Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 5: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:10, 5 December 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 04	December 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Union Pacific Challenger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific 3967

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Union Pacific 3967

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

Locomotive is not notable, there is nothing notable about this specific locomotive. It should not have an article BigSneeze444 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, Colorado, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Union Pacific Challenger: if the article ever matures to the level that Union Pacific 3985 is, let's spin it off again as a standalone. Owen× ☎ 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of independent notability. Could be redirected to Union Pacific Challenger, but it's not individually mentioned there (and shouldn't be). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Pi.1415926535's rational. TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Union Pacific Challenger would be the best choice, given how, while the engine itself lacks standalone notability, it is notable enough for inclusion the article on UP's Challengers. TH1980 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Union Pacific Challenger per above. Locomotive isn't notable enough for a standalone article, but can be mentioned in the main article. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:17, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kumar Nain

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Macbeejack ☎ 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough to meet WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk)
Delete need more reliable nd indie sources . thank you Worldiswide (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:16, 12 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Valani

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Smells like COI. Macbeejack ☎ 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Previous AfD was soft delete due to lack of participation. Reviewing the sources, subject does not have the significant coverage required to establish notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notablity Worldiswide (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough references on trusted websites. The personality is the founder of two ventures and also in Fortune India's Top 40 personalities and is also awarded by Economic Times as the most influential personalities. Roberttoymaker1 (talk) 05:38, 12 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 Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Hadar Goldin

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMIL and anything relevant can be covered in Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. There is no independent notability here. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadar Goldin - nothing has changed. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin per WP:BLP1E. – bradv 19:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hadar Goldin, merge from there, then delete Lieutenant Hadar Goldin (the current Hadar Goldin). Merge into Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin and delete right after.

The Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin is a notable event and justifiably has an article. It contains substantially more detail on Oron Shaul than on Hadar Goldin, hence the information frpm the Lieutenant Hadar Goldin article is needed for Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. The info in the new article is not WP:UNDUE (would be reason not to merge) as the deaths article is on Goldin. Because of the imbalance and the shortage in background on Goldin, it is BADLY DUE!!! Hence merge.

This merge is REGARDLESS of seperate notability. Probably nom stands correct on notability, however, it doesn't matter. The merge is needed anyway. The article would be an unjustified spinoff it the person was notable and still would need to be merged.

Now to the delete. The article was created TODAY under the WRONG NAME (with military rank) so has virtually ZERO historic or likely search value. Hence it should only be deleted or renamed (including into draft). Not kept as is or redirected! Since a merge was established above as needed, it is clear that, of these options, a delete after merge is warranted. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble: we cannot merge content from deleted articles, as then we would lose copyright attribution. If we merge any of the content at all we will need to redirect this page so the history stays intact. – bradv 03:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Bradv. Can we perhaps move to Hadar Goldin, then merge from there? That is a legitimate redirect. The current Hadar Goldin never contained more than a redirect. gidonb (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion was tweaked a bit with Brad's welcome input, the reasoning stands. gidonb (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article in ARABPIA was created by a non-EC user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovidroth (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. Marokwitz (talk) 10:18, 9 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 on whether to redirect this, or to move it ito a proposed article about its successor. Suggest those discussions continue on the Talk page as I don't see a 4th relist establishing any clear path. Star Mississippi 01:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPIN (cable system)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability requirement. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, Oceania, and New Zealand. UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not hellbent on keep this as a standalone article but we out to keep some record of proposed/unrealized submarine communications cables somewhere. Could be nice to divide List of international submarine communications cables into groups like "active", discontinued", and "unrealized".Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be good with that and making this a redirect to the list. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 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!} 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is well worth documenting

AaronVick (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — AaronVick (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Comintell (talk · contribs). [reply]

Can you speak to which notability policy would allow this article to continue as it is? notability is a requirement to be an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 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) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge as @Crunchydillpickle's suggestion

Lewcm Talk to me! 22:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see a suggestion to divide an article, is this the target article you are suggesting? It's not clear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I support redirecting to List of international submarine communications cables, which could then be re-worked. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: There is coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and I suspect that notability could be proven if someone developed and referenced the article. However, nobody has been interested enough to develop it much. There is not even an article for its successor project, the Hawaiki Cable, which is much more notable as it is an operational cable, and there is arguably demand for an article. I suggest we rename this "Hawaiki Cable", do basic reformatting, keeping the info about the SPIN predecessor, then wait and see whether anyone develops it. An article on an operational cable is much more likely to attract editor attention than a defunct cable proposal from the 2000s. Nurg (talk) 01:09, 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 12:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soulframe

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the meet the general band-spcific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added content and references. They released two studio albums, toured Australia and were described in various independent reliable sources, hence notable according to WP:NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:13, 24 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!} 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Contributor database entry	1. McPhee, Stu. "Soulframe - Escaping Entropy Review". Ear Medicine. Archived from the original on 29 August 2007. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Contributor review on Brisbane Christian Chat	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Music >> Soulframe". Brisbane Christian Chat (Queensland, Australia). Archived from the original on 12 October 2003. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Database entry on broadcaster	Queensland \| Soulframe". Triple J (Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC)). Archived from the original on 1 September 2004. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Two sentence mill news	4. ^ Eliezer, Christie (14 May 2002). "Music & Media Business News". themusic.com.au. Archived from the original on 16 September 2004. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Name listed, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "The 4th Annual MusicOz Award Finalists". MusicOz. Archived from the original on 17 December 2005.
Name listed, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ "Official Results". Australian Songwriters Association. Archived from the original on 19 August 2006. Retrieved 24 November 2023.
Two sentence mill news, fails WP:IS	7. ^ "APRA Members Win Big at 2005 Pacific Songwriting Competition". APRA AMCOS. Archived from the original on 17 June 2005. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Database entry, "Source:courtesy of Soulframe"	8. ^ "Releases :: Escaping Entropy". Australian Music Online. Archived from the original on 26 November 2007. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Interview, fails WP:IS	9. ^ "Interviews". Time Off. Archived from the original on 20 November 2004. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Promo, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV	10. ^ "Artists – Soulframe". AC Music. 15 January 2001. Archived from the original on 6 March 2001. Retrieved 25 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	11. ^ "Irishman Takes Australian Idol". PerthNow. 26 November 2006. Archived from the original on 26 October 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Soulframe Official Website, fails WP:IS	12. ^ Whitworth, Hayden; Mutton, Guy "Mutto"; Smith, Scott; Carey, Zane (1 February 2008). "Important Notice from the Band". Soulframe Official Website. Archived from the original on 9 January 2008. Retrieved 24 November 2023.
Promo band bio, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV	13. ^ "Toupee Records : Artist Info". Archived from the original on 28 August 2005. Retrieved 19 December 2006.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV	14. ^ "Resources Home : Engineers and Producers". brispop.com. Archived from the original on 22 August 2006. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
404	15. ^ "MGM Distribution". Thegroovemerchants.com. Retrieved 26 July 2013.

No sourcing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Timothy's excellent analysis shows WP:NBAND not met. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 9 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 MIDI beat clock. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulses per quarter note

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

WP:NOTE and could be reasonably covered under an appropriate article of broader topic Pdubs.94 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Pulses per quarter note" article in Wikipedia needs to be expanded a little bit, in my opinion this page should not be deleted as it tells information about time division in midi files. 192.68.163.180 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Müller, Meinard (2007-09-09). Information Retrieval for Music and Motion. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-74048-3.
  The article notes: "The number of pulses per quarter note (PPQN) is to be specified at the beginning in the so-called header of a MIDI file and refers to all subsequent MIDI messages."
2. Sweetwater (1997-12-09). "PPQN (Pulses Per Quarter Note, sometimes Parts Per Quarter Note)". Retrieved 2023-11-28.
  The article notes: "The timing resolution of a MIDI sequencer. PPQN indicates the number of divisions a quarter note has been split into, and directly relates to the ability of the sequencer to accurately represent fine rhythmic variations in a performance, or to recreate the “feel” of a performance. Older sequencers were capable of 96 PPQN (sometimes even less), which often resulted in a stiff “quantized” feel to the music (even if it hadn’t actually been quantized). Current versions can reach 768 PPQN or even higher resolutions, which is more than adequate for most musical applications. Note that the resolution of the sequencer is especially important at slower tempos. If your sequencer is limited to a lower resolution, one trick is the double the tempo of the song, then perform the parts in half time. This effectively results in a doubling of resolution."
3. Loops and Grooves: The Musician's Guide to Groove Machines and Loop Sequencers. Hal Leonard Corporation. 2003. ISBN 978-0-634-04813-5.
  The article notes: "If a sequencer has a limited number of steps, which was always the case with analog and digital hardware sequencers, the concept of resolution becomes an important factor. In this context, resolution means the number of steps used to represent a note or measure. Resolution is a numerical value expressed as pulses per quarter note or ppqn."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pulses per quarter note to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:52, 28 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!} 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I've added citations to three books, two of which (Anderton and Rumsey) have enough information that they should be considered SIGCOV. I have some concerns that the main body of the article (the long 2nd paragraph discussing feel) is basically original research, whose ideas are supported by the texts but not really in those terms. That notwithstanding, there's sufficient mention of this concept to merit inclusion. Oblivy (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge so it seems there is value in having this content remain. Does it make sense to merge with MIDI beat clock or roll up into MIDI? Pdubs.94 (talk) 16:54, 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) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as article has been around since 2009 and barely squeaks by WP:SIZERULE guidelines. could easily be covered under MIDI beat clock Pdubs.94 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MIDI beat clock. Changing my vote. I've made the argument for keep but the merge target is really a good option.Oblivy (talk) 02:22, 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 redirect‎ to Ranmoor with history preserved for a "slim merge" if needed. Star Mississippi 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carsick Hall

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

This building doesn't appear to meet WP:N. There is the possibility of merge/redirect to Ranmoor, but I think that would give it overdue prominence in an article I'm not sure it even needs a mention in. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look notable - There is no listed building designation for it and although it is just within the Ranmoor Conservation Area there is nothing about it in the statement of special interest. EdwardUK (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE - Agreed. Its sourcing is also odd, it appears to be the original creation of an SPA, and it contains some dubious statements. To suggest that Sheffield has few old buildings because of the Blitz is nonsense - it has many, including many far more notable than this, e.g. Sheffield Town Hall. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some more information here but I'm not sure that's enough to be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Doesn't appear to be listed. Some of the article checks out. (William Creswick at that address in 1843. Sales description in 1879 Sheffield and Rotherham Independent as well as notice of sale to Mr. James Ward for £370. Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph as home of Francis Balfour in the 1950s. Telegraph gives Eric Robinson as owner in 1980.) I think there is also evidence that it might be among the oldest local buildings ([1] states most of buildings of interest date from 1860–1914). Also brief mention in The Making of Sheffield, 1865-1914 p 194 ("...Carsick Hall, a small double-fronted house unworthy of its name but very old and very old-fashioned."). In the lack of any detailed coverage of the house, leaning slim merge to Ranmoor, where it might merit a mention. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 26 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!} 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards delete) -- The article appears to have sources, but they are cited in a peculiar (and incomplete) manner. The house is apparently a minor mansion, but not obviously notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 9 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!} 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two major problems with this:
- https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/441346-carsick-hall-help/?do=findComment&comment=7893247 is quite clearly how the original single-purpose editor got xyr information. It's a fortnight before the article was created by ChaosAlien (talk · contribs). I don't have any access to whatever "Find My Past" is, and the original single-purpose editor provided zero citations of whatever bunch of old newspapers have been stitched together to make this. Espresso Addict hasn't provided enough above, either, alas.
- The ~~good-faith~~ citations added later by someone else are impossible to check. Having laboriously found what each one is and digging it up to cite it properly, I've had to add {{pageneeded}} on every single one it turns out. One of them is an edited collection book and the citation didn't even say which article in the book by which author is being cited. Needless to say, not a single one of those sources is accessible to me.
Verification is simply impossible here. I've tried. This is unverifiable by any reader, or anyone at all who didn't write the article. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true. I verified much of it, just typing "Carsick Hall" into one of the WL newspaper searches. I don't always provide citations when I do this kind of search because typing and especially cut & paste hurts my injured hand, but the search is trivial for anyone with library access. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid that it is true. "Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph in the 1950s" doesn't cut it. As I said, I've looked for sources, and tried to look into the sources already cited. A vague handwave in the direction of an entire decade of two newspapers points to nothing. It's as vague as the handwave to a 264-page book (which Google Books reports no instances of "Carsick" at all inside) from 1948 is. If you cannot point to things that I or other people can check, then verifiability is simply not there. Amazingly, all of the people with the claimed actual access to these old newspapers, from the person on the WWW forum through the article creator to you, have not cited one single specific newspaper article for the rest of us, let alone the clearly multiple ones used in the WWW discussion forum. Uncle G (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - In attempting to check the sources and found copies of some on archive.org (Reeder, Walton and Tiratsoo), and White Rose eTheses Online (Donnelly). But searches within these indicate that none mention Carsick Hall, Walton has only a brief section on Ranmoor (p.225) and there were no search results for Sheffield in Tiratsoo. Cannadine and Hebblethwaite require journal access but the statements they are there to support do not suggest notability. I do not have full access to the British Newspaper Archive, but a search for Carsick Hall shows some results that could verify the residents and history section (Sheffield Independent 10 May 1879 p.11, and 7 March 1938 p.2, and Yorkshire Evening Post 11 June 1940 p.5) but these also do little to indicate notability. Delete seems a reasonable option because if all the unsourced and trivial content was removed there would be little left to merge. EdwardUK (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's names and dates at least, more than anyone else has given. I didn't think to look for an in-copyright 1997 book in the Internet Archive, and thank you for the pointer to the thesis, too. It's very disappointing to discover, especially after all of that effort hunting down the proper citations, that all of the additions by GavinMansfield (talk · contribs) were false sourcing. Having seen now how irrelevant they were to this subject, especially the thesis, I have changed my mind about these being good-faith edits. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chelsea Inn

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

This article has been tagged as not meeting notability guidelines since Jan 2018, with no improvements since. It does not appear in any relevant or reliable news that I can find online. CoconutOctopus talk 22:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote to keep it, it is historically significant to Atlantic City. TiMike (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Lots of hits in Google news, though mostly mentions; seems to be reasonably signficiant to Atlantic City. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 27 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!} 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:53, 5 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. Obviously the discussion about what happened on German Wikipedia is totally irrelevant, and is ignored. There are other irrelevant comments too, such as the very strange comments about whether someone did something "on purpose" or not. Ignoring all that, and looking at the reasons given for keeping, we see a lot of stuff unrelated to Wikipedia's policies, such as that Sven Odia is "most influential", that he "has played a key role", that an editorcpredicts that he "will always be in the news". There may be a case for changing Wikipedia's notability guidelines to include factors such as those, but at present they don't, so those considerations too are irrelevant. I'm afraid that "he does not have abundant secondary sources but this should not stop his page being retained" is not just not a reason for keeping, it is as clear a reason for deleting as could be possible, because a substantial amount of coverage in secondary sources is precisely the main requirement of Wikipedia's notability standards. The conclusion is that scarcely any argument compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines has been advanced for keeping the article, whereas reasons for given for deletion do conform to policies and guidelines. JBW (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Odia

