Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 03	February 05 >

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom in Tibet controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".

It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.

The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, History, Buddhism, Geography, Social science, Asia, and Central Asia. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [1]. Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.

That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.

Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (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 12:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian-Polish conflict in Volhynia

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

WP:FORK of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Any Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Volhynia was caused by the genocidal action of the OUN-UPA against the Polish population and took place in parallel. The "clashes" mentioned in the article were attempts by Polish villages to defend themselves against UPA units.

The article hardly quotes any sources. Some of the wording is misleading: "The Polish organised underground was re-established after the German occupation of Western Ukraine, but its armed formations, as a real force, emerged only in the first half of 1943. The organisation and activities of the Polish underground with their armed formations was one of the reasons for the creation of the UPA." In fact, the UPA partisans (which later transformed into the UPA) were formed as early as October 1942; they took up armed actions in early February 1943. At that point there were no Polish units in Volhynia; these were only formed as self-defence formations against UPA attacks.

He does not propose a merger, because everything of value in the article is already in the article on massacres. Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the massacres doesn't mention the organisation of the Polish self defense or their battles with the UPA Olek Novy (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching "self-defence" or "self-defense" within the article gives 23 results, most in relation to their attempts to prevent OUN-UPA massacres (wouldn't call it "battles"). Marcelus (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does this. But doesen't mention all of their engagements with the UPA. The Article barely mentions the Blue Police Olek Novy (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it mention Blue Police if there was no Blue Police in Volhynia? It was only limited to General Government in its 1939 borders. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were auxiliary police units in Volhynia take example: Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202 Olek Novy (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came into a conclusion that the article can be deleted. Overall i can just add some engagements to the article about the MAssacres on Poles. Olek Novy (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So please post your vote if you may Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As written, POVFORK. Incorrect pl wiki which is about pl:Polska samoobrona na Wołyniu Polish self-defence structure (ditto for ru, uk and cs: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11822456). That (Polish self-defence) is likely notable, but the focus is wrong with our article, as the nom correctly notes. Maybe this could be rewritten. Maybe @Dreamcatcher25 would like to comment? I am leaning delete now due to POVFORK issues. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice wrong interwiki before, removed it now, I think that's uncontroversial Marcelus (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus here? Even author of the article agrees it should be deleted, I see no reason for further relists Marcelus (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2024 (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 Badak LNG. We have seen a lot of article deletions through PRODs on gas fields this month. Should some of them be restored and merged as well? Just thought I'd raise the question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badak gas field

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

There seems to be no consensus on the notability of gas fields. I'm not even sure if they are geographic features or built structures. I lean toward the former. This one seems to be about the middle of the road in terms how many sources a gas field has.

Google wise this has nothing but primary sources and they are all, wiki mirrors, or wiki type sites, trade journals and smattering of other things that just seem primary to me. Looking at books, there are mentions. Mostly trivial coverage. Just a tiny few (my opinion of course) might move the needle on notability. I don't see anything in the policy that says these don't have to meet WP:GNG. I don't think it does, but I need more than just my opinion to keep going.

I'd like to have a discussion to settle this, so that I can go about the business of sorting through these and getting rid of the non notable ones. I've asked the prod removers multiple times to provide me with feed back as to why they are notable. The argument seems to be, "they are notable because they have google hits." I'm not casting a vote by submitting this, I will vote with everyone else in the discussion. James.folsom (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for bringing this to a wider group for discussion, James. I hope to give a more thoughtful response in a few days when I'm not tied up. I may also put some broader comments about gas fields in general on this AfD's talk page if I get the time. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a long think on this. All the sources that might be used for this article are written by the petroleum industry. I just don't think those sources are independent. Note that I declined to vote when I brought this here.James.folsom (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect I couldn't find any reliable independant sources that mention it apart from one from Reuters, and that one is about the processing facility. With that in mind, delete the article or potentially redirect it to Badak LNG since that has information about who is using the field and what's happening to it. Shaws username (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge I think that A. B. has a point, it's not reasonable to expect the sources to be entirely devoid of links to the petrolium industry, and as long as they're reputable they can be used. I still don't think that there's enough to merit it's own article and given the heavy link with the Badak LNG plant redirecting and moving the information there makes sense to me. Shaws username . talk . 00:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -Read the ref that goes with the article. It cites a whole chapter in a history of major gas fields. The chapter is paywalled but establishes notability. The free abstract alone is long and sufficient to support an article. To me, this is open-and-shut.

In addition, there are many journal articles that are paywalled but point to notability. I’d have cited them, too, but the abstracts weren’t especially useful and I couldn’t read the paywalled stuff. I’m not sure they count here but they do reinforce that this was a very big deal back in the day before business news was archived online. This field employed many thousands over time. It absorbed many hundreds of millions (in today’s dollars) in capital investment. It produced even more money in profits. This was one of the top producers, globally, in its day. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are primary sources, WP:GNG wants secondary sources, and it wants independent sources. I would like to see arguments around whether primary sources and secondary sources from the petroleum industry are independent of the subject of the gas field to be used to establish notability. James.folsom (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I assert these are secondary sources. Refereed journals and publication with editorial supervision meet WP:RS whether or not they're associated with the oil and gas industry or not. For a similar case, note that physicists at national laboratories publish journal articles about work done by those labs; we don't deprecate those. We use journal articles written by chemists and pharmacists funded by the drug industry if they're published in reputable journals.

