, and on Wednesday Moran kept his word.

 ~ Partial
Barker, 1988, LA Times[46] Yes Yes ~ quotes

...fair sponsors had agreed in a rental agreement with owner Art Whizin to remove the structures by June 30
...
The foundation was formed earlier this year to fight the proposed development, a 160-home gated community planned by Heller and Whizin.

 ~ Partial
Wilcox, 2006, Daily News [47] ~ There are quotes from family, but also many facts stated in the voice of the paper. Yes Yes quotes

His father had recently bought 320 acres that was part of Paramount Ranch...They ate at a little 12-stool, three-table hamburger stand with a couple of Mobile Oil Co. gasoline pumps out front. Art Whizin bought that, too, and began renovating the property....
By Mother's Day 1954 all that remained was a slab, but customers came anyway, so many that Art Whizin set out some tables and chairs....
It evolved into its present form over the years and the Whizin name became familiar to travelers along Highway 101.
...
Between 1930 and 1941, Art Whizin opened 21 Chili Bowl restaurants around Los Angeles, buying each lot for between $300 to $500. In the late 1940s he closed the business and began selling the lots.

 ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ PopoDameron ⁠talk 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GPT4-Chan

GPT4-Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

​​​​For the reasons given in the three rejections on Draft:GPT4-Chan, this article is evidently not ready for the mainspace and has not demonstrated notability. PopoDameron ⁠talk 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PopoDameron ⁠talk 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (reluctantly): I would argue the sources provided establish notability, as there are several of them, they are independent, and the coverage seems to be significant in the few that I checked out. It's not the best article I've ever seen, and I really hate to give the creators of the software an eternal perch on one of the few reputable corners of the internet, but it meets our criteria for notability and verifiability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, in the best case, the article is, even if potentially notable, not ready for the main space and should be worked on as a draft. Most of what has been written is not usable and does not belong here at all. PopoDameron ⁠talk 03:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the topic is covered by multiple sources, it does establish notability and verifiability. However, it is understandable that such a controversial, inflammatory, and possibly harmful topic could not be welcomed on the wiki.
    The article could either be left up so multiple people can correct, improve, and make sure the article just informs and does not promote the topic, or it could possibly be moved back into draft space and worked on until it meets the requirements and/or safety standards of those who would want to remove it. That way, we can make sure the wiki is not promoting this topic and people's concerns can be addressed by their contributions to the article. Targed (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider: this was a valuable and noteworthy social experiment. An AI was trained over a toxic environment, and reflected this toxicity. It's important to get a visceral sense of the potential dangers of AI, and Yannic's work did just that. As an analogy: YouTube censors harm, so you can find many videos of miraculous car accident-avoidances but no grizzly car accidents. This will give the viewer a false psychological sense that a miraculous escape is likely, while a grizzly accident is unlikely. So is this YouTube policy ultimately helpful or harmful? 2A0E:1D47:D201:6300:A83D:5A11:143E:127E (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG via the references in the article including Engadget, Vice, Fortune, The Register, and a staff article at Thenextweb. A search finds enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage in academic sources as well eg [48][49](later published in IEEE conference), [50], (i.e. even if we consider this topic an event, it has become a WP:CASESTUDY) There may be unreliable sourcing in the article (I see a blog, a substack, and some other iffy stuff), but we can WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. —siroχo 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive coverage in non-primary sources clearly establish notability. The subject matter being controversial or inflammatory is irrelevant to its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Draftifying would only slow down work on improving it. Owen× ☎ 12:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (withdrawn). As other editors have said, I can see now that the sources are definitely notable enough for WP:GNG and the article isn't nearly bad enough to WP:TNT. I might have been a bit hasty in doing this when I saw that the article had been rejected three times and no improvements were made before moving it to the main space... PopoDameron ⁠talk 19:06, 22 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 03:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Young