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Got speedy deleted in dewiki. Also seems like a violation of WP:PAID. Icodense (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icodense (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any info on this person could go under the Engel & Volkers page, seems largely promotional. The speedy delete from dewiki is also telling. Kazamzam (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can discuss the notability instead of basing it on the deletion on DE wiki. Also, the DE wiki page was requested under speedy deletion by a non registered user having no other edits on DE wiki. When I translated the page it was check by 2 editors who were ok with the content. All sources that I used contains info about him and are reliable that's why I thought it may be a good inclusion from my side and I kept in my not to use any single word that is promotional in nature but I will leave it to the community obviously. Thanks NatalieTT (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The speedy delete from DE wiki was by a non-registered user and therefore should be ignored. The Engel & Völkers article is substantial and mentions Sven Odia in only one sentence. It states facts about the company in a non-promotional manner. It is not 'largely promotional' - WP:NOTPROMO.Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sven Odia is most influential in German real estate. He has played a key role in the international expansion of Engel & Volkers. Admittedly, he does not have abundant secondary sources but this should not stop his page being retained. A person of such importance will always be in the news.ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 03:15, 27 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!} 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started a SPI case for the two accounts above, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Didgeridoo2022. --Icodense (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. SPI has come back as possible and needs to be reviewed for behavioural evidence. Further policy-based input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I ask why we should ignore the speedy delete? Because an unregistered user made it? IP editors are human too... Industrial Insect (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that I think someone did that on purpose. Also, DE wiki editors say we have nothing to do with EN wiki as a policy then why someone would base that deletion of DE wiki on EN Wiki. I jut try to follow all policies and cite reliable info with no promo etc. NatalieTT (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "someone did that on purpose"? Of course someone did that on purpose. Nobody files a speedy delete by accident. Or are you trying to insinuate that you (or Mr Odia) have personal enemies here who are out to get you? Please stop focussing on the person who filed the speedy delete and start focussing on how Mr Odia meets notability. For Mr Odia's notability, it does not matter in the least who filed the speedy delete. The article was deleted by an admin who surely was not an unregistered user, so now what? --2003:C0:8F18:6600:7C0A:BA91:1F17:E8AE (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hence proved, with this comment you second that my concerns are genuine. Admins should check the relevance between this IP and the person who initiated the AFD and start an SPI. This IP is personally involved and watching everything. I don't know Odia but I will now try to reach out to him if possible and ask if he had any encounter with anyone on Wikipedia DE or EN. I thought he is notable and saw some recent coverage of new CEO etc so I thought I should create a page. I'm sorry if this is hurting you so badly. NatalieTT (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is now open. NatalieTT (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty obvious revenge action for the SPI case I opened a few days ago. Of course there are other German editors when a Germany-related article is discussed. You mentioned the article in dewiki at de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung#Sven_Odia, so there is even an obvious reason why someone else from Germany found this AfD. We're not all the same person just because we're from the same country with 84 million inhabitants and there is no big conspiracy, lol. --Icodense (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: Revenge SPI closed as a "meritless report". --2003:C0:8F3A:5300:20C0:3645:5B24:5DAE (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient media coverage of the CEO. Wikipedia:Notability does not exist. --Puttkgbru (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Odia is no longer CEO. He was replaced by Jawed Barna on 1 November 2023. [2] --Puttkgbru (talk) 10:37, 8 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!} 19:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Burgio

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

Fails WP:BIO without significant independent coverage. User:Namiba 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and California. User:Namiba 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Notable senior poker player and writer (columnist for CardPlayer Magazine and author of to books on poker). Article cited zero sources at the time of nomination, but have now added a few of the many articles about him available in ProQuest, Newspapers.com and the Internet Archive. Yes, some of the coverage quotes him, but there is plenty of factual coverage about him as well. (Still trying to decide whether the two Scott Buono reviews of his two books are OK to cite, but regardless, Burgio is notable and the article should continue to be improved.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:26, 21 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!} 23:24, 21 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!} 21:01, 28 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) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE are sufficient to meet GNG.Central and Adams (talk) 17:34, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot McGlinchey

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

Currently sourced only to a WP:SPS, but we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The subject appears to fail WP:GNG; I conducted a web search, and reviewed matches on newspapers.com, and did not find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Northern Ireland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined toward keeping or at least draftifying, since he's a national (N.Ir.) champion, and national champions usually turn out to be notable. The problem for us is that material on snooker from this far back is usually on paper, so it's going to take research into newspaper archives and print snooker magazines and the like. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: I can't get to NewsBank because of the British Library's ongoing IT problems, but apart from newspapers.com as mentioned above, I also checked the British Newspaper Archive, which has numerous passing mentions but no significant coverage as far as I could find. For 1991, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association opened membership to anyone who paid a fee. The November 1990 Snooker Scene reported that there were 443 new snooker professionals, including McGlinchey; in a monthly magazine with only around 32 pages, obviously there was not going to be room to provide in-depth coverage of all of the new intake alongside all of the other snooker and billiards news and reports. Cue World had already been merged into Snooker Scene by that point, and from the issues of Pot Black I have from around that time, it seems unlikely that they would have given any more coverage than Snooker Scene, despite their higher page count. In my opinion, it would be very unlikely that a player who never reached the top 100 in the rankings would get significant coverage in the snooker press after 1990, unless there was something apart from their results to report on. The Snooker Scene coverage of McGlinchey's 2006 national amateur title (in the July 2006 issue) would perhaps scrape throught as one suitable source, although it's mostly quotes from him. The magazine's report on his 2010 win (in the July 2010 issue) is two short paragaphs of very routine coverage. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:CUENOT In the case of large countries, if the player has won a major regional championship (e.g. at the state level in the US; or the England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland level in the UK), they may also qualify and Professional players should have their own articles if they have won an international or national championship organized by a major organization in the sport (i.e. local leagues emphatically do not qualify), or are highly ranked in their sport. I am not sure if this is enough.

Hi, Jeraxmoira, please note that WP:CUENOT mentions in its introduction that it "should not be relied upon in the article deletion process, which is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not wikiproject recommendations." If you know of any reliable sources that cover McGlinchey, let me know. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could find nothing online apart from trivial mentions. Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing notable about this player, who seems never to have got past the last 64 of any professional event or accomplished anything else of note during his brief stints on the professional tour. Simply winning the (amateur) Northern Irish Championship does not in itself make him notable. Many of the other winners and runners-up do not have Wikipedia entries either -- and those that do, like Mark Allen and Jordan Brown, are notable for other reasons. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:31, 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) 17:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any SIGCOV in IRS, we have no evidence this individual is notable. CUENOT is an essay, not a notability guideline, and holds no sway at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Here are some narrowed Google News hits [3]; I have not pored over the few results yet to see if they're helpful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:07, 11 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!} 07:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of Separation (video game)

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

The only reliable independent (non-interview) sources I could find were a Nintendo World Report review and some brief PC Gamer articles. QuietCicada - Talk 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, We have multiple sources, at least one of which is reliable, significant coverage, and independent. Therefore this meets WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got a Nintendo World Report review, and a basic Metacritic check shows a review from Vandal, a reliable source. Mobygames lists way more reviews, including Meristation. Therefore, it's notable beyond a shadow of a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to what is listed above, there is a review by The Games Machine (Italy) linked at Metacritic. --Mika1h (talk) 16:15, 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colditz (audio drama)

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

Not independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. I am also nominating the following related pages because they exhibit the same characteristics. They do not meet the GNG, and they ought to be redirected to the same target:

Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. And, not that it's been suggested by the nom, but we don't need to delete the original article in article history. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because this will affect 11 articles, relisting for a clearer consensus (rather than closing with a 'soft' redirect).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. Would need much better sourcing (such as non-trivial editorial reviews) to be acceptable as stand-alone articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 11 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. When factoring in NmWTfs85lXusaybq's intent to withdraw, there is consensus here to keep the disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page has a primary topic for the ambiguous title while all the other ones are included in the same article Affleck baronets. The criteria WP:G14 may apply like that for Insta (disambiguation) (deleted by UtherSRG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insta (disambiguation)), as the only one extant Wikipedia page got disambiguated is Gilbert Affleck. A hatnote on the top of primary topic is sufficient like that in the case of WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We don't need disambiguation pages for item that don't even have an article. Cortador (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador: Besides Affleck baronets, this dab has an entry linked to Suffolk Militia now. I'm withdrawing this nomination if you strick your vote. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cortador, we absolutely do need dabs when they don't have an article, that is what MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION cover. Readers are looking for information on a 'Gilbert Affleck', the dab is their index, even if it's a small amount. Additionally, I have added a 4th entry. The nominator is drive-by tagging hundreds of pages for deletion with no BEFORE. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid and useful dab page, helping readers and editors to disentangle several holders of the same name on whom we have at least a little information in the encyclopedia. PamD 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Said holders are already listed in the Affleck baronets article, and only one seems to be independently notable (with having his own article). Boleyn added a fourth entry of a military leader, but I haven't seen evidence that that leader is independently notable either. Cortador (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be notable, just a term from which a redirect would be appropriate per WP:Redirect and in particular WP:R#KEEP. If the term to be redirected has other uses, then the link needs to be provided by a dab page or a hatnote on the primary topic. When the hatnote would become cumbersome, a dab page is the solution. PamD 09:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When there is only one meaning to a term and no article, but an obscure reference to an article with a different name, we sometimes create a redirect. The disambiguation page serves the function of those redirects, for unlikely but possible search terms. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the items on the disambiguation page are only cursory mentions. Do any of them have actual WP:POTENTIAL to become of interest to the readers? Otherwise, the hatnote might as well just point to the Affleck baronets list, it's not terribly difficult to find Gilberts in there. --Joy (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are sufficient mentions of people named "Gilbert Affleck" who are noteworthy enough to have their name properly listed in an encyclopedia article, such that it might be useful to a reader to have them pointed to in the event that Gilbert Affleck is not the subject of their search. BD2412 T 00:35, 11 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. When factoring in NmWTfs85lXusaybq's intent to withdraw and parsing the IP's !vote as neutral, there is consensus to keep this disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insta (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the PROD'der, I support the deletion per the nom's stated reasons. UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, are you fine with the dab page after the update by Ca? I'm withdrawing this nomination once you change your vote. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the last revision, and I'm the creator of this page. Also, add insta- from Wiktionary, where insta means "instant", as seen in "instakill". 176.33.244.42 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, dictionary definition doesn't count as a topic in the disambiguation page per WP:DABDICT. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some valid entries. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca: Do you think any of them would ever be notable for their own article? If not, then we only have one notable term, and so no need for a disambiguation. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline, and there is no such requirement afaik. This DAB page helps people locate info about terms. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not explicit, but it is implied in that the way disambiguations come about is when a topic has too many hatnotes that a dab page should instead be created. You only get hatnotes when you have articles, and you only get articles when you have notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused with G14: Does an entry of MOS:DABRED count as one extant Wikipedia page in the criteria? If not, Insta (disambiguation) could be speedily deleted. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That's even better. I've now CSD'd it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG No, the question is "Would a redirect from this term, "Insta", to that article be compliant with WP:Redirect, especially WP:R#KEEP?" If the answer is "yes", and there happens to be more than one article for which the answer is "yes", then a dab page is needed (or hatnotes). PamD 09:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rather obscure uses of the term outside Instagram, but I don't see a reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When there is only one meaning to a term and no article, but an obscure reference to an article with a different name, we sometimes create a redirect. The disambiguation page serves the function of those redirects, for unlikely but possible search terms. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a rather straightforward example of a disambiguation page properly disambiguating a term. BD2412 T 00:40, 11 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. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page has a primary topic for the ambiguous title while all the other ones are included in the same article Ainsworth baronets. The criteria WP:G14 may apply like that for Insta (disambiguation) (deleted by UtherSRG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insta (disambiguation)), as the only one extant Wikipedia page got disambiguated is Thomas Ainsworth. A hatnote on the top of primary topic is sufficient like that in the case of WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 valid entries. The dab is for people searching 'Thomas Ainsworth'. This page makes it as clear as possible who we have information on and where to find it. Just directing readers to the baronets page without clarity could easily lead to people identifying the wrong person in this. Additionally, dabs are pretty cheap. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally there were missing entries, as there often are, and I have now added a 4th entry. Proposing for deletion hundreds of page in this timeframe, without fully checking them other, and sometimes just overwriting them, is really disruptive. Additionally your drive-by tagging of 'oneother', even on pages with 6 entries, is in the thousands within a coupple of days. You can't possibly be chevking these out properly. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid and useful dab page, helping readers or editors to disentangle several holders of same name on whom we have some information. PamD 09:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Helping the reader who is looking for, perhaps a Thomas Ainsworth alive in 1500. The dab page shows clearly that none of the TAs on whom we have information in the encyclopedia is the man they are looking for.

The logic is "Would "Thomas Ainsworth" be a valid redirect to page "xyz" per WP:Redirect and in particular WP:R#KEEP?" If so, and the answer is "yes" for more than one value of "xyz", then a dab page, or complete set of hatnotes at the base title, is needed. Here, where we have useful distinguishing information about two of those TAs, the dab page serves a useful purpose and should be kept. PamD 09:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 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 Latham United Methodist Church. Daniel (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latham, Alabama

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

This case is similar to that of Swift, Alabama in that the surviving trace of whatever was here is a church, in this case listed on the NRHP, but again, there's nothing much here, and the labelled spot is a house somewhat south of the church. The NRHP forms suggest that, again, the church was built to serve a locale rather than as part of a distinct settlement; what I'm seeing suggests this was just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two are the same place.
The first Methodist Church was organized in Red Hill, Alabama in 1847. Mrs. Margaret (Peggy) Ferguson under the ministry of the Rev. Mr. Drue organized the first church. Charter members were: […] Red Hill was changed to Latham in 1878, when the first post-office was organized and named. The first postmistress was Mrs. Henry Cooper, whose husband was the son of Latham Cooper, for whom the town was named. The name of the church was changed between February and June of 1909. The building used for a church was a log house about one half mile northeast of present building.
— "Latham United Methodist Church, Red Hill, Ala". Deep South Genealogical Quarterly. Vol. 12. Mobile Genealogical Society. 1975. pp. 131 et seq., p.131
The creek is still named Red Hill, notice. The GNIS record has Red Hill as a post office in the same record.
And pretty much all of this information is in the second source of Latham United Methodist Church.
Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Geography, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baldwin County, Alabama. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd imagine the name was changed because Red_Hill,_Alabama already had a post office at that time..., That Red Hill is in Marshall County Alabama, I've many ancestors from there.James.folsom (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's see if there is any more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I concur on the merge, as all the policies seem to indicate that merger is the best option for non-notable articles that are verifiable. The county is a good place for it. I'm willing to do the merge if you remind me when it's time.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say rather to Latham United Methodist Church for the very simple and pragmatic reason that if that article were fully expanded from the sources that it already has, it would cover this topic at least as well if not better than this article at hand does. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Apologies, I was imprecise in my language, I support merge to where ever is suitable. And agree with your assessment. James.folsom (talk) 00:29, 27 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!} 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 höjdare

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

Unsourced for almost two decades, and I wasn't able to find WP:SIGCOV in any online sources on Google. HappyWith (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sweden. HappyWith (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-known, successful show; a search in a media archive gives 3354 articles in Swedish media either mentioning the show or the concept (taken from the show). For example Aftonbladet (the major tabloid newspaper in Sweden) had an article in 2015 following up on how the life of some participants after they "became famous" in the show. I can find some older articles online, like this one in Svenska Dagbladet (a Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå article). There's this paywalled article in Dagens Industri about the financial success of the show. Here's an article from 2005 about recording the show. These just from a quick search in a Swedish media archive – I'm sure someone with more time could dig up more than I have. /Julle (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recently added sources look to be enough to meet the GNG ands establish notability. Could still use better sourcing and removal or unsourced detail. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as sources have been added now. /Julle (talk) 00:00, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce D. Jette

AfDs for this article:

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

After seeing the consensus of the Afd for Jette's successor as United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, this position does not confer notability by itself. Independent sources are just not there. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't bundle this guy with the three others nominated above because this is his second Afd. I didn't find the 2018 keep verdict particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What independent sources are there about him rather than events in which he may have played a part? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - [4][5][6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing mention, and two routine non-independent announcements, one by the US Army (duh) and one by the government about his appointment. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG due to lack of independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-12T17:34:14 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD discussion was convincing when one reads right to the bottom and then follows-up on what MelanieN pointed out five years ago.
As explained there, this started off as undeclared paid editing by Biografix (talk · contribs). Then Dszarek1234 (talk · contribs) and 141.116.106.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (an IP address from the Office of the Secretary of Defense) stepped in saying "As the Digital Media Analyst with ASA(ALT), I've been tasked by the Director of External Communications to scrub Dr. Jette's wiki page and use his official Department of Defense bio.".
Then after the first AFD discussion in 2018 a single-purpose account Acquisition1954 (talk · contribs) and 141.116.250.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.107.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.54.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (more OSD IP addresses) got at the article in 2019 and filled it with all sorts of unverifiable stuff like what the innermost thoughts of the article subject, coincidentally who was born in 1954 and worked in acquisition, were at age 5.
We should get rid of this entire edit history.
There have been no contributions apart from the usual mechanical fiddlings for categories and whatnot by anyone else. There's no writing here that hasn't either had or outright declared a conflict of interest, and there has been at least one direct statement of intent to violate our fundamental NPOV and verifiability content policies (which latter the article now hugely does — at least the undeclared paid editor gave a pretense of adhering to the verifiability policy, but the "tasked" people and the people with the coincidental usernames and Pentagon IP addresses haven't even bothered at all to tell readers how they can check, say, what this person did as a football mascot in the early 1970s) by the people who wrote this content.
Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 12 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Harris (law enforcement officer)

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

While it's possible that the suicides as a whole were notable, there's no indication Harris is a notable person. While he is deceased, WP:BLP1E applies as this was a recent death. A redirect to Santa_Clarita_Valley_Sheriff_Station#Suicides might make sense, but expecting that to be contented given creator's belief that the article is "approved" so briging it here for a broader discussion. Star Mississippi 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Star Mississippi 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep
This event is historical. Harris was a Captain who committed suicide and 3 others followed within 48 hours of his, an unprecedented event in LASD history. His role in the 4 suicides was substantial as being the first one, and him having the highest rank. According to Los Angeles Times, Harris was a notable, "Recognizable figure on TV". Harris roles, as described in his article, primarily dealt with him being on TV. Comintell (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"making statements on live television and to members of the media" does not confer notability, that was his job as a spokesperson. You're making the case for the suicides being notable. Not Harris as an individual, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 17:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Holding a Transportation position in the Department is not notable. As sad as this may be, very much a non-notable individual. Routine coverage is all there is to be found for sourcing; his job was no different than any other mid-level law enforcement officer. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NPEOPLE. Seawolf35 ^T--C 00:11, 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 merge‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Original close was redirect with the history preserved to facilitate a merge, but Siroxo requested a merge close and tag and, as I don't see that being a huge difference I've done so. Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless Photog

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

This is an *extremely* minor character that, while it has some development information, lacks any actual discussion as a fictional character to demonstrate notability. In writing articles for wikipedia it's important to demonstrate *why* a subject meets notability through significant coverage discussing the topic and illustrating people discussing a subject and why it's important outside of the scope of the main subject.