If others doubt with what I'm saying, I encourage them to do Google Scholar and Wikipedia library searches for themselves and see what they think. (See the AfD talk page for comments on doing these gas field searches). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes peer reviewed journals meet WP:RS. And yes, as such can be use to write articles. What you say is try. But you are ignoring the fact that RS≠secondary source, these are apples and oranges. WP:primary defines those sources as primary. Establishing notability of a subject is a different standard. WP:GNG specifically says this needs sufficient secondary sources to establish notability and merit it's own article. However, there are some maybe secondary sources for this if you look at google books, but they are published by the petroleum community and they are few. My actual question is around whether those are secondary, and independent as well as reliable. That is what counts. Those primary sources can never do the job, they only can be used as sources of material for an otherwise notable subject.

In general, regardless of the nits I'm picking at; Wikipedia is meant to be general interest for the general public. These petroleum stubs are only of interest to a very niche audience, and don't fit the mission of Wikipedia. Not to mention the fact, that the audience that would want to know anything about these would seek out upto date reliable information that is provided elsewhere. While, these are usually a decade out of date. Additionally, Wikipedia has too few editors willing to work on articles, and nobody is ever going to expand these, even if they could. James.folsom (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the larger Badak LNG plant article

The Badak gas field article qualifies for retention as I noted above but a better editorial decision is to merge and redirect to the larger, more notable Badak LNG plant article. That's the liquified natural gas plant built for the Badak gas.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Badak gas field#General comments on gas field notability and deletions for more discussion of gas field notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per A.B. - Wow - I haven't seen an extended AFD discussion in the Indonesian scope like this for a very long time - the article was created by an editor who left a trail of very problematic articles throughout the world relative to mining and energy subjects, usually about a paragraph long, with assertions that in many cases did not stand the test of time - in the current discussion, I can see that the article has to be merged with the plant article - it makes sense. JarrahTree 12:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a properly sourced summary to Badak LNG plant article per above. // Timothy :: talk 18:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ as to whether to retain it or merge it. However a consensus to delete is not going to emerge, so this discussion can continue on the Talk. Star Mississippi 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Do I Have to Do? (Stabbing Westward song)

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

Non notable song Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Wither Blister Burn & Peel. Although it charted and was a break-out hit for Stabbing Westward, the single did not receive any significant coverage independent of the album or band that I could find. Jfire (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know charting isn't everything but this song charted on multiple charts, including hitting #7 on one of them. It's one of those songs where, logistically speaking, it's pretty much a given that there's sources locked away in print media because the song was released in the 1990s. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your approach lacks common sense. How does a song reach the top ten of two separate genre charts, crossover into the all-genre chart, and not get any third party coverage? It's an exceedingly unlikely scenario. The song still gets played on the radio today, decades after its release. It's hit radio syndication. This is absolutely not the sort of mundane, every day song NSONGS was created to prevent from having its own article. And while we're on the topic of BURDEN, what about you? Your nomination itself is nothing more than an argument to avoid at AFD. I have serious doubts about your BEFORE search. Especially considering your entire nomination was simply three words. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Reply - WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Incredibly disappointing (and telling) response to be questioned about WP:ATA, WP:BEFORE, and the general implausibility of what you're suggesting. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The song at least got coverage here. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good find! This is the sort of thing I'm talking about above. This sort of coverage was commonplace in print media back then, in the same way Loudwire and Blabbermouth.net would write an article about it if they had broken out with a popular rock single in 2023. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This physical Billboard magazine article indicates that this song was the 29th popular rock song of all of 1996 in the US. That's a big feat. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 16 February 2024 (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 23:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Front Page News

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

Defunct news website that I cannot find any coverage about (it has a name similar to many other notable publications). There are a couple of Facebook pages with the name and activity still going that don't lead to anything. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and United States of America. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage about Philadelphia Front Page News (formerly known as the Van Stone's Digest) in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a newspaper published on Blogspot, no mention of it can be found online to fulfill WP:GNG requirements. I'm surprised the page survived on Wikipedia for so long. Broc (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Be This Nightmare

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

Cannot find enough independent reliable sources about this album for it to be able to pass WP:NALBUM. Aside from passing mentions in the scant coverage of Eternal Lord itself, I can find exactly one actual review for this album from a reliable source, in The Ottawa Citizen. Would appreciate if someone with access to older UK offline sources could see if they can dig up anything about this album. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as per added sources below (although I'm not too confident on the reliability of Heavymetal.dk and will remove the Allmusic ref with no staff review as per WP:ALLMUSIC pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some reviews and references after a little digging. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and England. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 February 2024 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 03:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Asriyan

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

Successful musician but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep and improve- Skimming through the article, it's likely that WP:N can be met, but will require way more WP:RS to bolster/confirm it. Searching by his name in Armenian (or perhaps even in Russian or Azeri) may yield more results. Seems salvageable if an editor is willing to put in the time. Archives908 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 19 February 2024 (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 Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy#Publications. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Journal of Public Affairs