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

The subject of this article seem to have requested deletion of this page in Help desk. The currently cited sources consist of interviews, WP:ROUTINE announcements, promotional articles and university profiles. Online searches returned results about many individuals by this name, but found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a profile of her specifically in a magazine. Vogel, Mike (September 2011). "Principal entrepreneur: how a restless assistant principal built the nation's leading online public school". Florida Trend. 54 (6): 64–70. Retrieved 22 November 2023. and another Reason (magazine) article where she gets four paragraphs: Mangu-Ward, Katherine (2010). "Teachers Unions vs. Online Education". Reason. 42 (4): 44–50. Retrieved 22 November 2023. Jahaza (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I forgot two other sources I found the other day. First, in the book Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning by Paul Peterson there's a chapter titled "Julie Young and the Promise of Technology" although I haven't been able to access the chapter itself[52]. Additionally, looking at an archived version of Sherri Ackerman's article "Julie Young, longtime Florida Virtual School leader, is stepping down" in its original format on what was then an online periodical called redefinED about education in Florida, it looks like a piece of substantial journalistic coverage to me [53]. I think a case could be made towards keep (and I suspect if we had better Florida newspaper access from the time she was the principal that would help), but I'm happy with merge. Jahaza (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: based upon most recent !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 04:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BUT I will say requesting page takedown sounds like reverse COI, buy noworries, nom sent.
Cray04 (talk) 08:26, 30 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 02:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of Australia

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

Article is an incomplete, random selection of companies in Australia with no real parameters as has been noted on the talk page. It has everything from large listed companies to small family businesses. The article may have been more relevant when created in 2002, but as Wikipedia has evolved, lists of companies with more defined boundaries have emerged, e.g. List of largest Australian companies, List of banks in Australia etc making this one redundant. The only criteria for inclusion appears to be that the organisation operates through a Ltd or Pty Ltd company. Hamienet (talk) 02:29, 22 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 move‎. to List of cities in the Dutch Carribean and then editorially re-scope the article.

Note that this discussion can't force the merge of List of cities in Aruba into this new article as a mandate, so I would encourage others to do this editorially (either by being bold, or alternatively by opening a discussion on the talk page of the Aruba list). Daniel (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the Netherlands Antilles

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

Country that no longer exists. Only one source listed. Interstellarity (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see the point of moving an article that editors are advocating Merging to a different target article. You can always create a Redirect from the suggested new page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Liz, I think Reywas92 is suggesting a "reverse merge" of List of cities in Aruba into this article, plus a rename. I'm supportive of that in principle, but I don't think it's a proper outcome of AfD as that article is not tagged. Effectively that's a keep/move, with broad support for a related followup BOLD merge that would probably not be performed by the closer. —siroχo
  • Move as suggested by Reywas92 with his merge into included! Thank you, Reywas92! No real case for deletion or unchanged keeping. The list itself can use updates. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 22 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 02:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Salas

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:05, 22 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 01:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Pineda (footballer)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:05, 22 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! 05:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Rangel (footballer, born 1997)

Diego Rangel (footballer, born 1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we do delete this article, which is a potential in favour of deletion, then the this requested move will be irrelevant until another Diego Rangel comes onto Wikipedia. I have no objections on this 1997 footballer to be deleted at this point unless it is expanded. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:32, 23 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 01:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Martín (footballer)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:05, 22 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 merge‎ to Princess Caroline of Monaco#Activities. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Le Marchant Trust

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. This is despite having a very notable patron. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 22 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 merge‎ to ΜClinux. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LeanXcam

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

No proof of notability, not good sources. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:40, 22 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 03:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libvisual

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

No proof of notability is made, no sources cited and I cannot find any. The GitHub repository also has only 70 stars which further suggests a lack of notability. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:35, 22 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! 05:47, 29 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. JBW (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raage Anuraage

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2021.

Previous AfD ended in DELETE. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 29 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! 03:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Article can't be redirected to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla as this page has been deleted. An aside, popularity is only important in that it may mean that there is some SIGCOV of the article subject, in itself though it doesn't establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 13 December 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 List of programmes broadcast by Zee TV#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rabba Ishq Na Hove

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 01:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 29 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 00:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Harrison

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

There is hardly any third party coverage to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Has not won any major tournaments and has a relatively low highest ranking. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage of her in reliable secondary sources, apart from passing mentions in routine squash game coverage. Unlike Abbie Palmer, where I just objected to the decision to PROD (although interestingly their highest rankings aren't that far apart!). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:33, 23 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 02:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redkey USB