While this is an obscure character in the He-Man franchise, there's no indication of that importance. Furthermore it's not an isolated instance of an obscure character in the franchise being revisited as a toy much later. And as a fictional character, which should be the most important aspect of such an article...there's nothing.

The whole subject could be covered in a list entry with nothing lost Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MTV news gave significant coverage about this in a very detailed review at https://www.mtv.com/news/urxntw/picture-perfect-motuc-fearless-photog-action-figure-review The other references show it covered in https://www.sun-sentinel.com/1986/01/01/youthful-mattel-toy-creator-awarded-college-scholarship/ and elsewhere. You couldn't fit all the valid information in the article in a list article, most would be lost. It has enough information to fill its own article. Notability is determined by coverage, not personal opinions. Dream Focus 16:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all of that could be fit into a paragraph on its development. What reception is there of it as a fictional character? Even as a toy there's still nothing indicating any significance over any of the other MotU toys, other than its origin. The coverage indicating that importance isn't there. The coverage discussing it as a fictional character and why it's important also isn't there Dream.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters where he has an entry. There's niche newspaper coverage of its creation because, hey, cute/cool news, 12 year old kid designed a toy, and then a reliable review of the toy. Very borderline. I'll note that the newspaper above is Sun Sentinel while the article cites but does not link to a presumably similar story in Gettysburg Times. I'll ping User:Cunard who is good at finding newspaper sources. Maybe there's more. I am nonetheless not feeling that notability based on effectively one-event coverage in regional newspapers plus a review by anonymous MTV staffer make for a strong case to keep. How's this better from all those articles abotu video game characters or like we routinely merge, even if they cite dozens listicles? Is this better because regional newspaper coverage > modern listicles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has notable reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the He-Man characters list. It's not really a matter of notability here, but of the fact the information here can be easily covered in the list with little to no detriment. The article just doesn't have the bulk to justify its separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others and as a notable topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE by not clearly demonstrating its impact or significance. GNG is not passed here, no prejudice to recreation if someone is able to find sources that indicate why this character is recognized by the public at large. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:04, 16 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 due to a lack of participation. No prejudice on immediate renomination. Daniel (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hudhayfah Al-Ansari

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

Non-notable spokesman of a notable organisation. The very few reliable sources that mention him do so only in passing; all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Arabic is blogs and social media chatter, and it's difficult to verify whether he actually exists. His predecessor's name is a redirect to Islamic State. Wikishovel (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Terrorism, Islam, and Iraq. Wikishovel (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has made a audio speech and i have posted blog link to its english translation by Aymenn j al-tamimi, one of best experts on Jihadism & Islamic State in particular.

We had a article Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir since he made his first speech and his personal identity remained unknown and was revealed after his death. Sam6897 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but I bet for Maintain: Same as Wikishovel, it need to be extended and with more reliable sources. I believe there are sources which can help us to say more than his occupation and his succession. In the case of Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir, we have a biography of him, so it makes it more notable. Tajotep (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All things about Abul Hasan identity emerged after his death in late, 2019. For 3 years he was mysterious unknown spokesmen but he still had a wikipedia page. Sam6897 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clarify a speech is a primary source and is not any indication of notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:19, 19 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) 19:39, 26 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu Singh Rajput

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

No credible claim of notability TheLongTone (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of Notability. Fails GNG. B-Factor (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails ....no indi sources .. all two sources are spam/gossip ..non notable Worldiswide (talk) 04:53, 11 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 CSI: Miami characters#Notable cast members. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calleigh Duquesne

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Miami characters#Notable cast members. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant list of characters. Pure plot summary, no independent analysis of significance, reception, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE didn't bring up any reliable analysis or reception. Seems like an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap if someone insists. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:46, 11 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. A further seven days since my (final) relist and HighKing's contribution remains unresponded to and unrefuted. On that basis, that is the premier contribution to this debate and has sufficient support (nominator plus one other), and therefore consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manhasset Specialty Company

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

Ref #1 seems to be unrelated. Ref #2 is just primary. No other WP:42 sources found in WP:BEFORE, thus NN. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Music. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agreed with nom, the first source is completely irrelevant and the second is the company itself. No secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Striking my delete and changing it to a keep based on the sources found below. I don't agree that all of these are significant coverage but at least a couple are. Someone should now improve the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a company nearly everyone in the music industry knows and has used products of (and I say that with very little hyperbole). Unfortunately, being a music stand manufacturer will not net a lot of coverage. There is some coverage in trade magazines (since it is a surprisingly large company) and local news, but I honestly do not know how far they will go:
Hopefully this is enough for, what I think is, an important company. Why? I Ask (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Any reliable, significant coverage found is primarily about the company's music stand - not the company itself. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If their product is notable, then the company is at least deserving of a mention. But it would be odd to have the article focused on the music stand and not the broader topic of the company and its history. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If their product is notable, then there will be sufficient sources to write an article about the product. Notability of a product doesn't transfer to notability of the company - see WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the company is synonymous with the product. It's all they make. That's why WP:NCORP says: In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 19 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 of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a consensus just about exists here to delete based on strength of argument relative to policy, I want to give the two editors !voting 'keep' (and anyone else so interested) a chance to reply to HighKing's statement, which has come very late in the piece.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above by users. Skt34 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 24 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 Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Area Major Incident Pool

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

No sources cited. Seems to be more of a definition rather than entity. Google search provides only mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did find three mentions in this report (page 115) but still not notable enough to warrant an article Elshad (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Elshad (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Given the time period (1985-2000) I'm not surprised little information is available online, but everything in the article (assuming it can be cited, I've not looked) is encyclopaedic information. I agree though it's a bit thin for a whole article, so I recommend merging this to a broader article about the structure of the Met over time as this is not the first AfD I've seen about such units. I don't know if such an article exists yet, but if not it can be started. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Merge target article here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations, since it seems that some of the wording for this article is taken directly from there and the remainder may be relevant as historical information if added. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:33, 12 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 in the absence of a policy or guideline-backed argument to keep the article. ✗plicit 03:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Zaouatene volcanic field

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

I am not sure that this meets WP:GNG inclusion criteria. Liégeois mentions it only in a table with relatively few data. GVP removed their entry; when I emailed them for an explanation they said that there is no indication of volcanic rocks in the area and pointed out how sparse the mention on Liégeois is. This source has only a few data, too, with no detailed description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 28 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 12:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the experts who decide whether this is a volcanic field have decided that they were mistaken and that there is no such field, surely Wikipedia should follow suit? Special:Diff/1186683457 boggles the mind. The clear rationale seems to be that the article is false and not supported by the experts any more. That is unverifiability, and a basic reason for deletion that has been in deletion policy since 2003. Furthermore: As I have said elsewhere I think the answer to A. B.'s question is that the NERC‐BGS will follow suit soon enough, since its database, it claims^[1], is a join on the Smithsonian's; and soon Smithsonian record #225002 will be there no more. It all depends from when it imports and how it handles records that get deleted and no longer join to its own data. Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the databases that constitute our cited sources are deleting it, so should WP. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ebmeier et al. 2018.

Ebmeier, S.K.; Andrews, B. J.; Araya, M.C.; Arnold, D. W. D.; Biggs, J.; Cooper, C.; Cottrell, E.; Furtney, M.; Hickey, J.; Jay, J.; Lloyd, R.; Parker, A. L.; Pritchard, M. E.; Robertson, E.; Venzke, E.; Williamson, J. L. (2018-02-06). "Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains". Journal of Applied Volcanology. 7 (2). doi:10.1186/s13617-018-0071-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 12 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) 21:55, 19 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. The delete arguments are strong and policy-based. The keep arguments are not, repeatedly mentioning that this person was in something Oscar-worthy without indicating the Oscar's relevance for this individual over many others working on same projects. Multiple relistings have not resolved this. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mitchell (actress)

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

Only one of the refs - the briefest of stories - is about the subject. The rest are about a film in which she acted. Does not pass GNG. Looks like a promotional article, insofar as the main contributor was able to offer a professional photo of the subject. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this and Piper Rubio below can be merged into some sort of list of child actors of the 2020s. BD2412 T 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes no sense to direct people to a list of other actors when clicking on her name through her movies. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete. Even less coverage than Piper Rubio, this photo only appears six times over the whole internet, Imdb a few times and on Amazon. Appears to be an attempt at PROMO that fell flat. There is zero coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lack of coverage temporarily due to the SAG-AFTRA strike. The dates for 3 upcoming movies she stars in have been pushed to late 2023 to early 2024. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Piper Rubio has only earned status through one movie which is her latest. Emily has done 4+ with more on the way. She stars alongside Hilary Swank in an equal role - Age should not be a factor here. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with User:Oaktree b. Too premature for her to have a page. Recreate when she's done more and thus satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What warrants as "more"? She has 3-4 box office titles with more on board for 2024. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Coverage in major media outlets is the "more" we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is from the IMDB page. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Photo was pulled from her IMDB page. All media coverage was halted due to the SAG strike. Some releases have been pushed to a further date. Elleem22 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The threshold of WP:NACTOR may very well be too low, but as it stands, playing a significant role in a movie that won an Oscar for Best Picture, and another key role in a movie that won multiple awards, is more than enough to meet this notability threshold. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How long does the deletion message stay at the top of the page? 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:D4BB:F3B6:9E4A:620D (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OwenX, has proven notability as an actor. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Owenx that playing a significant role in an Oscar-Winning movie warrants a keep. Age shouldn't be a factor. Another movie she was in is currently on track for an Oscar nomination. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:D4BB:F3B6:9E4A:620D (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the case for NACTOR seems weak, might still be WP:TOOSOON I think.-KH-1 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were about a 60 year old actress, with a key role in an Oscar-winning film and substantial roles in other accoladed movies, would you also say "WP:TOOSOON"? I feel like ageism might be at play here. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't enough secondary independent material on her to justify an article, and her being only 6 raises additional privacy concerns.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- She's almost 8. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:D4BB:F3B6:9E4A:620D (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not happy at closing this as "no consensus" because I find the brief "privacy" concerns from JoelleJay convincing. More discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and agents are aware of this page and have been in discussion with other editors. Elleem22 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay makes a good biography of living persons point about biographies of minors. Age is a factor here, per Wikipedia policy. This biography of a minor hangs off several sources that aren't about the article subject, but about several movies and list their cast members, and a single source that is. The one source that is is a television interview that is a couple of minutes long. There's nothing in the sources documenting this subject's life and the documentation of this person's works is not multiply, independently, and in-depth sourced. Ironically, the article's very creator is making the case here in this discussion that documentation of this person's work is slim. For a 60-year-old actor with no documentation of xyr life and only mentions as cast members in documentation of xyr works, this would be an edge case. When documentation of a child's life and works is slim, we should err on the side of not including that child in Wikipedia. Multiple in-depth independent documentation of this person's life and works has to exist and the person has to be older than an age that per policy causes us to set the bar particularly high for content. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't s Shirley Temple level child star that's beloved by millions, this is a child that does acting... Has never headlined a major production, nor done anything to rise above the rest. Oaktree b (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She plays the lead role in Ordinary Angels, which was supposed to be out in 2023, but due to the SAG strike, was moved to 2024. She co-leads with Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson; this is a major Lionsgate production. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:8C28:D027:7D4A:5A45 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure I understand the privacy issue. Every fact in the article was sourced from a publicly accessible source. We didn't do any investigative journalism, or even any synthesis of such. Are you saying the L.A. Times is violating the privacy of this actor? The career of actors depends on publicity. If her parents or her agent had any say in this, they'd likely be saying, "Strong keep!!". What is the goal here? Whom are we protecting, exactly? Owen× ☎ 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agent and parents are a "Strong Keep". Elleem22 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NACTOR applies only to "significant roles", which I think is referring to a leading actor or other person with a critical role in the film. This is a long way from that, I think. NACTOR was never meant to override the GNG by giving notability-by-proxy to everyone who appeared in a notable movie. No one here seems to disagree that the GNG isn't met (at least for now), and that's what we should go with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 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 keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimeShard

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: generally couldn't find very many sources on them. has the AllMusic bio and ratings for their two albums, but not much else. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the newly-found sources. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a strong suspicion that this dance music act should be presumed notable. The relative lack of available sources is more likely due to their prominence in the 1980s/1990s, with published articles not making it through to the internet age. At minimum TimeShard appears to meet:

WP:NBAND#12 - substantial segment on a national radio broadcast (they had a session on BBC Radio 1 in 1994).
WP:creative#2 - innovative in the dance music scene as one of the first live dance music acts.

Keep I have added sources to the article which are sufficiently reliable for both of these to meet WP:V, including the allmusic bio and Resident Advisor coverage, which both contribute to WP:GNG. I have also added a 1994 gig review in Melody Maker [7], a 1994 interview in The Mix [8], and a 1994 feature in Generator Magazine [9]. I will continue to look for further sourcing, but these multiple sources are now supporting notability per WP:NBAND#1. ResonantDis_tortion 23:23, 5 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 12:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DESG

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

Seems to fall below threshold of notability. All cited sources are primary. Not much third-party sources I can find. Seems to be a relatively obscure government organisation which does not merit article. Elshad (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Elshad (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 5 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. Nomination withdrawn. No need to drag this out further. Cheers for a constructive discussion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Hartwell

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

This association footballer biography article has zero references to establish notability. After searching (see article Talk for sources searched), unable to find in depth reliable sources. Did find many people with same name born before and after this person. Article was created on 12 December 2008. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thank you for improving with two reliable sources. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [10], and having faith for WP:OFFLINESOURCES. WP:BEFORE may have been somewhat done by nominator, but I am not convinced he should be deleted considering who he played for. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his main coverage in Newspapers.com was three articles in April 1904 about when he first transferred from Kettering to Manchester United (like this article in Manchester Evening News). And actually, the website mentioned above is not so encouraging (4 appearances over 2 seasons, although per ENFA it seems he played for 3 more years after leaving Man United). Cielquiparle (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 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!} 07:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman: Per Govvy. Defineotly has offline sources and the source Cielquiparle mentioned above described Hartwell as "regarded as a very capable player". Article needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources showing significant coverage? Cielquiparle has reviewed the offline sources and suggested deletion. Giant Snowman 21:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I definitely have sources at home that will be able to flesh out this article, I’m just in America for a week so I won’t be able to go over them until at least the first week of December. We’re not on a deadline. – Pee Jay 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this is re-listed again to allow PeeJay time to present these sources. Please ping me when you do so I can re-consider my !vote. Giant Snowman 10:33, 26 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!} 07:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: Can you provide offline sources? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only got back from the US on Saturday and been suffering with jet lag since. The best source I have is "The United Alphabet" by Garth Dykes, which fills in Hartwell's biography a fair bit. I'll add to the article when I can. – Pee Jay 13:50, 5 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. If any editor wants to work on a draft, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Bugaeva

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage is limited to images of her in costume, repeated on numerous websites, without in-depth analysis or biographical content. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Visual arts, Popular culture, and Russia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to draft. Figure lacks notability from credible sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:07, 24 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!} 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant coverage in multiple sources. There's certainly enough here for an article. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : The Yahoo Life article is fine, mentioned in a few Russian sources that seem RS as well. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources were a bust. I also found French Cosmo and one Turkish website, but they're basically photo galleries. Oaktree b (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS available, only appalling tabloid-type articles and photo galleries, e.g. sexy video game character cosplay gallery—why is this a reference? Draftification is pointless since she's not notable. Uhai (talk) 06:37, 11 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. That said, the sheer magnitude of the article in Russian should make us question whether we have a notability issue, or a translation issue. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ptaha

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No indication of notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Russia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable for his legal troubles, and has enough context to meet BLP1E [11] Mach61 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CNN BBC news report with coverage of him in the last minute Mach61 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources you've presented are not about the rapper's career, but only talk about his legal troubles, which are not enough for establishing notability; the BBC report only mentions the subject in passing and show a brief interview. There isn't even a single mention of any of his legal issues here on Wikipedia anyway. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have anything to do with legal troubles. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61: Once again, that source only mentions the rapper in passing and isn't solely about his career. Sources that mention the subject only in passing are not enough for establishing notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the aggregate, they do establish notability Mach61 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs translation from corresponding Russian Wikipedia article (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two Keep arguments are not strong, but not one !vote has supported deletion. This needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails notability. No in-depth coverage, rather is about an event, that doesn't make him notable. Atighot (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:59, 5 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 Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). This discussion is a horrible mess. If there is evidence supporting the existence of this title as a standalone article, it has not been presented here. If there is a strong reason why this title needs to be a DAB separate from Greater Armenia, it has not been cogently presented either. As such I'm seeing consensus that the title should be redirect, and "Kingdom of Armenia" has the most support for a target, but alternate targets were not discussed much; so this discussion does not preclude retargetting if a future discussion finds consensus for it. I would remind all participants that this is a designated contentious topic; more decorum is expected, or sanctions may follow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia (state)

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

This article had been a dab (see here) before MarshallBagramyan rewrited it to an article (see here). It's not a broad-concept article, and may not stand for a separate topic from Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Although most of its material lacks reliable sources, A455bcd9 replaced it with a section similar to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces (see here) and eventually turned it to a dab (see here) again one month after they proposed the merge. Given that the consensus in the merge discussion is not clear, I restored the dab at the base name and moved the article here to obtain further consensus if it should be deleted or blanked and redirected. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Armenia. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus: 4 users were ok for turning the page into a dab and provided reasons to do so. Two users opposed the move but based on their answer, we can assume that they did not understand the question and when asked for precision they didn't reply.