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

It covers notable topics, but I couldn't establish that it is notable itself. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
limited merge looks to be published by a single school. I can find nothing that counts toward WP:GNG. That said it looks like a reasonable journal. I think a line at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy#Publications would work nicely unless that would somehow be UNDUE as long as we can verify this journal really is associated with the school. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge as stated above. Fails GNG and NJOURNALS. Also, some the the articles carried by this journal are cited according to Google Scholar. The journal itself is doing good work in its field. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2024 (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 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Club

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

They exist and there is some basic coverage. I am not convinced it is enough to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 11 February 2024 (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 Golf on NBC#Commentators. Star Mississippi 01:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC Sports golf commentators

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST and is a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Golf. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Golf on NBC#Commentators. It's trivial, but still somewhat useful. Conyo14 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Golf on NBC#Commentators per Conyo14's good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:02, 26 February 2024 (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 The Day the Music Died. Consensus for restoring the redirect of 2016 and no notability established for a stand alone article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Peterson (pilot)

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial and Peterson is a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT as his only claim of notability was being the pilot of the plane that crashed on The Day The Music Died. The article has few references and sources anyway The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2024 (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/2024 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article was already merged to The Day the Music Died in 2016, but the redirection was inappropriately reverted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per nom and Thebiguglyalien. Basically, the subject of the article fails WP:BLP1E; in fact, the article was a redirect between 2016 and November 2023. It's unclear why the article was restored, given the complete lack of footnotes in this article (even without the BLP1E concerns). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the most appropriate place for this. — Maile (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my position to Keep, as dialogues on this page give me second thoughts. This man's place in history is notable. There's enough sourced info in the article - more detail than the Buddy Holly article - to warrant a keep. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Restore redirect, no notability outside of one event, investigative details are part of crash article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing changes to the article and arguements listed here, my suggestion remains to redirect. Scanning through quite a few entries within Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States and into subsequent articles specific to the crash, none of the pilots had an article. I just do not see how Peterson meets GNG outside of the one–event exclusion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When referencing WP:OTHER stuff, we should at least compare apples to apples. Edward Smith (sea captain), Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten and Ernest M. McSorley are examples of deceased navigators who are only notable for the transportation disaster they presided over. These disasters all entered the popular culture in some way, similar to the Day the Music Died (the first example produced books and movies, the third produced a song; the second was the deadliest plane crash in history). StonyBrook _babble 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a WP:ATD. Subject does not have the notability for a standalone article. Let'srun (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to nom, I don't see this as being a "classic case of WP:ONE EVENT". That distinction I would reserve for something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suleman Dawood, where the teenaged Dawood was simply along for the ride on the Titan as one of the five passengers, and too young to have accomplished anything notable. Not so here, where the subject, although himself an inherently low-profile individual, was nonetheless made high-profile by dint of the fact that the entire disaster—with the subsequent fallout in the music industry (the crash was comparable to an earthquake that hit "rock, roll" [sic] right at its gestation point)—would not have occurred at all if not for Peterson's central role as the pilot who flew the plane with the three rockers into the ground moments after take off. The same could hardly be said about Dawood. WP:BIO1E states:
In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered ... If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. (my emphasis)
Information about the pilot's personal background, training, certification, and suitability to be a pilot are therefore understandably very important for the readers in order for them to be able to make sense of what happened there that day. This seems to have been the conclusion reached in the first AfD, which took place around the 50th anniversary of the crash (funny how these discussions always seem to come around anniversary time, this one on the 65th). A redirect would result in most of this background information disappearing, with no resultant benefit to the reader. Per WP:SPINOFF, a merge likewise doesn't seem to be the right solution, since the biographical detail on the pilot is simply UNDUE there, as all the extraneous information about the passengers, as well as the pilot, are kept in their own articles, along with the very useful photographs for each, which I assume would clog the parent article. As far as nom's other concern goes, multiple reliable secondary sources have now been added to the article. As for Epicgenius' point about the page being a redirect for a while, that was done by the same nom of this motion. And I'm not aware of any discussion (besides this one) that was held after the first AfD to assess any change of consensus. All I found was this, which seems to corroborate what I've written here. StonyBrook _babble 06:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following this logic. The second paragraph of Roger Peterson (pilot)#Early life and career is pretty much duplicated at The Day the Music Died#Official investigation already. The first paragraph of that section seems relatively mundane and I'm not sure how it [is] understandably very important for the readers in order for them to be able to make sense of what happened there that day. Roger Peterson (pilot)#Inquiry is really more about the accident that the pilot, and that section could be merged with The Day the Music Died#Aftermath. Restore redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StonyBrook. 64.141.44.242 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2024 (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 Tracks (Bruce Springsteen album). Owen× ☎ 19:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man at the Top (song)