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

The user who created this article was connected with this company. Lacks notability/independent coverage (cited with a lot of seo guest posts). KevinTextor (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While a brief search suggests it's feasible we could have an article on this (eg. Italian language Wired [55], Web User, [56]), the UPE issue along with the lack of any real suggestion of notability in the article (aside from a claimed viral video) mean there's not much worth holding on to. This is basically an entry in a computer catalog. —siroχo 07:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are several arguments why the article should remain as a Wikipedia page. These are the arguments: 1. No evidence of connection: There is no concrete evidence to suggest a connection between the creator of the article and the company in question. Such an accusation is unfounded and should therefore be dismissed. 2. Recent edits and references: Several modifications have been made to the text of the article, which have significantly improved the article's references, added a new section and several noteworthy links, including distinctions obtained by the company. These references are independent and valid, which give important coverage to the article. The editor's suggestion that these references are for SEO purposes is speculative and unfounded. 3. Established presence and neutrality of the article: The page has been in existence for some time, demonstrating the presence and relevance of the product. The content is neutral and informative, aimed at serving the public interest, not self-promotion. 4. Concerns about the editor who requested the removal of the article: The user who nominated the article for removal is relatively new, with his main activity being the nomination of two articles for removal. This raises concerns about their possible inexperience, conflict of interest or other motives. The use of a single link as a basis for deletion is weak and rectifiable, and should not, on its own, be grounds for deletion under Wikipedia's policies. For all of the above reasons, the article should remain on Wikipedia and be improved if necessary.Juanma281984 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the additional content added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is definitely on the line for passing GNG. I'm leaning towards delete as it's hard to find much significant independent coverage. The most significant source I could find is the aforementioned "viral video", the main focus of which is redkey USB and has 6 million views. Most everything else I can find is minor and or published by the parent company. Their Instagram has ~800 followers which leads me to believe they would fail GNG. GoldMiner24 Talk 01:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This in Computer Hoy [57], but it's a tiny article. El Espectator seems notable [58] but it's written by "the editors" so feels like a product placement. I'm not seeing enough coverage in RS to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 29 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 00:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Wormann

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

Self-promotion attempt by Wormann, lacks independent coverage to prove his notability KevinTextor (talk) 00:08, 22 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 especially with respect to the depth of sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Peace International

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

Last AfD was 13 years ago. I'm not finding significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 29 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! 03:07, 6 December 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. Withdrawn, no remaining recommendations to delete. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 07:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Night and the Doctor

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

Proposed for deletion for lack of notability Hektor (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Lets look at the sources. 

Douglas Mackinnon [@drmuig] (18 November 2019). "I directed this!" (Tweet). Retrieved 25 June 2021 – via Twitter.

This sources is a tweet by the director, doesnt establish notability. 

The Night's Tale (DVD). Doctor Who Confidential. Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series. 21 November 2012.

This is Doctor Who Confidential which is a behind the scenes show. While this would be good for production information its not independent. 

Berriman, Ian (22 October 2011). "New Doctor Who mini-episodes reviewed". SFX. Retrieved 8 January 2012.

This one talks about the miniepisodes directly so it would agree this is good. 

Sinnott, John (23 November 2011). "Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series (Blu-ray)". DVD Talk. Retrieved 24 March 2013.

DVD Talk doenst seem reliable and seems like a collection of user generated reviews. 

Jane Anders, Charlie (17 November 2011). "Your Magical First Glimpse at the Bonus Scenes on the Doctor Who Season Six DVDs!". io9. Retrieved 27 March 2012.

I cant say much as to this as I am not familure with it. 

Jusino, Teresa (22 November 2011). "Great New Scenes from the Doctor Who Series 6 DVD/Blu-ray". Tor.com. Retrieved 26 March 2013.

Once again I am not familure with this but this seems to be about the dvd release itself, and not the specifc story. 

Blumburg, Arnold T (25 January 2012). "Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series Blu-ray Review". IGN. Retrieved 24 March 2013.

Same story as with above about the dvd release, it does talk about it for a paragraph, and not particularly indebth more like a plot summary. Of these sources none of them are particularly great. So Delete is the proper course of action Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DVD Talk is definitely considered a reliable source. Search the notice boards. It's been discussed and is used regularly in notbabilty discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A story about the DVD release is an appropriate source for an article that, among other things, discusses the DVD release. XOR'easter (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I honestly don't see the issue with the article, either. Furthermore, this is a part of Doctor Who canon. In "The Husbands of River Song", in the final scene, River discusses with the Twelfth Doctor about why he kept cancelling their date to Darillium. During this, she mentions the "night there were two of you", a reference to the "Last Night" episode. This is also referenced in the episode's Wikipedia article under "Continuity" - a sourced reference - and that has never been questioned or challenged. So, if one of these interconnected mini-stories is connected to the main show's canon, then they all are connected. As such, this entire collection is canonical and notable. Ooznoz (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Ooznoz[reply]
  • Keep as nominator. For reasons leasted above, in particular regarding canon. Hektor (talk) 07:28, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_22&oldid=1186406568"