Anyway, you decided to override the merge process and to create the dab, that's fine.

But then why did you reopen the merge discussion?

I don't understand what you're doing. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this process: as I said in the merge discussion, I could not find any RS describing "Greater Armenia" as anything else than the Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), or part of it, or the region that used to be part of it. So I'm fine with all options: delete "Greater Armenia (state)", redirect it to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), or rename it to "Greater Armenia (region)" to describe the region (although I'm not sure it would reach the notability threshold in that case). I'd tend to favor Blank and redirect to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, Caeciliusinhorto-public, KhndzorUtogh, Avrand6, and Rager7: Also ping the participants of the previous merge discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither: merge the content, and then restore the disambiguation page. This isn't a deletion argument, because the title has some encyclopedic value and the content that was here should be/should have been merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)". It shouldn't be a redirect, because there's a secondary (or perhaps even primary) meaning in a nationalist concept of Armenia extending beyond its present borders. The existence of two or more plausible meanings for the phrase is what justifies a disambiguation page; and we do not need to delete the article and create a new page for that purpose in order to hide what was previously written and merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)". The original source of merged content is usually kept, with the content available for review under article history, unless for some reason it violated copyright or was patent nonsense.

Here the reasons for merging are that it's overlapping and underdeveloped. The lack of sources isn't even an issue in this regard. As far as I could see, the only arguments opposing the merger seemed to be vague assertions that the topic was somehow distinct in a way that could not be clearly described; and it seemed to me that they were coming from the perspective of modern Armenian nationalism, rather than anything to do with the article as it stood. P Aculeius (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia has already been a disambiguation page, while we might want to merge the history there. The only issue is that the merge proposer A455bcd9 tried to remove almost all content in this article without merging for the lack of sources. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop repeating the nonsense that I debunked many times: I improved the content of the article and you reverted to add back unsourced content and removed sourced one. You keep refusing to engage in discussion on the content (not the process). You went against the consensus to start this new procedure, even after you recognized your disruption yourself and reopened the merge discussion. You're wasting other people's time. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing with someone who is bludgeoning like you is actually wasting everyone's time. And I can't find any consensus formed before you unilaterally overwrited this article without merging anything into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Hold yourself together and wait for AfD outcome. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it doesn't look like you're going to be able to agree on who's bludgeoning whom—why not just see what material in this article needs to be merged into the other—with sources if possible, with tags requesting sources if not, but at least plausible—and then redirect this title to the best target.

It may be that nothing in here needs to be added to the other article, if it's already covered, or unclear/improbable and unsourced. That's okay—sometimes a merge just amounts to blanking with the edit summary "content merged into X" after you've made sure that there's nothing left over that isn't in the appropriate article. The difference between merging and deletion is that with a merger, the original page contents are preserved in case this gets turned into an article again in the future, or in case someone wants to check whether something in another article came from here. It also preserves the work that went into this article, so that the various editors who contributed to it receive credit. It doesn't matter if you don't take anything from here somewhere else; it's still useful to be able to review what was here, and who contributed to it. P Aculeius (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: I can't find any consensus, then what is 4 people in favor (providing arguments) vs 2 against (without providing any argument)?

@P Aculeius: I added tags requesting sources in October. I removed the unsourced content one month later after I failed to find sources and I aligned the content with the sources already cited. NmWTfs85lXusaybq, without reading anything, reverted that 🤷. I've just added back tags. But what should we do next? (I offered to request a third opinion but NmWTfs85lXusaybq refused...) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want then? This is already the discussion for its deletion, given that you are asking for removing most of the material which is unsourced or failed verification. Your section that overwrited this article should have been directly added to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want the same thing as @P Aculeius: "Neither: merge the content, and then restore the disambiguation page". Basically, revert everything you've done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Determining consensus isn't about counting votes. You have to consider what the arguments being made by each side are, and whether they hold water. That's not to say you agree with them—they can be valid arguments even if you think that other arguments should prevail. However, from what I saw, no coherent argument was made by the people opposing the merger, and neither one was willing to explain that opposition in greater detail, which made it appear that they were opposing it out of nationalist sentiment—the sheer emotional assertion that "Greater Armenia is grand and noble country!"

In order for retaining this article to make sense, it needs to represent a real and definable topic that is clearly distinguishable from the ancient kingdom of Armenia as a topic, and include significant (i.e. not trivial), verifiable contents that are not already found in the main article about that kingdom and cannot conveniently be added and addressed there. That doesn't mean that the contents of this article would need to be added there verbatim and without alteration to the sources. Redundant or trivial information, material that is incorrect or that cannot be verified with diligent effort to locate a good source for it may be omitted. If better sources exist for something than the ones cited in this short article, then they can be replaced too—the same as if they had been copied over first, and then someone found better sources and replaced them.

If everything significant and verifiable in this very short article is adequately covered in the other one, then there is nothing remaining to merge. Any edits that added material—even a minimal amount, such as a redundant source citation—to the other article can indicate a partial merger from this article in the edit summary. This article can then be turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page, with a similar edit summary: "contents merged to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)" or something similar.

If you're opposed to this process, please indicate clearly what contents in this article cannot properly be merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)", and why they justify a stand-alone article. There is already an article about the concept of "Greater Armenia" as the current state plus extraterritorial claims that nationalists would like to add to it. Anything along those lines can be merged there, as well—you can merge content into more than one article—and if the title of that article isn't satisfactory, you can open a page move discussion there. But since the title of this article is probably ambiguous, it'd be better as a redirect to the disambiguation page. The fact that other editors opposed the move without explaining clearly why merger should not be done doesn't provide a significant reason for opposing it.

This is how the process is supposed to work under ordinary circumstances. A third-party opinion from someone else who isn't involved and doesn't have a strong opinion before reading the arguments is a way of seeking help if, after reading the above, you still can't agree on how to proceed. But it seems to me that you have a pretty straightforward merger here: short article, poorly sourced, the contents of which seem to duplicate or fit entirely within the scope of a much larger and better-sourced article (I didn't say perfect: that one also could use work, but most articles can be improved). You should be able to agree on that if you're both arguing in good faith, in which case a third-party opinion may not be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @P Aculeius. (FYI: That's what I did on Dec 3rd: Changing 'Greater Armenia' to a dab and merging one source to 'Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)'. NmWTfs85lXusaybq reverted all of that for reasons that I still fail to understand then renamed the article, created a dab, closed, reopened and then reclosed the merge discussion and started this AfD process.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you admit that all the content you merged into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) is no extant material but only a source you just tagged with {{Failed verification}}. However, the other source which passed verification was replaced and later abandoned from your merging. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What?! What's your point? Nonsense again:

I tagged the sentence that cannot be verified by the source used. But the source is good and it does talk about Greater Armenia so I added it to the related section in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) which was unsourced. How is this a problem? If you could take the time to read the source, you'd understand.

What is "the other source"? The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia? It's only used in Greater Armenia (state) in the sentence about Lesser Armenia. The same sentence could be backed by Hewsen 1997 which also mentions Lesser Armenia, that's what I did. So there was no reason to cite The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (which might not be RS btw...). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have removed all extant material in the original article and even one source added by yourself without merging. A deletion could never be seen as a merge and must be concluded formally in the AfD procedure. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But all the content is already in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). You cannot merge what is already there. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's only the section you used to overwrite this article, otherwise you wouldn't drop your source from merging. Almost all extant material in this article had been tagged with {{cn}} and later removed in your consecutive edits from 29 November 2023. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you arguing for? I'm really trying to understand your point.

Greater Armenia (state) has 5 sentences:

The first one, with cn, is already covered by Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Artaxiad_dynasty => I did not move it.
The second one, unsourced, is covered by Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Provinces => I moved the source there.
The third one, unsourced, is indeed not in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). I removed it while editing the article. So when I transformed into a dab, I did not copy this unsourced content into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Is this a problem?
The fourth one about the Latin name and the distinction between Lesser and Greater Armenia, is already mentioned in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) as well. So I did not copy it to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) either.
The fifth one about Cicilia, is unsourced and not covered in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). I could not find a source so I deleted it and later transformed into a dab. Is that an issue?

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about deletion of Greater Armenia (state), as opposed to its merge to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). In your version, the first sentence is not expanded by material and sources in Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Artaxiad_dynasty, but removed for no RS. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Might be WP:CONTENTFORK. Could be merged, but the content isn't much. Aintabli (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greater Armenia refers specifically to the region around the Armenian Highlands, while Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) often refered to areas beyond that (see the map file on the article). --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) per WP:PAGEDECIDE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armenia (disambiguation): as the article is a duplicate of the others mentioned, but there are multiple meanings to "Greater Armenia". All meanings can go to Armenia (disambiguation). बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:50, 28 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. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your life its back (Venezuelan Movie)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a not-yet-released film, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because they've entered the production pipeline -- the minimum notability bar for most films is that they've been released, and films are supposed to get articles in advance of release only if they can be sourced to a substantial volume of production coverage, such that even if they collapsed and never came out at all they'd still likely be permanently notable anyway (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films). But this just cites a tiny smattering of production coverage, nowhere near enough to confer permanent notability this far in advance of release.
In addition, the page's title is completely unverified in any sources at all, and appears to be an original research attempt at inventing an English title for a film that doesn't have any known English title yet -- but "we don't even know what title the page should actually be at yet" is another reason why this would be too soon. ("Come Back to Life" would be a more appropriately idiomatic translation of the film's native-language title, but that's not properly verified as the English-title of this film either — remember that foreign-language films' English titles are not always literal translations of their original-language titles, so we can't just assume that its English title will necessarily be "Come Back to Life" just because its Spanish title is slated to be "Vuelve a la vida", and have to wait until a reliable source verifies that before we can title an article about it that way.) The film also has no article at all on the Spanish Wikipedia yet, even though it can hardly be more notable to the English-speaking world than it is in its own country. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good afteernoon

Thanks for your review alwways its good learn in this plataform.

The article have four citation from the principal newspaper of Venezuela. About the titlee its translated as that in the official instagram account of the movie. in addition of that the film have noticed for be development by the directors of " Papita, Mani, Toston" The most sucess Venezuelan movie in recent years. About the spanish article, its in construction, some others native languaje production dont have articles in wikipedia in spanish. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caracas, Te Quiero Que Jode and Papita, maní, tostón are previous work of hueck directors.

@Bearcat GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has three citations from newspapers — the fourth is an IMDB-like directory, not a newspaper — and three citations from newspapers is not enough to make a film notable while it's still only in the production pipeline. Films in the production pipeline can collapse and fail to ever get released at all, so you need a lot of production coverage, not just three hits, to make a film notable in advance of release — as in so much production coverage that even if the film did collapse, its failure would be permanently notable in its own right. Normally, films are not notable at all until we can source a firm premiere date, and even after the premiere some films can still fail to pass our inclusion criteria at all: films still just don't always get the necessary depth of coverage at all, so they simply aren't exempted from having to have good sourcing just because they've been released.
And what other films the directors made is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited, and you've also failed to address the problem with the page title at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep per WP:NFILM, since there are sources about its principal photography, it has already been screened at the Guadalajara Film Festival and outher sources allow the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST: [12][13][14][15].

~~That said, the article is in poor shape and could really use improvement.~~ --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some improvements to the article. There probably are going to be even more sources once the film is screened to the public, but the current coverage should warrant it being kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the above. The sources are minimal from a WP:NFF perspective. Not enough that I'd recommend creating an article, but not so sparse that I'd recommend deletion in the face of an upcoming scheduled release. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 26 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 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have included a Reception section and found more sources: [16][17]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opportunity to evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - improvements made by NoonIcarus appear to address the issues raised now Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 16 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 _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tun Razak Chair

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

No refs on the page, I don't see the level of independent RS which would show notability JMWt (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Malaysia, and Ohio. JMWt (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Strong Keep - I added a few sources, and there are dozens more, but I have not seen sources that significantly cover the subject. Shoerack (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you are !voting keep if you are also saying there is not significant coverage as per the GNG. JMWt (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, WP:GNG isn't the only notability criteria we applied to the subject of a Wikipedia article. There is WP:SNG, and for academic-related subjects, we have WP:NPROF (WP:ACADEMIC). In fact, I have now changed my weak keep to a strong keep. Named academic chairs in major research universities are notable, per WP:NPROF. According to WP:NPROF, merely holding a named chair will satisfy WP:NPROF. Holding such a named chair confers notability, and this indicates that the chair itself is notable. Shoerack (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Well that's an argument I suppose. JMWt (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here. WP:PROF#C5 is essentially a shortcut criterion, saying that if a person holds a named chair at a major research institution, they've done things that make them a kind of person we can have an article about. This doesn't translate to saying that the named chair itself is a topic that ought to have an article. If a person holds such a position, there's probably a lot to say about the person, but how much is there to say about the chair? XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: In academia, named chairs are notable (or distinguished) positions. This is why it confers notability on its holder, per WP:NPROF#5. Shoerack (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being "notable" in the colloquial sense isn't the same as notable for Wikipedia purposes, i.e., deserving of an article dedicated to it. They're related ideas, of course, but not synonymous. WP:PROF#C5 does not say that a person inherits article-worthiness from holding an article-worthy position. In fact, it doesn't say anything about whether or not we should have an article about the position. That's a judgment we have to make on different grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would amount to circular reasoning or argument to conclude that "a person inherits article-worthiness from holding an article-worthy position." I was making the direct opposite of this argument. In another context, if a music award such as the Grammy Award confers notability on musicians, then the Grammy Award is notable regardless of whether we should have a Wikipedia article on it or not. Shoerack (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using the word "notability" to mean something other than what it means on Wikipedia. As a result, your arguments are fundamentally disconnected with how this site works. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the word "notability" used in a way that suggested something other than what it means on Wikipedia? There had been multiple discussions where the consensus was that a "named chair position" in major academic universities is notable per WP:NPROF. Our late colleague, User:DGG (of blessed memory), participated in many of these discussions, including this. In this discussion, Necrothesp pointed out that We generally keep articles on historic named chairs.. I understand that case law may not apply, but past discussions and consensus have established that "named chair positions" in major academic institutions are presumed notable per WP:NPROF. Shoerack (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any precedent established in the past applies to what is essentially a chair for a visiting professor. And the discussion you refer to was about a chair established in 1863, not 1980. 1980 may be "historic" in a strict sense, but not in the sense I was referring to in that discussion. I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or not; just pointing out that the previous discussion you cite is not really relevant to this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Shoerack (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this: Where was the word "notability" used in a way that suggested something other than what it means on Wikipedia? When you said, the Grammy Award is notable regardless of whether we should have a Wikipedia article on it or not, for example, that is incomprehensible when interpreting notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Grammy" is an example of a notable award that confers notability for singers that our policy specifically describes. So, I wasn't referring to a random award that I presumed it to be notable based on my personal opinion. Shoerack (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO is a guideline, not a policy. And the guideline says that people who win a Grammy are notable, not that the notability of the Grammy Award somehow hinges upon the fact that people who win it are notable. That would be bizarre and convoluted. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody actually advanced the argument that a guideline is a policy. Shoerack (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People who hold a named chair pass WP:PROF#C5, in situations where we can reasonably expect the chair to be given only for scholarly excellence. The purpose of this criterion is to provide another way to make sure that people known as excellent scholars get Wikipedia articles. That purpose and that notability criterion do not apply to articles about the chair itself, for which the only notability criterion is WP:GNG. We have no evidence of passing GNG (through in-depth coverage of the chair itself in published reliable sources) and in fact we have what appears to be an admission above that despite searching none were to be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — There is a presumption of notability for named chairs. When any academic holds a named chair, we don't ask for sources to establish the notability of the named chair they hold; the academic is generally considered notable by virtue of that position. We don't require that the named chair itself meet WP:GNG to be considered notable. This is because named chairs are a specific type of honour reserved for notable scholars. This is not the same as the faculty dean's position. This is an established chair that has been held by scholars for more than three decades. That said, if a specific position confers notability, that position is notable. We have a long-standing consensus that established named chairs in major academic institutions meet WP:NPROF. In one of these discussions, there was an admission that "Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not. Administrative chairs of departments do not.". Shoerack (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPROF is people. It does not apply to furniture (metaphorical or otherwise). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it does, and I have no idea where the furniture came from. The excerpt above is from your own admission that NPROF does apply to a named chair in major academic universities. I doubt that by "Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not," you were referring to furniture. Were you? Shoerack (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand this discussion but I assume that when NPROF talks about a personal chair, that refers to the person (ie the professor) rather than the chaired position. The argument appears to be that if the "chaired Professor" is a criteria that shows an individual is notable per NPROF then the chair (ie the endowment/position itself) must also be notable.