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

Only one reference (a bad one at that). Margotin and Guesdon's book only has one paragraph on the song. There could be other sources, but it doesn't show enough notability to warrant its own article. It can be merged to Tracks (Bruce Springsteen album). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tracks (Bruce Springsteen album), its parent album. This article is from the WP dark ages when it was more acceptable to create separate articles for all of a famous musician's songs, but it no longer satisfies modern notability requirements. All we have is some minor fan trivia, and the fact that Springsteen only played it live three times is telling. The cited media opinions about the lyrics in one verse are speculative at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tracks (Bruce Springsteen album) per WP:NSONG, where standalone articles on even notable songs are regarded as: "appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". I would encourage anyone finding an article on a non-notable song to simply redirect it. If the redirect is contested, that's the time to bring it to AfD for discussion. SilkTork (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork I remember I tried doing that a few times (years ago) to similar articles similar to this but was reverted and was told to bring it here so that's what I did. But I'll keep that in mind for the future. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 11 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Someday

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

Fails WP:GNG with regards to sources in WP:MUSICRS. Did not chart per The_Ordinary_Boys#Singles. Now, the reason I didn't redirect it straight away is of course the disambiguation page waiting to be moved into its place. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we could verify the factoid that it didn't chart due to a free sticker, that would be interesting to cover at Over the Counter Culture (i.e., we could merge there, except I hesitate to merge unsourced content like this.) It seems odd to have a disambiguation page with no "primary" subject, but I can't find any sources about this song. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Climate Institute

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on their sourcing. However, 21 of the 25 footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability (mainly but not exclusively content self-published by the organization on its own website) -- and of the just four footnotes that actually come from GNG-worthy media, three are just glancing namechecks of the organization's existence in the context of a staffer offering a short comment to a reporter on a subject other than itself.
Just one footnote here actually represents media coverage about the organization, which isn't enough coverage to get this over GNG all by itself.
It also warrants note that this was created by a new editor whose username matches a name in the staff directory on the organization's website, which violates conflict of interest rules as organizations are not allowed to create their own articles about themselves. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which companies and organizations are entitled to curate or control an article about themselves — it's a neutral encyclopedia, whose articles are meant to represent a summary of the organization's third-party coverage in media and books. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 4 February 2024 (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. Consensus for keep as GNG met clearly, especially with the addition of new sources establishing notability. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Cotta, Ontario