The counter argument is that the chair (ie the "furniture" or endowment behind the chaired professorship) is not covered by NPROF. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others that NPROF covers professors, and not positions. A named chair might still meet GNG. I am holding back on !voting for the moment, in case significant coverage of this chair might be found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A named chair doesn't have to meet WP:GNG. As I pointed out above, named chairs are notable (or distinguished) positions in academia. This is why it confers notability on academics that hold such positions, per WP:ACADEMIC. Shoerack (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A named chair absolutely does have to meet WP:GNG. A person who holds a named chair does not, per WP:NPROF, which is clearly written only to apply to biographical articles. If you wish this article to be kept, leaning in to a specious argument might not be the best strategy... Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a large number of articles about named chairs as shown by the hierarchy of categories beginning with Category:Professorships and down through categories such as Category:Professorships by subject and Category:Professorships by university or college. This one is sourced better than most. Whether we should have articles such this is a subject that needs a wider discussion than here. Currently the consensus is that they are acceptable. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is not whether they are acceptable, rather the issue is whether there is a presumption in our guidelines. I don't think there is a presumption in NPROF, which applies to only to "the person" not the chair. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was the intention of the WP:ACADEMIC when it was drafted? In my view, the intention was to apply the policy to all academic-related topics, from academics to their positions and awards. We may not conclude that WP:ACADEMIC does not apply to academic positions such as "named chair" and "distinguished professor" positions. I understand that policies and intentions may not perfectly align, and there may be unintended enforcement or implementation consequences. Shoerack (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general WP:ACADEMIC is a living project, and many of us interact with it and tweak it on a continuing basis, just like the rest of Wikipedia. I can't say that in my short experience it has ever been applied to anything but a human being, and no one has yet argued that a "transitive property" like this applies. I think that pages like this need to be looked at on their own merits. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original intention was to codify and clarify the earlier "Average Professor Test", still summarized in the guideline as "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" It never has been intended to apply to anything but a person. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the intention was never to apply the policy to all academic-related topics. It doesn't even discuss how to evaluate the article-worthiness of any topic other than a person, and it never has. Here is the first version with any text in it, and here is the version where the present numbering was established. The opening line: This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline an academic is some-one enaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. It's plainly about the people, not the places they work or the offices they hold. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some named chairs are notable enough to warrant a page. One that comes to mind is the Rumford Chair of Physics at Harvard, due to its historical origins and connection to Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, an important and notorious historical figure. So the Rumford chair does in fact satisfy GNG, seems to me. Does this one? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Delete- My original logic: "Since this is the first chair at a major American university to be funded by a foreign government, I believe that this particular chair is sufficiently notable to merit a page. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)" But based on what others have pointed out regarding the weakness of secondary sources, this may not be enough to satisfy GNG on its own-hence my change. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, in Wikipedia terms, requires in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Being the first to do something is neither necessary nor sufficient. Can you explain which in-depth reliable sources you are using to reach this conclusion that it is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just taking the page at its face value. If you think it’s in error, that’s a different matter. And bring the first thing in a long series of very different things does seem notable to me in this sphere, so agree to disagree there. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chairs are notable only for the people who hold them. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I mostly agree with that. And yet, would you delete the Rumford chair page as well? There must be the possibility for a rare exception. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that one meets GNG, right? so no need for exceptions. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic does not meet GNG, which is the sole determinant of notability for this subject. Obviously the "named chairs" in NPROF refer to the holders of those positions, not the actual positions.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: — I have no further opinion on this article at this point as to whether it should be kept or deleted. Shoerack (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I propose that we close this as 'no-consensus' and we allow the discussion to continue elsewhere. Personally I think the points made by Shoerack are novel but interesting. And potentially undermine NPROF if a Professor is included in en.wiki on the basis of a "named chair" but the chair position itself is non-notable per the GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps let me bold this: I withdraw the nomination JMWt (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not permitted to close a nomination as withdrawn when there are other "delete" opinions expressed in the discussion. And a no-consensus outcome would be strange for a discussion in which there is no actual support for it meeting the relevant notability guideline, GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is permitted to strike your nomination statement and cast a vote of “keep.” (or any WP:ATD or “neutral”). Frank Anchor 03:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find more than PR from the university itself, and even if I'm being overly ungenerous in that evaluation, I don't see how this topic could require more than a line or two in the article about the university itself. The argument from WP:PROF#C5 is specious (the guideline is for evaluating people and always has been). XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: — While this debate may not be closed per WP:WITHDRAWN, I do think that a separate discussion at the relevant venue is warranted. Technically, we are saying that a professor meets WP:ACADEMIC if they hold a named chair in a major academic institution, regardless of whether the named chair meets GNG or not. But for the named chair itself to merit a stand-alone article, they must meet GNG. My argument is that if named chairs confer notability on academics, it means the named chairs are presumed notable. The problem is that WP:ACADEMIC did not explicitly state this. We can expand the scope of WP:ACADEMIC to cover academic positions such as "named chairs" and "vice chancellor," for example, but that's certainly not a discussion we should have in this debate. Shoerack (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that, for a magazine article to convey GNG-notability on its subject, that magazine article must itself be notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy that requires that a magazine article be notable to convey GNG-notability on its subject. Multiple independent, reliable magazines are required to establish a subject's notability. These magazines don't have to be notable, but they do have to be reliable, and multiple of them are required to establish notability. Reliability and notability are not the same. That said, we only need a single reliable source to confirm that a subject holds a named chair in major academic institutions, and that confers automatic notability on the subject. My argument is that, if this is the case, there is a presumed notability for named chairs in major academic institutions, and we do not need multiple independent, reliable sources to establish their notability. Shoerack (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single sufficiently substantial NYTimes article on a subject would tend to establish notability for that subject. It doesn't make the reporters who wrote the article notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got the idea that a single "substantial NYTimes article" established notability for a subject when our policy clearly says that there must be multiple such sources cited. In addition, I have no idea why you think your "reporters" example is relevant to what I wrote above. Shoerack (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, the point was that a single sufficiently substantial NYTimes article would tend to establish notability (emphasis added). In other words, where there is one sufficiently substantial article in the Times, it's a safe bet that there will be more. Second, the GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Third, it is an analogy to the claim you keep making. You say that because the fact of a person holding a named chair makes the person notable, the chair position itself must be notable. That's a lot like saying that because being covered in the Times makes a person notable (or tends to do so), then the reporters who write the coverage for the Times must be notable (or will very likely be so). XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly keep saying that GNG is a guideline, not a policy, when nobody is advancing the argument that a guideline is a policy. That said, while Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not technically the same, they document the good (or best) practices accepted in the Wikipedia community, and they are enforced. I.e., we enforce both our guidelines and policy. "That's a lot like saying that because being covered in the Times makes a person notable (or tends to do so), then the reporters who write the coverage for the Times must be notable (or will very likely be so)." is your own analogy, not mine. I have made my points; it's left for the closing admin to evaluate whether they have merit or not. Shoerack (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The rationale for my decision to vote delete (after careful consideration) is primarily grounded in the application of Wikipedia's general notability guideline WP:GNG and the specific interpretation of the notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF or WP:ACADEMIC). The key points I believe support deletion are: 1. Lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources that are necessary to establish the notability of the chair itself WP:GNG 2. The notability guideline for academics WP:NPROF applies to individuals, not to the academic positions or chairs they hold, which means the notability of the person does not extend to the chair position (WP:PROF#C5). 3. The discussion between @David Eppstein and @XOR'easter underscores that notability of a subject requires in-depth coverage of the subject itself, not the notability of related individuals or the significance of the position they hold. While there are arguments for keeping the article, such as the historical significance of the chair and the precedent of having articles about other notable chairs, I think the general consensus should be deletion – due to the lack of substantial coverage of the chair position itself as an independent subject worthy of a standalone Wikipedia article.

PD Slessor (talk) 07:24, 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 merge‎ to King Kong (franchise). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mechani-Kong

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

Minor kaiju that never even starred in their own movie, just a supporting character for some. Our article is a 100% unreferenced plot summary and list of appearances. No ja wiki article. The best WP:ATD-R might be to animated TV show he debuted in and where he is lited among characters (The King Kong Show). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King Kong (franchise). SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with King Kong (franchise) while establishing a section for him in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to King Kong Escapes, which seems to be his most well known appearance. I question the Merge votes given there is basically nothing to Merge in the article. A Redirect, if not to King Kong Escapes, but elsewhere, would be for the best. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per WP:ATD. There might not be much worth preserving, but this can be worked out through editing. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 11 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. Daniel (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Basu

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Presented sources are mostly WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Google searches yield nothing substantial. Hitro talk 10:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, India, and West Bengal. Hitro talk 10:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her correct name appears to be Sukanya Basu Mallik. There are also potential sources to review under this name. However, looks like an article under this name was previously deleted. Rublamb (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination, article is a list of achievements with self-published references. Reconrabbit (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references are self published. Lacks third party references. For now Delete . B-Factor (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd have been happy to speedy it. Deb (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the references are self-published, and therefore cannot not used as sources. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 15:21, 11 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 23:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identity (video game)

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

Had been dePRODded previously; nominated due to issues with general notability and lack of significant coverage. Sources do not assert notability, not even a single review. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 5 December 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 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only RS is around the Kickstarter funding, in the five years since release it's not had any coverage. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here showing this is any different than any other MMORPG. Fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 12 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 03:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TVBully

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

Non-notable organisation. Issues have been left unaddressed since 2015. Sources is about the criticism of the TV network, nothing on the website at all except for a dead Facebook link.

A CSD would be worthier for this non-notable organization SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook groups are very rarely notable. Nate • (chatter) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 12 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 to delete, but encouragement of the consensus here is to re-scope and improve the article via editorial processes. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One-off vehicle

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

Besides the poor quality of this article, this article is also completely arbitrary and not encyclopaedic. It makes dubious claims as many of those in the article are not one-offs at all.

Sources are from it as dictionary term and about the cars itself, not the subject.

It is not unusual for these to be produced as one-offs. A notes to add to my rationale to delete, this is because of the questionable nature of this article.

Speed record vehicles are one-offs too and so are race cars before the 1990s
Experimental aircrafts are one-offs also. Ships are too as well as ocean liners and warships.
Concept cars are one-offs too.
Can cars that have been heavily modified from its mass produced version, such as feature cars in magazines such as Max Power, be considered as one-offs too?
It was not unusual for luxury cars built prior to the war to be built as one-offs. Many cars, pre-Ford Model T, were one-offs.
Does making a sole road version of race cars make it a one-off? (Porsche 911 GT1) Do sole racing version of production cars make it a one-off? (numerous)
Do making extensive modifications to a production car make it a one-off? (Some Ferrari Special Projects cars)
Do movie cars make them a one-offs too? (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang movie car)
Does making slight alterations make it a one-offs? (Britten V1000)
Making more than one does not make it a one-off (Moto Guzzi V8)

Question is, should we include land speed record vehicles, ‘home-built’ racing cars, soap-box derby cars, modified cars, experimental aircrafts, luxury yachts, ocean liners, concept cars into this list? If we allow a list like this, then we’ll end up with an over-cluttered list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like the nom has an issue with the article scope which could be better discussed on the talkpage. The problem of the list becoming cluttered could be addressed by consensus on scoping; for example by agreeing to only include models produced by recognised manufacturers. JMWt (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my argument is, are they any different to custom cars, concept cars and custom cars for rich people? I don't see any. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with user "JMWt".. May be the problem is in the title translation and should be changed to "unique vehicle".. that does not "exactly" mean, a ONE-OFF piece fabricated.. Mcapdevila (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't answer to my criticism of that article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete If nothing else, I see no good reason to lump together different types of vehicles. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not be opposed to a dynamic list of one-off cars that have articles with a brief explanation of what "one-off" refers to, however as was explained, it's a very vague term that could mean anything from concept cars to movie cars to cars that were built by manufacturers with the intention of being sold, and a lot of the categories overlap. Making one for "vehicles" on the other hand means you would have to include things like space shuttles and cruise ships which are vehicles that are obviously not mass-produced. Regardless, this article needs to be WP:TNT'd. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vehicle únic or vehicolo único vs. ONE-OFF.. May be the problem is in the title translation and should be changed to "unique vehicle".. that does not "exactly" mean, a ONE-OFF piece fabricated.. I am adding the translation of the comments of the original autor in catalan wiki, based in the idea of the italian article: "vehicolo único", with vehicles wich are "unique" in its dessign, but "sometimes" with more than ONE-OFF fabricated.

This article allows to centralize many cases that do not have an article but they deserve one. Whether they have an article on other wikis or they don't have it. It is not easy to find some of these "unique items" that can make all together an interesting article.--Mcapdevila (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcapdevila Have you forgot to declare that you are the article creator? In case you don't know, they do have their own articles. With your argument, are we going to document every one of them starting with the Benz Patentwagen? I can point this out, one-offs have existed since the dawn of the automobile. I cannot see your reasoning being a valid argument. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to "declare" something obvious and evident to editors with a couple of weeks editing? Mcapdevila (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're the one who created that article and voting keep rings bells. Still, any different to coachbuilder? SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators have as much of a right to participate in AFDs as any other editor and doesn't it seem natural that most would vote to keep articles they created? They don't need to post a disclaimer and SpacedFarmer, you're in no position to make demands of other editors, especially ones that started editing in 2008. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs a better scoping statement in the lede, a lot of copy-edit work and perhaps a better title, but WP:DINC. The subject is encyclopaedic and RS exist. I see no policy-based reasons for deletion. I would wonder if the article might be better restructured into a stand-alone list with a strong intro, but (again), that's cleanup and not a reason for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of this proposal is that the article of coachbuilder exists (as they were called then) and has that same principle. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
coachbuilder coexists in parallel with custom car, or customized car wich are similar..

One off, maybe we shall rename it to "unique vehicle".. deals with vehicles in general.. not only cars Mcapdevila (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest '''one-off production car''' for 1) it should be about production cars with the pure intention of being produced as one, not 2 or more 2) cars always take the limelight 3) motorcycles are typically customised by a customiser because they are cheaper to do so - 2 of those of your entries are not one-offs and how do you know the OSSA was a one-off? Because it is a sole-surviving model, it doesn't mean it is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. The article requires improvements, but has an encyclopedic scope. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.. I've done a little of copy-edit, to start with.. obviously more work is still needed.. Mcapdevila (talk) 12:36, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetrack Therapy

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

This article is a promotional pieces relying on poor sources, primary sources, and plain text disguised as citations. I could not find sufficient independent coverage of the subject. Cortador (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional. Both Lifetrack Therapy and Yukio Ishizuka were created by User:PositiveMentalHealth, the only articles created by the user. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: borderline G11. This SPA smells of COI. Regardless, nothing but self-published primary sources, no evidence of notability even if rewritten by independent editor in a non-promotional style. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and clearly promotional. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:32, 10 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 due to lack of participation in this discussion. No prejudice towards an immediate renomination. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Math house

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Biology, Mathematics, Computing, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://search.brave.com/goggles?q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22&source=web&q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22 Baratiiman (talk) 16:44, 28 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!} 08:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - our colleague above unhelpfully provided a search engine result, however it did actually provide a source to discuss. This is a a conference presentation which was then published as an academic proceeding, and appears to be on topic. There appears to be another published paper that cites it, but I have not been able to establish the reliability of that journal. I see other whispers, it seems like there may be other sources (including non-English ones) if we dig a bit deeper. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment, no opinion on the notability (at most borderline, it looks), but it should be moved to Isfahan Mathematics House or similar should it be kept. - Nabla (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:41, 12 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) 11:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:51, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KD Subdivision

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish how it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Kentucky, and Tennessee. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 161-mile railway line will pass as a geographic feature; sourcing the history shouldn't be a problem. I'll see what I can do to make the article more presentable. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd consider rail lines to almost always be notable, I question whether the CSX subdivision is the notable topic. Subdivisions are things made up by someone at CSX headquarters in Jacksonville, and do not necessarily correlate to lines as a whole, or to notable topics. This article is one of many mass-produced by an editor who decided every single CSX subdivision should have an article, irrespective of sourcing, notability, or if it even made sense to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, although in this case the "KD" name goes back to the L&N in the 1970s: [18]. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation here from those editors who work on railroad articles or are knowledgeable about them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find primary sources briefly talking about the rail line. What's used now for sourcing in the article is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I don't think that's a fair description of Kincaid Herr's book. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about merging this and other CSX subdivisions to "List of CSX Transportation lines"? Some of this data is already included in the list article. We could expand the list by one column for a capsule history of each subdivision. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that's inappropriate for a list article, especially one that's 36 KB already. These lines have their own history and are geographically distinct. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 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!} 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has been improved. The CSX subdivisions, divisions, and regions need a much deeper dive than just this AfD. gidonb (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no evidence of significant coverage in multiple sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:48, 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. Significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources has not been demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemogang Maswena

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Botswana-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In a quick search there is some coverage about the athlete in the local media in Botswana. I vote to keep, but it's on the threshold of WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added additional sources in the article Svartner (talk) 04:20, 27 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!} 05:39, 28 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!} 08:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to Svartner for the extra sources! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Transactional announcements on one WordPress-hosted news outlet do not demonstrate GNG, which requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 11 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 Draftify‎. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobic tropes

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

Unencyclopaedic topic. We don't make lists of possible views; the broader topic is covered at Islamophobia. Fermiboson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, and Islam. Fermiboson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – we have similar articles on Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. The article is not exactly in ideal shape, but there's plenty to be expanded here. A quick search turns up a few pertinent articles:
- doi:10.1177/1461444816642169
- doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2011.00825.x
Also, Islamophobia is already near the upper size limit, so it makes sense to have a separate article for this topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Islamophobia~~ Islamophobia in the media (thanks, Significa liberdade!). True, the target is already a long article, but this small, specific section is not a good one for branching. Owen× ☎ 11:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If merged and/or redirected, I might recommend Islamophobia in the media rather than Islamophobia more generally. However, as Maddy from Celeste has noted, we have similar articles for other defamatory tropes. I have also included a quick list of articles that discuss Islamophobic tropes on the article's talk page. If we don't merge/redirect, I might recommend draftifying. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamophobia in the media: This may be a notable topic, but this is far from it and WP:TNT is sorely needed for this one. As it stands this fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of definable criteria. No prejudice towards someome else recreating this at a later date. Let'srun (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick check suggest that this topic meets WP:GNG when you include such common synonyms as "myths" and "anti-muslim". There exists enough sources that the article could be expanded from its current state (which is not good, but quality is not a good argument for deletion). I also think it makes sense to have a separate article for this, like Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Sjö (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Keep per WP:BEFORE's criteria D4 -- I agree with the Keep !voters above that the article should exist, and the nomination seems very much in the category of WP:ZEAL (it came less than three hours after the initial creation). That said, this is not the article that needs to exist. At the moment, it is nothing more than a flat list of statements with no context or explanation, and there is no encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Draftify will allow the editor to build it out and get assistance from others who might be willing to find Quality sources are out there. A casual glance at gScholar shows that the subject is widely discussed in academic literature [19], [20], [21]. A key term that editors may want to include is Orientalism, the precursor to Islamophobia. Also, there seems to be good secondary articles on such tropes in Buddhism ([22], [23], etc.)that could globalise the article. Cheers, ~~Last1in (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)~~ Last1in (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with draftifying; it is in mainspace that articles may develop. If we draftify, realistically, the only one who will know or care about the draft will be whoever created it. In mainspace, it will be more visible and thus will solicit improvements from a larger range of editors. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Per WP:BEFORE's D4, If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination (emphasis in original). I will change my !vote above. It does sorta raise the question of what Draftify is for, though. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's talk page has a list of sources that may be used to expand the article.Sjö (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment Without comment on the rest of the arguments, I resent the implication that this is a WP:ZEAL nomination. The article as it stands then and now is highly unencyclopaedic, and it was not clear what type of sources could be used. (I would argue it is still not clear, because the scope of the article is poorly defined. Trope and rhetoric are different things, and there's also the "by whom" question.) This is a highly contentious topic, one in which it could be argued that an unencyclopaedic entry is worse than having no entry. Someone who actually bothers to make an improvement can make a new article if it is needed, and in the meantime, letting the article as it currently is stay up unchanged because someone can hypothetically change it for the better is irresponsible (note that having an imperfect article is not an argument for deletion, but TNT is). If the AfD does close as keep without any improvement, I will probably be TNT stubifying the article. After all, if this was clearly inside ARBPIA, it'd have been db-gs'd centuries ago. Fermiboson (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I'm inclined to think that this is a worthy article for inclusion but I have no idea how it could be fairly written without WP:OR. Fwiw I disagree that this could/should be a redirect to an article about the media because the notion of a "trope" is that it has a life outside of the published media. JMWt (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article now is essentially the same as it was when nominated. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, the nomination was appropriate and made in good faith. The accusation of WP:ZEAL is baseless. Owen× ☎ 11:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that WP:ZEAL has nothing to do with zealotry, right? It has to do with a rush to delete an article before we know whether it's worth keeping. A better name for it would be WP:OVERPROTECTIVE. There is nothing about bad faith in that entire guideline (nor intended in my use of it), just that some folks propose an article for deletion before editors have a chance to build it out. Anytime an article comes up for AfD a mere hours after creation, ZEAL is a reasonable part of the discussion. In this case, the article was (and is) labeled a stub, the nomination came three hours after the first post, and I feel that the subject does have valid scholarly sources as I linked above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what WP:ZEAL is about, and I stand by my statement. Whether it was three hours or three months, if the article wasn't ready for main namespace, it should have been introduced in draftspace. The topic could have--and I believe should have--been developed inside the Islamophobia in the media article, and only spun off if and when its size and independent notability allowed for a standalone page. WP:ZEAL is an essay intended to discourage editors from nominating articles that haven't had a chance to get fleshed out. It is not an automatic waiver against nomination of pages less than X days old. Yes, ZEAL is indeed often part of the discussion when the nomination comes shortly after the article's creation, but that is not to say that it is always a reasonable part of the discussion. If the potential to mature into a viable article isn't apparent, article age is irrelevant, and a ZEAL accusation is unreasonable and unnecessarily antagonistic. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I made no accusations here, and there is no reason to be nasty about it. Until a few hours ago, this was a discussion on the merits of the article, not the editors. I found an AfD where (1) I easily located hundreds of quality RSs many of which could help make this a good article (I posted my WP:THREE), and (2) the AfD came three hours after the article's first post (which felt like -- still feels like -- overprotectiveness). Whether it should have started in draft space or not, AfD is not for cleanup and I felt Draftify was a good option. Maddy's point about draftifying an existing, mainspace article felt persuasive to me so I moved from Draftify to Keep. If this is is again going to devolve into insults and accusations, I'll take my leave. Thank you and good day. Last1in (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Not ready. A worthy topic gleaned from a list on CNN news. Needs expansion and explanation. See structure of Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. As is, this one is just a little list from a cable news outlet. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not mainspace ready. Needs more sourcing. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 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!} 07:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ratata (band)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Passes WP:NMUSICIAN "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." and "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Important band in the history of modern Swedish music. Among the sources are an hour-long documentary produced by the national television company. No explanation why the band would lack notability. A bit perplexed by the first attempt to reduce a fairly ambitious article from 2014 to a redirect with no prior discussion. /Julle (talk) 01:18, 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 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 12:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eheim

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:ORGCRIT DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Germany. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 5 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 05:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rectifi

AfDs for this article:

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

Only cites two sources, one of which is its website. Very little coverage available online DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 5 December 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 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing much beyond routine listings and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It does not appear to have any notability Svartner (talk) 04:45, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Centre for Health

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

This short-lived agency only existed for four years (2005-2009). No sources are cited other than the laws that governed it. This article fails WP:ORGSIG since there is no outside coverage of it. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, United Kingdom, and Wales. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Institutions established by statute are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INHERITED, unless there is a policy related to agencies such as this. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERITED clearly does not apply here. Inherited from what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something is not inherently notable because of something else. "Institutions established by statute are generally notable" would be a claim of inherit notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to inherent notability, not inherited notability! Different things. To reiterate, in general we have kept organisations, institutions and departments created by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for mixing up the essay and policy. To clarify, I'm not advocating for deletion, I haven't done any research yet. However, as of yet, I agree with the nom that Wikipedia:ORGSIG has not been passed. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 5 December 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, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- The only 2 references listed are from the same website, one of which is about a health act & not the centre specificaly, neither of the two refs provide significant coverage of the centre. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been watching this since the nom. and hoping someone else would find something, but as it is on the second relist, I've taken a fuller look. I am unimpressed by an argument that says "are generally notable." If this is notable, there will be sources. If there are no sources, it is unclear how any encyclopaedic page can be written. The nom specifically cites WP:ORGSIG which says No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. So is this notable? I can't find sources talking about it. There is a touch more about the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which also has no page (not the same thing). There was a Welsh Centre for Rural Health and an institute for Health Informatics that were funded by Welsh Government but independent. There were a whole plethora of Welsh Health organisations over the years, all of which would be scraping the barrel to find their way beyond permastub status as pages. What is missing, I think, is some kind of page looking at the healthcare landscape in Wales. We have NHS Wales but that is largely the current situation. The Wales Centre for Health could be mentioned in an as yet unwritten page looking at the historical situation, but there is not notability for a page in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 12 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. No prejudice to an immediate renomination to consider new sourcing presented here. Daniel (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Tracey

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

None of the information in the article is corroborated by the source, the subject fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and New Zealand. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [24] is all I can find from a search and it does not mention the subject. Possible hoax? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not a hoax; multiple national titles and long racing career, as covered in The Press newspaper between 1978 and 1988 at PapersPast. The Press is the only NZ newspaper currently with full online coverage from this period. Given that Tracey was from Auckland, and The Press is a Christchurch newspaper, it is safe to assume that there would be even fuller and more extensive coverage in the New Zealand Herald and Auckland Star newspapers during that period. Paora (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was hoping to find more... [25] is a mention by another individual. Was hoping Trove from Australia's national library would have something [26], they don't; I wonder if he's too modern to be in there. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the Wikipedia Library link there isn't much to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Did you look at the PapersPast search results? Paora (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First one's the best, rest are trivial mentions, still not enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Tracey was inducted into the New Zealand Speedway Hall of Fame in 2012 [27]. Article here on Tracey from Speedway Racing, November 1984. Paora (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Here's an article profiling Tracey in the Indianapolis Star of 25 September 1983. Paora (talk) 01:15, 8 December 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, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've struck my vote, now Neutral. The IndyStar article is good. The other sourcing isn't enough for me to !vote keep but I recognize the WP:POTENTIAL for further offline articles to exist for a subject whose activities far predated mass use of the internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:03, 16 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) 11:48, 19 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 11:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lust (upcoming film)

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

Procedural nomination per: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13#Lust (upcoming film). This previously redirected to the article of the composer for the film, Sanjib Sarkar. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm unable to find anything that confirms this was ever released or reviewed or had anything notable about its production. Most references already used are reporting the same thing, which reads slightly promotional as if it was trying to generate buzz when trying to get sold. - 2pou (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all sources read like a rewritten press release. Cortador (talk) 08:11, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CocoWalk

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

Small mall that lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Florida. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, the article is sparse at best but the actual place is a fairly significant shopping center in that area. Skroob (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Skroob (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

For the article to exist for 18 years...there's really nothing significant stated on it. – The Grid (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the existense of sources that meet SIGCOV guidelines.

Here are links I could find of sources to satisfy this significant coverage requirement. I am currently unable to add these to the article, but I will be sharing the links here.

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/650904536

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/the-miami-herald-cocowalk-property-1984/69726780/

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/656236427

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/657073065

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/635805980

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/642257530

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/637566270 BurgeoningContracting 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The contributions where I have synthesized information from the sources into the article. BurgeoningContracting 04:47, 9 December 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, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent sleuthing, BurgeoningContracting. Meets SIGCOV. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not agree that this article lacks significant coverage. From my perspective, there are sufficient reliable sources to support what is written in the article. ST7733B (talk) 23:46, 12 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 06:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internet FAQ Consortium

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

Trivial, self-explanatory WP:DICDEF. No sources other than Wikipedia mirrors. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like it was a thing mentioned 20+ years back but I don't see the significant level of coverage needed for inclusion on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 5 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 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trustix

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Linux distribution with almost no reliable sources available DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Whpq and Ham Pastrami: Courtesy invitation to the active partcipants of the last AfD. Pavlor (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources to establish notability. Also delete its redir, Trustix Secure Linux. The non-admin AfD closure in 2008 was improper, and shouldn't be a factor now anyway. Owen× ☎ 20:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it did bring up two potential sources, one of which points to a third. They're not very good, in my view, having a whiff of a warmed-up press release about them, but we shouldn't be outright ignoring what was brought up, otherwise this is no better a discussion than last time. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails the relevant notability criteria (WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:NSOFT). I couldn't find much of anything beyond the two sources mentioned in the previous AfD. This reads like churnalism/native advertising and while it may or may not be, the other reference being a routine coverage of an acquisition announcement is very specifically trivial coverage, and the only sources I could find outside of what was discussed in the previous AfD was coverage of the aquisition which again is trivial and does not contribute to notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:55, 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 keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep because that is the consensus but this article needs a lot of work. This closure isn't an endorsement of the current article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonies

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites no sources at all, could not find any to establish notability DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on procedural lines, at the least - the article cites half a dozen press pieces about the band, though they are improperly formatted and contain overly florid quotes that should be trimmed per WP:PROMO. So the nominating rationale is incorrect on its face. The article certainly needs cleanup (and has for many years), but that also is not a valid reason for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No footnotes but plenty of suitable sources. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, it should be renamed to The Moonies (band) and The Moonies redirected to Unification Church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously needs some work to fix the improperly formatted citations, but the article is otherwise fine and obviously notable. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:55, 5 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 but rename. Said rename can either be done boldly by any editor, or alternatively discussed on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

County island

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

The page shows no source for its term, or its definition. Sources that exist are seemingly isolated to a single state and primarily a single county in said state. There is not substantial evidence of notability of the term in wide or official use outside of a small regional area. If any amount is salvageable, perhaps it should be merged as a subsection of Unincorporated community.