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

As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario, the same editor again created a poorly sourced article about a submunicipal neighbourhood within the town of Caledon, again at the improper and absolutely unacceptable title "Terra Cotta, Ontario, Canada" in order to bypass the fact that the correct title already existed as a redirect to Caledon.
The fundamental issue here remains identical, however: per WP:GEOLAND, unincorporated communities within incorporated municipalities are not automatically notable enough for their own standalone articles as distinct topics from their municipality -- they get to have their own separate articles only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on the quality of their sourcing, and get redirected to the municipality if they can't. But again, this is based entirely on primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy coverage in proper reliable sources shown at all, which is not how you make a submunicipal neighbourhood notable enough for its own article. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is clearly notable under GEOLAND - it's been recognised as a regional rural settlement area, it's used as a modern postmark for addresses, parliament read at least one letter from someone claiming they were from there, and there's lots of mentions of it in books. Also unlike Mayfield West it doesn't really look like a sub-municipal neighbourhood but more like a rural community a few kilometers from the Brampton built up area. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You've managed to use the biggest detractor to this being kept, "regional rural settlement", as justification to vote keep. That phrase means it's rural area, not a populated place. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You remember the names of any of those books, Also how many of them are about terra cotta building material? James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The regional rural settlement shows legal definition. Also it's one exceptionally simple search - "Terra Cotta, Ontario" in Google Books brings up lots of at least mentions. I really do not like the insinuation that I just did a simple search for terra cotta building material, that's disrespectful. [2] [3] [4] SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry man, I did not mean that the way you took it. Try to remember I'm neuro-divergent. I was merely trying to commiserate on the subject of what a F'ing pain that name is. As to the books, I saw all of those, which is why I was hoping you were talking about something else, you got your photo book, a passing mention, and the third is intriguing but we need to lay our hands on the "slim volume". Though the fact that it's slim is not helping it's case. Also, I agree it's legally defined, but it's not legally defined as a populated place so no presumed notability. ALso legally defined is not necessarily legally recognized. Again, try not to take my bluntness personally it's just a problem I'm trying to sort through. I'm very logical, and not very emotional so it's hard. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Apology accepted, thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 15:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is maybe alittle difficult The last reference "the history of Terra cotta" is the most useful, It's premise that the village has been there since 1855. But this isn't true... If you read closely and you know something about how things worked in the 19 century, then you know that in 1855 Some guy whose last name was tucker built a mill. Any time someone does that in the 19th century it automatically becomes named (Surname, What it is) (EG; Gunters landing, lower kings bridge road, Harper's ferry.....). These things are not populated places, though they sometimes attract population and they can be very notable. According to the article it's known as Salmoville 1866. But Salmoville was just a post and doesn't prove anything, if there was town it might still have been named Tucker's mill. We already know that post office names ≠ to their location (Coburn post office anybody?). Towns really don't change names easily, so I think what really happened was that when the post office got there everyone just switched to calling it Salmoville because that's where they now got their mail. If they kept saying they lived in Tuckers mill, god knows where the mail would go. So, in 1866 I think it was a mill and a post office serving a rural area. I don't think it was town in 1891 because the post office changed names, and as I've said real towns don't change names every time some important person renames the post office. But, they started quarry operations in the early 20th century, and those pictures do look like a town, and I would expect a factory town near a quarry at that time. I'm hoping there is newspaper coverage, but it looks scant. So this is just how I interpret the references that are provided with the article.James.folsom (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Found better references, that back up of the crappy ones. Any body want to strip the crappy refs and add the ones below?James.folsom (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GEOLAND. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All things passing WP:Geoland also must pass WP:GNG, and in any case it doesn't pass geoland since not one person has presented any proof it was a ever legally recognized populated place. James.folsom (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not true, GEOLAND just requires verification. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hear what your saying but have no idea where you got it: This is Geoland verbatim for populated place: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. This is WPGNG says about presumed notable: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The further problem is there is no proof this is a populated place and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources.James.folsom (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Over many different geographic AfDs, all GEOLAND has generally required is proof that a place is populated and legally recognized in order to create a place about it. It is one of our lowest notability standards, because the assumption is if there's a dot on the map, there's something written about it. In practice it means towns and settlements, not neighbourhoods or subdevelopments, and Terra Cotta, Ontario is very clearly a settlement on the map. The provincial government recongises it as a settlement area (which is your proof), we have something to say about it, it's clearly marked on maps, people say they're from there specifically, the Visit Caledon website says it was "settled" [5], there have been things written about different buildings in the settlement, that's more than we need. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's also been a community centre there since 1862: [6] SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in GEOLAND offers grounds by which this can be kept in this state. GEOLAND only confers notability on places that are shown to pass GNG, and does not confer notability on places that have not been shown to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, GEOLAND is one of the rare parts of the encyclopedia which is separate from GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if someone wants to do it This appears to have many refs, but two of them are dupes, and only 2 actually give any information. They are touristy in nature so I'm not sure they are independent enough. It's currently a rural area even according to the government. The one good article we have states that it is touristy and recreational since the period around 1940-1950 and that prior to that it was industrial. According to the newspapers it has always been rural, as there are no "tell tale" articles indicating a government. No town clerks or court announcements. Alot, want ads for farm work though. Many times when it is mentioned in the paper, it is said to be on the credit river, implying people might not know where it was. I can't find anything on the industrial period so I'm going with my interpretation from the one good ref that this is just a concentration of factories around a railroad station. The last ref even says that the place ended it's first life when that station burned, implying it wasn't really a population center. Regardless, even if it was a town, it's not got enough sources to merit coverage here.James.folsom (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what the slim booklet is:
  - Zatyko, Mary (1979). Terra Cotta: A Capsule History. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press. ISBN 0919822819.
- It's in the Esquesing Historical Society's collection for Terra Cotta.
  Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Uncle G, that was useful, though I can't believe I missed this before. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-terra-cotta-exists/140543904/ I can't be vote against any place that appeared in A Scooby-Doo episode.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unincorporated and rural, but a population center and popular tourist spot.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ottawa-journal-terra-cotta-clip-one/140544880/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ottawa-journal-terra-cotta-two/140544942/ James.folsom (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So that's three primary significant coverage local papers and the book makes one secondary significant coverage. Is that enough?James.folsom (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided in article and above. Djflem (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Happy with the sources uncovered in this AfD that this meets the GNG, notwithstanding that it may also have presumed notability under NPLACE. Rupples (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a poor nomination by User:Bearcat. Ignoring the state of the article - there's no way that such a well known and old Ontario town should be nominated for deletion - as there's no doubt that GNG references can be dug out. It's easy to find an excellent article by little-known writer Pierre Berton in the Toronto Star in 1959, of which a good portion of the article is about Terra Cotta. There's an excellent history of Terra Cotta in The Georgetown Herald in 1988, however it is a paid advertisement - but could be used to improve the page. Among other entries is a Toronto Star article from 1992. There's also an extensive piece in the Globe and Mail in 1947 - though no where near as well written as done by that Berton guy. Perhaps not quite about Terra Cotta - but worthy of mention in the article, was the 1979 G&M piece about the Terra Cotta Inn. Back in 1873 there's a brief mention in The Globe of the Montreal Telegraph Company opening an office both here, and in nearby Cheltenham, Ontario, Canada. Perhaps there's a correlation with 1800s telegraph office and notable Ontario communities? There's no end of other articles as well! I wouldn't be surprised if it's been mentioned in the occasional book as well. Nfitz (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't do "poor" nominations. Again, the way GEOLAND works is that communities are accepted as notable if they're shown to pass WP:GNG on the quality of their sourcing, and are not accepted as notable if the sourcing is as poor as it was here. The quality of the sourcing is always the #1 most important thing, and nothing is ever so "inherently" notable that junk sourcing becomes good enough while GNG-worthy reliable sourcing becomes optional.

Secondly, a settlement in the GTA cannot possibly be "well-known" if I, a person in my 50s who has resided in the GTA for more than half my life, have never heard of it before. But that's a moot point, because it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria — which, again, hinge on quality of sourcing, not subjective arguments about how "well-known" something is or isn't.

If the sourcing present in the article had been even remotely up to even the bare minimum of what's required, I wouldn't have brought it here for discussion in the first place. But as written, the article does not cite a single acceptable, reliable or GNG-worthy source at all, and GEOLAND requires articles to be based on reliable and GNG-worthy sources, and confers no notability freebies on articles that aren't based on reliable and GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you must be aware, User:Bearcat, that AFD isn't done on the articles as written. Poor sourcing in an article isn't listed as a WP:DEL-REASON. And in that case one should edit a page rather than AFDing it - as noted in WP:ATD; GEOLAND neither trumps DEL-REASON nor ATD. I'm surprised that one could drive around what is now called Caledon without having spotted Terra Cotta on a road map, given that Terra Cotta has been on the official Ontario Road map for at least 60 years, and you drive right through it heading up Winston Churchill Road, north of Georgetown, and the Terra Cotta Conservation Area is very popular. You can't read an article about the recovery of the salmon in the Credit River without seeing a mention of Terra Cotta (formerly Salmonville). Though there's nothing wrong with not knowing something. And to be honest I'm not familiar with Alloa or Westfield, which appear to be more historic than current, what with urban sprawl. I'm surprised you never make mistakes in nomination - that's a reckless and dangerous approach. As for it being "well known" - well of course that's not a keep reason; but it is a reason to do a very rigorous BEFORE nominating. The nomination is especially poor given how controversial your AFD for nearby WP:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario has been going - and that's a much less historic and notable town! Please refrain from nominating a series of similar articles for deletion until there is consensus on the first AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in, if I may. I don't view the nomination as poor, but have !voted keep. Nfitz, it may be unwise to explicitly criticise the nominator/nomination within the discussion. Nominator, Bearcat has put forward sound arguments that sources are/were not good enough to establish notability. I disagree, now that additional sources have been found but acknowledge it's open to interpretation. I take the positive view that the discussion has unearthed sources that can be used to improve the article, if kept. Rupples (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that AFD, or even Prod, isn't about deletion. It's about content management. Both of these processes stimulate article improvement and speed along the demise of those that cannot be improved. It doesn't matter if mistakes are made, because none of this stuff is permanently deleted. All of it remains on "tape" somewhere, and can called back whenever. So lets just run the process and not get so emotionally involved. James.folsom (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet using the AFD process violates many Wikipedia policies - another one is WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. There are other solutions, such as redirect or merge, that solve both problems; and Bearcat knows this, as if you dig deeper, you'll find they did exactly that to an earlier version of this article, over 16 years ago. I'd hardly think that once or twice a quarter-century is worthy of stronger measures. Speaking of the Tape, you'll notice that when Bearcat started this, he overwrote the edit history of the previous version of this article, rather than merging it properly. Yes, it's on tape - but deeper than it should be for the average person to improve the article. But yes - the end situation has improved through all this. We've been talking about this for years - see WP:RUBBISH and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has done that, User:Rupples, and in a way it has improved the project. However, I don't think tossing out ATD, BEFORE, and DEL-REASON does violate Wikipedia policy. Should we change the policy? That's something we could debate elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on guys lets not take these things so personal, the purpose of this is for the wikipedia community to decide through rational discussion. Some good arguments have been made, but it seems that you both are too close to the subject. This subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, but some think that WP:GNG is too narrow. WP:GEOLAND should be the way to deal with it, but editors willfully misinterpret that to do whatever they want. However you feel about it, Wikipedia actually works through discussion and consensus, The policies seem to lag consensus.James.folsom (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some (most?) are arguing that it does meet GNG. I don't think there's a clear Delete "vote" left other than the original nomination (which should have waited until the less controversial West Mayfield was resolved). Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, WP:GNG wants secondary sources. This only has one of those, and it's locally published. But I'm not going to bother voting because of WP:SNOWBALL. James.folsom (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listed numerous sources from major papers above, going back to the 1870s, User:James.folsom. they are all secondary (though the minor paper isn't independent). Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantilly Jaggernauth

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

Looking at the sources in the article and elsewhere, this fails WP:GNG. 10 pageviews (30 days) for an American BLP is very low, and is also indicative of a lack of notability. Edwardx (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another junk student article: looks like a lot of the pages created from https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_St_Thomas/Data_Communication_and_Visualization_(Spring_2021)/articles/edited? have been deleted! Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pageviews are not a significant factor in determining notability (WP:POPULARPAGE), but I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2024 (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. No agreement with the nomination has been indicated. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (speak) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper-and-pencil game