In addition, the page attempts to be a list page, it is woefully incomplete, uncountable, and also includes places that show no indication that they are referred to by the term, making it rather ORy. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing sources that use and define this term. JMWt (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because phrase matching doesn't find it. One has to know what sort of books to read. This is known under the subject of "island annexation" in California law, with an extensive discussion in West's, and "town islands" in Wisconsin law, to name but two. I found you a couple of California university professors, as well. One of them is Dean McHenry. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmm. Maybe the title is wrong then? JMWt (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably move to a more widely known term per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. Here is an article that notes that "Twenty-three states have specific unincorporated island provisions in their annexation laws." The problem of course is that the terminology in this area is as fragmented as the law, but from an initial search I'd suggest unincorporated island (218 hits on Google Scholar, used in statutory law of at least three states). An alternative term would be municipal underbounding, but it's not quite the same thing. As a last resort this could be merged to municipal annexation in the United States, but I don't think that would be especially helpful to readers or editors. -- Visviva (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real and notable feature of municipal boundaries in the United States. A move to unincorporated island is probably also a good idea. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this may be a case for WP:MERGE of any verifiable content into the Unincorporated areas article – Seems some sources do exist [1] [2]

PD Slessor (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of suggestions here, for an article move (with two different suggested new page titles) and also one for a Merge. I think this discussion needs more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the purposes of AfD, with a possible/probable move to a better title. Clearly notable, but also needs better sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 02:19, 26 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 05:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open conference

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

Article is comprised entirely of unsourced original research, particularly as indicated by the sole talk page message. Further, online searches don't substantiate this use of the term, other than this article. Harej (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:A11 Kinopiko ^talk 05:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I untagged this article. I'd like the AFD to proceed in case editors can locate sufficient sources to retain this article. It's a little soon into jump to speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst the term "open conference" is certainly in use, I don't see any general agreement with regard to what is meant and certainly nothing I can see appears to verify the claims in the article. It might be that the author(s) have found a source which justifies their claims but without pointing to it I can't find it. More likely, I think, is that is this is a personal assertion. JMWt (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. No evidence that this is anything but a personal attempt to promote an idiosyncratic use of the phrase. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:25, 11 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. I don't see a consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Lawrence

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

Notability challenged since 2012. Given the subject's BLP status and possible issues regarding quality of sources, there are several moving parts here and I think it would be best to open this to the community for discussion. AfD participants should consult talk page for arguments made therein. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Music. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 19 and 28 are fine. It's not a slam dunk, but that's just enough coverage to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "arguments" given on the talk page are over 10 yrs ago, I wouldn't count the online chart as notable. I'll give them the paper sources existing (I can't confirm or deny), but the rest don't seem to help the discussion here... The last point in particular doesn't seem to hold true (I don't see this person has become notable for Halloween music, a decade after the comment was made), and it was iffy then... Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that source #19 for Keyboard Magazine is now defunct and the link just goes to the mag's general website. If it once had a precise article on Ms. Lawrence, I cannot find it online. Source #28 is functional and it is a local newspaper article; it's reliable but one of very few such sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Magazine archive link. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "Keep" vote above is based on about 1.5 reliable sources (see my comment above) and I cannot find anything else significant and reliable beyond the Daily Pilot article that is currently at footnote #28. Regarding the talk page discussion, the named chart does not qualify, and Ms. Lawrence could be considered "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" under WP:NMUSICIAN, **IF** Halloween Carols are a notable genre, and that is not convincing. Otherwise she is a working musician with various symphonies and has focused on some unique personal interests, but that does not make her notable enough for an article here. This article is dependent on personal and self-promotional sources, and tries to fill space with desperate leaps of notability, such as being mentioned in the same magazine as someone loosely affiliated with Iron Maiden or being asked to comment on someone else's book. She clearly does some unique things, but sorry no cigar. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b. Yes, too many primary sources are used, but independent profiles in the Orange County Register and Los Angeles Times a decade apart (plus Keyboard Magazine) are enough for BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By BASIC, do you mean GNG? If so, GNG's not enough. She also needs to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. GNG is only for topics which don't have their own notability guidelines. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean WP:BASIC (basically GNG for people), which is sufficient for notability: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is untrue, GNG applies to every single topic not covered by a SNG which is stricter than the GNG (mostly NCORP and NEVENT). Mach61 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um...that's what I said: GNG is for topics which don't have their own guidelines. This article, being about a musician, would fall under WP:NMUSICIAN. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. WP:NMUSIC does not overrule WP:GNG. Any music artist can be kept by passing GNG. In any case criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC is exactly the same as GNG. The only SNGs that overrule GNG is WP:NCORP which is stricter, WP:ACADEMIC which is looser, and WP:NEVENT that may be stricter in some circumstances, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Keep per Oaktree b; meets WP:GNG. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If passing GNG is all it takes, why are there so many different notability standards? I keep seeing this idea that "it meets GNG; ergo, it's automatically notable across the board." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see even a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Excessive reliance on sources like PR Newswire and Facebook. If kept, take a flamethrower to the unencyclopedic language and poorly sourced content. BD2412 T 02:16, 12 December 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) 15:15, 12 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) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG per the analysis provided by Oaktree b. Some cleanup is needed to remove some puffery and remove some of the primary sources but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. User:Let'srun 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair warning: if this gets kept, I'm stubbing TF out of it. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have, in another editor's words, "taken a flamethrower" to the fluff and questionable sources on this article. There's...not much left. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - assuming the article will be edited to remove unsourced content, blogs, CD liner notes, press releases, social media, etc, there does not appear to be support for notability according to any guideline, based on other available sources, because this appears to be WP:PROMO: brief 2011 local coverage about a concert series for children; 2010 interview with Keyboard Magazine promoting brands of instruments; 2009 interview with the Orange County Register; a 2012 KPBS event listing with "You can also listen to Poe set to music by Orange County's Kristen Lawrence" at the end of the list; and a 2018 local news interview reprinted in the LA Times mentioning an upcoming performance and recently-released album. What seems to be missing is substantial independent, reliable, secondary coverage to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, or reviews or other substantial independent coverage of her work to support WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO notability; an article based primarily on what she says about her work does not help develop a neutral and balanced BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 23 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. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Assistance Resource Teacher

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

I could not significant coverage in gnews, gbooks and Australian search engine Trove. Most of the sources are primary like minister's announcements and government sources. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First off, it is inherently dangerous to try and re-establish notability for recent-but-pre-internet phenomena. It's easier to find good, online, academic resources about events in the 1780s than for 1980s. I agree that most of the sources for the article are primary, but not all. A 2009 journal article [28] discusses the scheme, as does a recent thesis [29] (though the latter is not a quality source). I think on balance, the article provides solid, verifiable info and enriches the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard a thesis as a reliable source. Can you find WP:THREE quality sources? LibStar (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot. However, that does not (in and of itself) require deletion of the article. I am not in this field and do not have access beyond publicly-posted works. If this were a new article, I might !vote to draftify, but it's a long-standing one about a subject rooted in a period about which secondary sources are thin on the ground. I just don't think deleting it improves the encyclopaedia since there are sources, both those already cited and the journal article I mention above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:19, 30 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!} 04:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Special Assistance Program (Australian education), or what can be salvaged. Second option would be to keep. Most of the article is unsourced, and there is almost certainly significant coverage in newspaper reports, but I expect most of them to not be scanned/publicly available due to copyright issues and it would be virtually impossible to integrate them unless an editor happens to live in Victoria and investigate it themselves. This is a particular issue for 60s-90s buildings and programs in Australia, as most of these newspaper reports enter public domain after 70 years [30]. As it reads right now, I also think there is a modest possibility of copyvio of offline sources, and I think it would be better to just merge the cited and/or verifiable material into what seems like the parent article of the topic. This is not withholding the possibility that in future this could change, but I think the topic would be have more encyclopedic value if merged into the parent article considering this is a program which only ran in Victoria, and the parent article is only 1076 words at time of writing so there is definitely room for the merge. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am not opposed to a keep in principle, as there is presumed coverage according to WP:GNG with the high likelihood of offline sources existing, I just think a merge would make the content more useful. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:05, 15 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) 11:47, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aparekka

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

Fails WP:NGEO / WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, lacks any sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally moved to draft form but was reverted (correctly) on the basis, as per WP:DRAFTIFY, in that the article was older than 90 days and should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. Hence the current AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless a reliable source is found to verify the origin of the name of Aparekka that part of the narrative should probably be removed. The Ceylon GNS shows Aparekka/Aperekka under Palle Aparekka [31]. Google Maps shows Aparekka as an area with a boundary suggesting it is a GN.[32] People live here so has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND. Unfortunately, unable to connect to Matara district website,[33] which should confirm this. We also have an article on Uda Aparekka, which could probably be merged here. Both Uda Aparekka and Palle Aparekka are listed in the Ceylon Census of 1911[34]. Checking other named places in the census, such as Kekanadura to current mapping confirms location. Similar situation to the recent Articles for deletion/Uda Makuruppe. Rupples (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the above, this Google translated source [35] has Grama Niladhari divisions listed for Palle Apparakka (no.449), Uda Apparakka East (no.448A) and Apparakka North (no.449C) within Divisional Secretariat - Devinuwara. As the names are translations, I'm going to overlook the different spelling. Rupples (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further source on a Buddhist temple[36] and another [37]. Rupples (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. killer bee  04:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as mentioned above. Skt34 (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:16, 24 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) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks references does not meet WP:NGEO.Lankancats (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources. Reiterate this has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND and passes the GNG. Colombo Telegraph source featuring the village in a study:[38] and mentions the Aparekka Ayurvedic Hospital.[39] News report mentioning Aparekka and the E01 expressway [40]. A research paper's abstract on water resouces mentioning Uda Aparekka.[41]. The uncited folklore-type material should be removed if no citation is forthcoming; it ought not to influence whether the article is kept. Rupples (talk) 16:48, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Quarter (TV series)

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

Unsourced for over a decade, found no WP:SIGCOV online. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Previously prodded, but deprodded with the rationale: "8 seasons on national network may meet WP:NTV" ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Australia. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NTV is an essay which explicitly states that it is not an SNG. Without an SNG to provide additional guidance, we must use GNG. With little to no sourcing or coverage upon which one can judge notability, one must conclude that the subject is not notable. While having 8 seasons is certainly an accomplishment, that is insufficient in itself to prove notability. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make a credible delete argument relying solely on the current citations in the article. We also need to determine whether there are other sources out there. WP:NTV suggests that, for a show with this profile, we're likely to find something. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: Add sourcing to the article showing notability then ping me. I note that of the two online sources below, the one from The Age is a recap of the previous night's episode and the Sydney Morning Herald is a single paragraph that boils down to "These are the hosts." That is not the kind of extensive coverage required to show notability. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Below is some of the coverage that is out there. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme, can you or @Cunard please find URLs for the refs below you mentioned, so that I can put the refs in the article freely. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devlyn, Darren (30 June 2004), "Ten goals in Fifth Quarter", Herald Sun

"The Fifth Quarter has consistently topped the 200,000-viewer mark in Melbourne, a significant achievement given its graveyard timeslot."

Epstein, Jackie (18 April 2004), "Flying high in the fifth quarter", Sunday Herald Sun

Wilson, Caroline (11 March 2004), "Ten prepares for football, the extended version - FOOTBALL", The Age

Short what's coming

The Age

The Sydney Morning Herald

Capsual comment from Bernard Zuel

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors plus an assessment of recently identified sources in this discussion (if they are accessible online).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for the article. I agree with user Jkudlick that this stub is just an essay. killer bee  05:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Sources, even if it was notable enough for a few articles it barely makes an article. If anyone cares enough about this topic to re-open the article in the future then they can do so. Tooncool64 (talk) 04:43, 19 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. I'm persuaded by those editors arguing for Deletion. If an editor wants to work on improving this article in Draft space, contact me or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angi Uezu

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

Successful, but I couldn't establish how he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rank has never been considered sufficient to show WP notability. The problem is that my search didn't find significant independent coverage of him. I found lots of mentions of his rank, books and tapes he helped produce, and seminars he was giving--but no significant independent articles about him. The closest I found was the Black Belt magazine article by Coleman, but Coleman was one of his students so definitely cannot be considered independent. I'll reconsider my vote if better sources are produced. Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 24 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 12:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's clear evidence of significant coverage if you for his Japanese name. I haven't gone through the coverage yet but the fact that sources aren't in English is not a reason to delete the article. WP:GLOBAL. DCsansei (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- DCsansei No one said sources had to be in English, but they still have to show they meet WP:GNG. To those of us who don't read Japanese, it would be helpful if you could pick out a few sources that show WP notability (see WP:THREE). Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found this [42] [43][44] Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those sources are martial arts schools that teach that style--definitely not independent. Papaursa (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: his ja-wiki article is also very brief, and also tagged for notability. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage by martial arts schools is rarely independent and often unreliable. Searches in Japanese return a lot of wiki mirrors and more martial arts schools, plus some false hits. If that's the extent of the sourcing then he does not meet GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 11 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. But I'll admit that Quantity of nonreliable sources can, in extreme cases, make up for a shortage in RS is an AFD argument I haven't encountered before. If this is actually written down in poilcy anywhere, you might have a short of reversal of this closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Write-only language

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

Witticism of no independent notability. Wikipedia is not the Jargon File (which has been used as a reference here despite being one of the most notoriously unreliable sources on the Internet.) The only source which isn't either user-generated or by definition unreliable is for the APL Game of Life paragraph, which is already adequately covered elsewhere. (the reference to The Craft of Text Editing is simply wrong; that source uses the term in a completely different way.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in two minds about this, because although in general I agree that Wikipedia should not be a repository of jargon, this is a term that people are quite likely to look up. One could even call it an important concept in programming, especially for those of us who detest C/C++. Athel cb (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Athel cb. Quantity of nonreliable sources can, in extreme cases, make up for a shortage in RS. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This dates from the time when people really did import the Jargon File uncritically into articles. Our standards are far higher now. Indeed, they were far higher then. I remember a few repeating-the-Jargon-File articles being deleted, or completely rewritten using far more accurate sources, back around the middle 2000s. This is not a real properly documented concept in computing. You won't find anything other than computer humour lists with this. No-one truly regards languages as "write only" and seriously discusses them as such.
This is unverifiable from reliable sources, because in the world outside of jokes it isn't true. And it isn't properly documented standalone as a joke. At best, there are reliable sources that give 1 sentence to saying that APL, specifically, is jokingly called this, by "wags" and putting "write-only language" in quotation marks. (Torben Ægidius Mogensen's 2022 Programming Language Design and Implementation says "jokingly" and uses quotation marks, Kent's and Williams's 1989 Encyclopedia of Microcomputers has "wags".)
That's at best 1 sentence in APL (programming language), and a not particularly good one at that. (The stuff that grew in the article at hand around 2011 about something else was rightly challenged and removed in 2019 for being a joke on "blogs and wikis", as is discussed on the talk page.) I notice that our APL (programming language) article proceeds to present an unsourced serious counterargument to what is only a joke assertion in the first place according to these reliable sources. Ironically, editors trying to seriously correct what is a joke is even in the edit history of the article at hand. The very first version in 2004 tried to seriously counterargue the joke and point out that it wasn't really the case.
The best that you'll get for other computer languages is publicity blurbs on book jackets and letters to the editor in amateur computer magazines. No, Bjarne Stroustrup doesn't actually seriously discuss this as a concept either, despite what Google Books string matches might tell you. This is an encyclopaedia, not yet another computer humour book. People can look up stuff that is wrong; that doesn't mean that we should have badly sourced wrong stuff, that people have been pointing out is wrong since the inception of the article in 2004, solely in order to satisfy them. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. Interesting as a literal example of citogenesis. Source 4[45] cites this article(!) for it's definition of write-only language. I couldn't see any reliable sources in a quick google search and CS sources are usually readily available via google.

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 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Quist

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart activity or third-party coverage. Article has remained in its current state since 2006 creation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the article fails WP:NMUSIC. Doing some research reveals some sources but none of them are sufficient to pass. She has a song that has a quarter of a million listens on Spotify which would lean the article more towards passing but there's simply not enough media coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I am not very familiar with WP:NMUSIC but after trying to find sources for this article, I think she may meet notability. She performs and/or records with two Grammy Award winners, Kitarō and Bobby McFerrin, and is a long-time collaborator with the latter. I did not add this to the article but saw in several sources that she is also in a band with a member of the rock band Heart. She also composed music for both Cirque du Soleil and an Emmy nominated film. Does this fit WP:NMUSIC? Rublamb (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Described as an electro-Balkan meets New age artist in some sources, but all are streaming sites, social media, then non-RS. There just isn't enough in RS to keep the article. Having a large number of streams on a certain platform isn't notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I have solved the coverage issue with non-social media sources. Rublamb (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have found and added enough secondary sources to convince me of notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for searching. However, these don't really establish notability. The Albuquerque Journal is a passing mention, both Taos News articles and Corvallis Gazette are promotional pieces for upcoming shows, and Rock at Night doesn't appear to be a reliable source. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Perhaps you did not read the "About" page for Rock at Night Magazine. It used to be a print publication and is writen by staff journalists. From its website: "Covering globally, but concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe, Rock At Night is dedicated to professional journalism and photography, publishing news daily, in its website and many social media formats." Thus, this is a reliable secondary source. Rublamb (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get more opinions about recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  05:04, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Acres, California

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

Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com brings up a 1977 legal notice mentioning To that portion of the unincorporated area generally known as Aerial Acres .... Another reference to it from 1985 as a development between Mojave and Rosemond. Several passing mentions to things being located there or occurring there refer to Aerial Acres, Edwards or Aerial Acres, North Edwards, suggesting that this development is a locale within or related to Edwards, California or North Edwards, California. The book Gem Trails of Southern California by one James R. Mitchell has this as a "small group of homes and trailers". I'm struggling to find any sort of significant history for this site; the indications I am seeing are of this location as an informal housing development. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and the legal notice above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are 50-60 homes clumped together in some sort of old development. Aerial Acres is now a scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere. Our article says it's supposedly a "fly-in community" but I see no sign of airplanes or a runway when looking at Google Earth^[46] I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place. Google Street View is even bleaker: desert, dust, dirt roads and occasional yard plantings. There's a high-power rocketry range on the edge of town.^[47] The only store is "The Mothership", a second-hand shop; the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur.
As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- They are only inconsistent when one applies totally wrongheaded and daft (given how the encyclopaedia would turn out if everyone applied them) standards like what your subjective opinion is of what the place looks like in Google Earth. If you keep doing it wrong, you're going to keep being the outlier that thinks that everyone else is being inconsistent, when it's actually simply you that's doing it wrong and being inconsistent with subjective measures, over and over and over. Hog Farm has the right approach: research, not subjective personal opinions of Google Earth images. Research would tell you, for starters, that the whole "fly-in" thing is a red herring added by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), and that the source that xe cited says no such thing. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Old topo maps give additional information; 32 US Geological Survey maps give time slices of this place's physical history over the last 108 years.
    I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft", especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.
    As for "my subjective opinion", when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.
    Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.
    As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.
    So, @Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - A.B., the basic problem is that you're trying to judge this stuff almost entirely off of maps, which just doesn't work. Try Martensdale, California - a notable former community in this county which does not show up on maps. Same with Dubuque, Arkansas, which I wrote awhile back and have struggled to find a map showing the community on it. Meanwhile, a large number of AFDs have held that routine HOA developments/subdivisions/housing tracts without any sort of formal recognition or significant coverage in reliable sources do not warrant a separate article, and those sort of things would appear on maps or when counting houses. Count of houses does not lead to notability - what leads to notability is the history and coverage of the area in RS. Review of maps is often helpful (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intake, Inyo County, California where map review solved a rather odd situation) but we can't just judge notability based on maps or structure counts. It is rather arbitrary to try to judge notability by how much seeming was/is there from a map perspective, and is frankly a form of original research. Hog Farm _Talk 20:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hog Farm, I don’t know if this place is notable or not. I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places. My instincts tell me this place is probably not notable but I want to see what other information turns up here. Looking at old maps, this place grew up with Edwards AFB - it may have been a failed development. There are multiple unbuilt, unused roads. We’ll see. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        No. Giving us your subjective opinion and then even worse asking us for our subjective opinions too, and not even checking whether "fly-in" is true by simply applying the verifiability policy and seeing that the source said no such thing and that Carlossuarez46 just added that conclusion taken from thin air (which I've seen done in many Carlossuarez46 substubs, alas) are utterly the wrong approach to content. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you're still getting it wrong. "My take" from looking at Google Earth or aerial photographs isn't how to construct an article. The only use of looking at maps is to tell us what to look for when the article doesn't even say, or when we know that Carlossuarez46 just pulled things out of a hat when dumping GNIS data, and sometimes to check that a source found is talking about the same place and not another place by the same name. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Hog Farm, except that a Rand McNally commercial atlas puts this under the umbrella of California City, California, and other things just give this as a prose list of minor residential places that are "rural and low-population density" in the Antelope Valley. Rand McNally says ("RMC Place") that this is simply an entry in the California Rivers and Mountains Conservancy database and points to California City ("incl. with California City (Inc. Place)") for details. I think that we should follow the Rand McNally lead and redirect to California City, California. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G, I’m confused. You criticized me above for using decades worth of USGS topo maps plus satellite imagery with strong language like ”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I'm using its gazetteer, which has Rand McNally's description, in words, which I even quoted outright right in front of your nose there, not a subjective analysis of "scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere" or "I see no sign of airplanes or a runway". Do you really not understand the difference between your own subjective guesswork and consulting an authoritative source? Asking me for my subjective guesswork instead of what I read in a source shows that you are still utterly wrongheaded here. We don't do this. It's daft. Think about what would happen if everyone evaluated subjects this way.
    We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.
    Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. I'm inclined to keep unless there's a better argument to fold it into something else. I'm not sure if this lies within the North Edwards, California CDP, but there are definitely references to "Aerial Acres" as its own community. There was a local newspaper, not online, called the Boron Enterprise, that i see a reference to being the only paper that cared about Aerial Acres and other local communities. Total aside, i must also give props to A. B., for his color commentary "I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place....the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, so why is one Rand McNally gazetteer more reliable than decades worth of USGS maps? That's repeated aerial photogrammetry and goundtruthing by an American federal agency. Is all this not from "an authoritative source" as you put it?

Is it just because the United States Geological Survey presents data graphically and Rand McNally uses prose?

As I wrote previously: "I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.

And as for my language like "scruffy" which you still make such a big deal of, what Milowent already observed as "color commentary", I put that stuff in for fun. A sanctionable violation of some obscure WP:PG?

I continue to think this is just a very old subdivision.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 more comments:

I’m not finding much official guidance specifically about using maps as sources. There is WP:GOOGLEMAPS with which I agree. Nothing much from WP:RSN either, at least not for high quality maps (I’m using a mobile device so I may be missing something on WP:RSN).
WP:MAPCITE is very good however it is an essay. I think my usage of maps is in line with the essayist’s views on maps.
I will note that Google Earth images are reliable however all the labels they associate with the image are very unreliable and should never be used. Perhaps they use GNIS?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~. Not notable. I am agnostic as to which target to use -- three reasonable possibilities have been presented (Edwards, California, North Edwards, California California City, California) and I'll support what others here decide.

Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions says one of these can make a populated place notable:

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."

This is not a legally recognized place.

"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."

I'm not seeing anything that meets GNG. Not even alien abductions.

If something comes up to establish notability, ping me -- I may be traveling this week. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made a comment on the "Boron History" page on facebook asking about news coverage of Aerial Acres and got this response: "Not much is written about Aerial Acres from what I found in old clippings it was known as "Poor Man's Paradise" Aerial Acres was made up of homesteads established somewhere between 1916 to 1918, (this was before North Edwards was developed. It did have a small airstrip at one time. Aerial Acres was part of California City and annexed in the late 1980's/ early 1990's and it went back to Kern County and California City got Wonder Acres."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. After User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per WP:GEOLAND 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am going to stick with my keep !vote. I have found coverage of the community in the archives of The Bakersfield Californian and added some to the article. (ping:Liz and A. B.) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. killer bee  05:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:23, 12 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Barry (jailor)

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

Fail WP:GNG. No more sources found in online which can pass GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, India, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Not notable enough. killer bee  05:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm curious as to why the nominator does not think that the five sources currently in the article are enough to pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a far as I can see the article does not indicate anything other than his occupation as a jailer at Cellular Jail and thus no notability aside from that. This would not seem to be enough notability for a stand alone article. An alternate possibility would be to redirect to Cellular Jail. Dunarc (talk) 23:34, 18 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 02:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eyðgerð Mikkelsen

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

The subject, a Faroese women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this transfer news piece and this three-sentence piece about her national team debut. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Denmark. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 5 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 Tunisia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Najla Harrathi

(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 of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this short piece. JTtheOG (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Tunisia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:54, 11 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 List of Ring of Honor personnel. Daniel (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Ring of Honor personnel

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

I am not sure if anything in Category:Lists of professional wrestling personnel is encyclopedic. But at the very list it makes little sense to have this and List of Ring of Honor personnel. Either delete due to very poor referencing (WP:V) and dubious connection with WP:NLIST or merge to the main list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Wrestling. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the alumni article is very WP:LISTCRUFT. While WWE is very big, there is a clear criteria: people under contract. Since ROH it was an independent promotion, many of them are just random wrestlers who worked a few dates with the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page should stay, but I think that the page should be reorganized in the same way that WWE's & Impact Wrestling's List of former personnel pages are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B23F:BA41:0:A:3073:8501 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any policy-based arguments on what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ring_of_Honor. killer bee  05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:41, 19 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) 06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ring_of_Honor BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:38, 30 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. It looks like this discussion was relisted but not placed on the most recent AFD daily log. Thanks to Cyberbot for making sure this discussion didn't fall through the cracks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agent of influence

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

This article has been flagged as NPOV since 2015, and is unfixable, since the subject is a pejorative term with no fixed meaning. JQ (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs improvement but it presents various decent sources to attest that this is a notable and well-defined subject; it has a range of acceptions but they are limited, and it does evidently have some pejorative implications but then so do words like spy, war, secret service and so on. I can’t really see what the issue is, here.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing unfixable about the article and it meets none of the criteria in WP:DEL. Note that an article failing WP:NPOV is NOT a reason to delete it and it having been tagged for a long time is irrelevant as WP:THEREISNORUSH IMO the main problem with this article is that someone (I think the same person who has nominated it for deletion) appears to have completely gutted it over the last few days. This article needs discussion on the talk page to build a consensus on how to improve it, not wholesale content removal and/or deletion. --Shimbo (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any possible NPOV concerns should be addressed through editing rather than deletion. The reset of the nominating statement reads to me as a non-sequitur. As for notability, there's already a few refs in the article, and a quick search online reveals more hits (nb: not an exhaustive list, just a few top hits):

Girling, John. "Agents of influence." Australian Journal of International Affairs 38.2 (1984): 111-114.
Pokalova, Elena. "The Wagner group in Africa: Russia’s quasi-state agent of influence." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism (2023): 1-23.
Lockhart, John Bruce. "Sir William Wiseman Bart—agent of influence." The RUSI Journal 134.2 (1989): 63-67.
Akrap, Gordan, and Władysław Bułhak. "Agent of Influence and Disinformation: Five Lives of Ante Jerkov." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 35.2 (2022): 240-264.
Maley, William. "Agents of influence." Quadrant 31.7 (1987): 34-38.
Eckstein, Arthur M. "Clandestine Agent: The Real Agnes Smedley." Journal of Cold War Studies 9.4 (2007): 106-114.
Edwards, Aaron. Agents of Influence: Britain’s Secret Intelligence War against the IRA. Merrion Press, 2021.
Gentry, John A. "Diplomatic Spying: How Useful Is It?." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 34.3 (2021): 432-462.
Hollingsworth, Mark. Agents of Influence: How the KGB Subverted Western Democracies. Simon and Schuster, 2023.

While I lack the time to go through these in detail, it appears rather clear that the term is both used and discussed in academic literature. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:29, 5 December 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 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:DINC. The sources are there with a depth of sourcing that more than meets policy criteria. A stronger argument against the article is WP:DICDEF, but I see enough here to overcome that (barely). Also, I don't see the NPOV problem with the article as it stands. We have articles on plenty of pejorative terms. There is no reason that we can't be impartial and encyclopaedic on negative subjects, and this one is just not that slanted. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:10, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Group dance

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

Unreferenced since 2019. The definition makes no sense, especially contradicting items in the list. - Altenmann >talk 01:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and looks like a WP:DICTDEF (and not an especially well-written one). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term seem to only be used as a generic phrase. Could not find sufficient sources suggesting that this term has special meaning or usage, nor any evidence that the list of dances pass WP:NLIST. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:20, 12 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 01:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hill (television writer)

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

The article has been poorly sourced (either unsourced or solely sourced by IMDb since 2012. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Canadian Comedy Award nomination would be a valid notability claim if the article were sourced properly, but it isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability — but as soon as I was able to determine that this Karen Hill isn't Lawrence Hill's sister who died in 2014 and then had a posthumous novel published two years later, searching for "'Karen Hill' writer NOT Lawrence" got me precisely nowhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice Agenin

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

Article has been poorly sourced (solely with IMDb or not at all) since 2018. A quick Google search doesn't bring up any better sources, though perhaps others are available in French? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Look at her French Wikipedia article. She has a very extensive list of credits. We need a French speaker to translate the key info and bring it over here, together with the sources cited there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-She has enough sources on Google.

[48] and her Awards Molière Award [49][50] atleast should qualify for WP:AnybioWasilatlovekesy (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable: coverage in Le Monde etc, Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, 2020 Molière_Award_for_Best_Actress (verified here as the article hasn't been kept updated). It's always useful to look at other language Wikis, especially the subject's native language wiki, before nomming for lack of sources. PamD 08:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this paywalled article in major newspaper calls her "the queen of theatre" and says she "reçoit ... un brigadier d’honneur mérité" (is receiving a "brigadier of honour" according to Google translate), which seems like a serious honour of some sort but ... ahah: seems to be Prix du Brigadier. PamD 09:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO winning the Molière Award should suffice. French Wikipedia doesn't have a lot of inline citations. I've added two cites to support the Moliere award and one biographic detail. Oblivy (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Moliere award is notable. Here's coverage from Le Figaro and Le Monde [51], [52]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources have been added and the Molière Award is significant. Rublamb (talk) 20:43, 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 redirect‎ to Marxist historiography#In the Soviet Union. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leninist historiography

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

Redirect to Marxist historiography#In the Soviet Union. Me and my colleagues at WikiProject AI Cleanup discovered this article, cleaned up AI-generated fake references, and we believe it fails WP:GNG. The only mentions are passing, and there is not enough for an article. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marxist historiography#In the Soviet Union: Agreed - not notable enough for its own article with poor sourcing. TheBritinator (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 5 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 04:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Highway 68 (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page disambiguated only one extant article South Carolina Highway 68 while the other entries here are either invalid or merely linked to one of its section. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. The following related pages are also nominated for the same rationale, after some of CSD G14 nominations declined:

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no reason why all three topics can't be described in the primary topic Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: South Carolina Highway 68 (disambiguation) was previously a WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: No reason for these to exist. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kensri School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KENSRI School

Articles for deletion/Kensri School

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

Last AfD was in 2015, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KENSRI School. Since then we don't grant automatic notability to schools. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only reliable sources mentioning the school seem to be ones covering the death of a student, Shreyas Hareesh. However, they aren't about the school, and just mention it in passing. That said, having a mascot section with just the word "Tiger" and not even a full stop is pretty funny. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete per nom. BD2412 T 02:03, 12 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 06:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gnyana Sudha Vidyalaya Bidar

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

Unreferenced for 8 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could find no reliable or significant coverage for this school online through Google, Google Scholar, Google Books etc. Most hits on Google Search were either short advertisements/admissions listings or social media information. Fails WP:GNG and also WP:NSCHOOL. The Night Watch (talk) 00:49, 28 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 00:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information on the article. No sources mentioned as well. Not notable. killer bee  05:24, 12 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 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yukio Ishizuka

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

This article has serious issues regarding the promotional tone and the appropriateness of the content in general. I was just going to revise it significantly until realising that, as far as I can tell, essentially all sources are inappropriate- they're either primary references or from a source that I cannot reasonably verify because they have no existence online. On this basis I don't believe this individual meets notability guidelines Cipactli8 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Psychiatry, Japan, Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a promotional piece full of dubious sources, primary sources, original research, and unverified sentences disguised as citations. The user who created it, PositiveMentalHealth, has also does nothing but work on this article and the one on Lifetrack Therapy, which has the same issues. Cortador (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A number of namedrops, a number of primary sources, a heap of obfuscatory refbombing, heavily promotional tone, no evidence the subject actually meets the GNG. Ravenswing 12:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional. Both Lifetrack Therapy and Yukio Ishizuka were created by User:PositiveMentalHealth, the only articles created by the user. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious attempt at refbombing. The article didn't show any notability, the article mostly showcased his approaches which have quite clear promotional tone.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:31, 10 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 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lulzim Ismaili

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

Non-notable boxer. No sources found other that routine statistics. A7 speedy contested by IP editor. --Finngall ^talk 00:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and North Macedonia. --Finngall ^talk 00:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBOX and WP:NSPORT. Nobody (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing in databases do not provide significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he's nowhere close to meeting WP:NBOX. He may be undefeated but his last three opponents had a combined record of 21 wins in 102 fights. Boxrec ranks him at #624 in his division. Papaursa (talk) 21:30, 10 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 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Fitzgerald (writer)

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

Non-notable writer. Self-promo article, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, Computing, Internet, Oregon, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 December 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 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. The article does seem like an advertisement. The sources used are from personal website as well. killer bee  05:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPIP this is a self-biography. See User talk:Mjf2009 - it was noted by multiple editors at the time. The user did not respond, and the article was never deleted. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 12 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 Laholm Municipality. ✗plicit 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bögholmen

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

An unsourced, single sentence stub since creation. Appears to fail WP:GEOLAND. I am not fluent in Swedish, but the only scant coverage I could find, aside from Wikipedia mirrors, basically confirms that it.. exists? In the Swedish Wikipedia, it's currently a redirect to Laholm Municipality. I would be supportive of this option as an alternative to deletion entirely. KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laholm Municipality. I did a check of Swedish sources, and at best, there's some newspaper articles mentioning Bögholmen, but basically none about Bögholmen. Maybe there's better offline sources, but until those show up, a redirect is fine. Cortador (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laholm Municipality until and unless adequate, reliable sources can be found discussing it as a distinct place. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:47, 11 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.

[FOOTNOTEEbmeierAndrewsArayaArnold2018-1] Ebmeier et al. 2018.

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Pacific 3967}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajay Kumar Nain}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashutosh Valani (2nd nomination)}}