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, with sources being unreliable. The games in "paper-and-pencil game" do not actually require papers or pencils, and it seems to be an arbitrary grouping of games associated together by some manner of writing. Given that tabletop games also involve writing, the title is overly vague and doesn't particularly mean anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Mathematics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. I don't find the nomination convincing. Putting "paper and pencil game" or "pen and paper game" into my favorite search engine indicates the phrases are in wide use, with coherent meaning. This meaning is consistent with our article, with the associated Category:Paper-and-pencil games, and with the numerous books devoted to listing such games (e.g. [7], [8], [9]). To be sure, most of what turns up is of poor quality, but some things are clearly usable: there's this short article in the NY Times, this blog post by a subject-matter expert (and author of this book), this piece at howstuffworks. Do I think any of these sources is of top-notch quality? No. ~~(And that's why my vote is weak.)~~ But do I think they meet the bar to demonstrate that this is a real thing, about which there exists a substantial body of commentary of sufficient quality to support an encyclopedia article? Yes. --JBL (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of entire books, such as Koch's Pencil & Paper Games (Sterling, 1992), Angiolo's Super Sharp Pencil & Paper Games (Sterling, 1995), and Orlin's Math Games with Bad Drawings: 75 1/4 Simple, Challenging, Go-Anywhere Games—And Why They Matter (Black Dog 2022), and published articles, such as Harries "Tic-tac-toe, here we go!" (Early Years Educator 2017, doi:10.12968/eyed.2017.18.11.v, and despite the title about paper and pencil games in general not just tic-tac-toe). The article is badly sourced but deletion nominators are expected to perform WP:BEFORE and look for sources outside the article as nominated. This fully deserves its place alongside board game and video game as a widely known and widely studied category of games. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your later addition (Dormans) is really on a different subject, namely tabletop role-playing games. As the article under consideration here says, The term is unrelated to the use in role-playing games to differentiate tabletop games from role-playing video games. --JBL (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed. I don't think that affects my argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Actually combining the sources you found with the ones I found, I am upgrading my !vote from weak to "regular" keep. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more book: Solomon, Games with Pencil and Paper, Thomas Nelson & Sons 1973, and Dover 1993. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is a situation like if a book had a title called "100 Video Games About Fighting Demons". Does it mean that there should be a Wikipedia article about "Demon-fighting game"? Probably not. It's conflating a title with evidence of an actual genre.

All I've seen here is a large amount of unreliable sources and one really short NY Times article, as well as books that share the same title but don't necessarily discuss it as an actual genre. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all you've seen, all I can conclude is that you are deliberately not seeing. But here, have another source to somehow discount as not discussing it in exactly the way you think it should be discussed: Elsom & Trilling, Social Games and Group Dances, Lippincott 1919, Chapter IV: "Games with pencil and paper". (This one involves parlor games rather than strategy games, so maybe you can use that as your excuse for why this source also does not count.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a discrete and sensible genre, and the sources appear to be fine. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. AryKun (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this is a legitimate grouping of games. Bensci54 (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2024 (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 arguments to delete are based on P&G. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTHC-LD

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. PROD was declined without a rationale. Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This station is notable only at the local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject. If we are to delete this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information. So either merge this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or keep MNewnham (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (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 Almavision as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTAV-LD

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Almavision: this might be dependent on if Almavision is actually sufficiently notable under current guidelines. Otherwise, delete — I can't imagine any separate notability here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 4 February 2024 (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 Big Audio Dynamite discography. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (spill beans) 17:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Audio Dynamite I & II

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

Tried pretty hard to find much about this, and there isn't much. Do we really cover compilation music albums? Would redirect and merge, but everything isn't sourced and the album's existence is sourced in the discography. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Audio Dynamite discography as WP:ATD and as suggested by nominator. Jfire (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Audio Dynamite discography. These are compilation albums. Regular full-lengths would be another story. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Audio Dynamite discography. A quickie budget compilation that gained no notice from reviewers or music journalists and was quickly forgotten. (For the nominator: yes we do cover compilation albums, IF they made an impact and achieved notability, like Crossroads (Eric Clapton album) or Substance 1987, among many others.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 7 February 2024 (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 Daystar Television Network stations as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPCE-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A 2019 AfD closed as no consensus, but that was under the old presumption that all licenced television stations are notable, which is no longer the case. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations: it appears to have never actually carried anything other than Daystar, even before its parent entity acquired the station. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little reply: Are we going to put AfD requests to (most) low-power stations? Because I don't really see a lot of AfD requests on Full-Power stations meaning I think that Wikipedia doesn't want Low-Power Stations anymore since a lot of them are often stubs. Just sayin'... mer764KCTV^(Talk) 19:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The moment the 2021 NMEDIA RfC returned the result it did, this was the likely result. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It makes sense, but I'm seeing a lot of Low-Power Stations getting put with AfDs and its starting to confuse and slightly frighten me. mer764KCTV^(Talk) 00:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 19 February 2024 (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 Get After It Media#Broadcast television stations. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOOH-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Get After It Media#Broadcast television stations: in its current form, it has only carried their networks, and before that company took over this was a TBN transmitter. No separate notability, and likely no significant coverage, in either era. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 4 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITPro Today

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

Article about a defunct magazine/website, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for magazines or websites. As usual, publications regardless of platform are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on the depth of third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced solely to the publication's own self-published content about itself with absolutely no third-party sourcing shown at all, and has been flagged for that problem since 2013 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orfan, without significant media coverage. --Well I dont (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2024 (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 Donkey Kong characters. Owen× ☎ 19:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy Kong

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

Reason - Just because the character have join Super Smash Bros. and very well-known does not means it's needed an article because the article lacks of WP:SIGCOV and some of the references such as Database websites, eStarland and gallery and image are unreliable. the only exception is the reception section which looks okay but still, it has unreliable sources so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2024 (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/2024 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Donkey Kong characters, he is not independently notable of the games where he appears. There's a serious lack of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. To be honest I was thinking about this one myself, the sourcing for a lot of the Smash Bros. character articles is sadly in the same state across the board.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough SIGCOV here. Ping me if more is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Generalissima (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Been looking at this one for a while, and the coverage just isn't there. Willing to reconsider if more sources are found. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The broader scope gives needed context. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with his section at List of Donkey Kong characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as WP:CONSENSUS. I'd like to imagine there are more sources for this, but there is nothing significant to say that is separate from the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because the relevance of the character is based solely on the video games and does not exist for the character as a standalone. Killarnee (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2024 (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. Despite a lengthy discussion, nobody actually opposes deletion. Whether to create a redirect to an approtiate article is up to users. Sandstein 09:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czarnorzeczka

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

Briefly mentioned historically, but just a sub-unit of Zwierzyniec Mały. Appears separate in OSM though. Probably does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with so many Kotbot articles, the location data in the article is wrong - it points to an empty field near a non-descript farm in Prohalino (though the location of Prohalino on GMaps is probably also wrong since it is in the middle of a dense forest - but GMaps likely got that data from a Kotbot article so...). The location-type is also wrong: this is not a village but a sub-division of a village. OSM is a wiki-like source and thus not a reliable one.

Contrary to what some think, WP:GEOLAND does not give automatic notability to populated places. Firstly, the place must be a "legally recognised" "populated place" (i.e., have received some form of actual legal recognition as a populated place, meaning a status such as being incorporated). Simply being listed in government documents as a locality does not do this. Secondly, GEOLAND only gives a presumption of notability, one that can be rebutted by showing, e.g., that nothing can be found giving any details about the locality. In this case, it is not even clear where the location is from the data cited in the article, there is no population data on the Polish census, simply mentions of the location.

Even if you think GEOLAND is passed and that that is sufficient to give this place notability, WP:NOPAGE is very clear that we don't have to have a separate article about such a location - but in this case there is no actual accurate information in the article to merge either since it appears to be entirely incorrect. This is not surprising when you consider that these articles were created by a bot at a speed of 1000's of articles per day without any human checking at all. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pl wiki article exists and states this is a village. @Stok, @Malarz pl... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus While TERYT and the other document listed on the Polish Wikipedia have it as an independent village, Geoportal and GUS suggest otherwise (the former clearly showing Czarnorzeczka as part of Zwierzyniec Mały). Because the two from Polish Wikipedia are directories and the two I named more descriptive, I figured this was a case for WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE (if Czarnorzeczka is removed, I will mention it on Zwierzyniec Mały). However, this is why I AfD-ed this page, rather than PROD-ing it. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GUS BDL cointains census areas (gminas and above) and census places (these are not all legally recognized places). Map on https://e-mapa.net/polska/zwierzyniec-maly-0026956/ looks like "obszary ewidencyjne" (in Polish villages havn't borders). Czarnorzeczka is listed in SIMC (part of TERYT) as a standalone village. And has the same status in PRNG. Malarz pl (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without census data showing that this is an actual populated place, where is the evidence this is actually populated? PL Wiki has a much more lax standard for notability than EN Wiki (which is why importing PL Wiki articles in to EN Wiki as Kotbot did was a massive mistake) so the existence of a PL wiki article is not sufficient to sustain this one. Also WP:NOPAGE which is very clear about what to do with an article that essentially has no real content other than a directory listing - redirect it to a higher-level article and mention the place there, and it is already mentioned in the article Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. A place that is sourced only to TERYT merits a redirect and nothing else. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gazetteer. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish national census counts people by "miejscowości statystyczne" (census places). Sometimes it covers one place, in most cases in covers few places (discused in pl bot request). Maybe @Msz2001: could write something more about cesus data. Anyway redirect to Zwierzyniec Mały will be wrong. Czarnorzeczka is not a part of it. Maybe is a part of "sołectwo Zwierzyniec Mały", but not village "Zwierzyniec Mały". "Sołęctwo" isn't notable on pl.wiki (so I think on en.wiki too). It's a part of Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. Malarz pl (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The methodology used by GUS when clustering actual municipalities into census places is unknown to me but it does not reflect administrative relations. In this particular case, Czarnorzeczka is one of two actual villages in Zwierzyniec Mały census place (the other one is village Zwierzyniec Mały) [10]. I'm aware of cases where two sołectwos were merged into one census place: one village having 2500 residents and other with under 100 inhabitants.

However, according to SIMC registry (the actual administrative registry of villages and towns in Poland), Czarnorzeczka is a base village and not an integral part of other one [11] (SIMC code: 0026962).

And regarding the ability to tell whether it's an actually populated place: There are ca. 55k base municipalities in Poland (ie. administrative entities that are not part of other village nor town). Out of those, only 26.5k (25.5k villages and 1k towns) has a population count given officially by GUS. The other half is clustered into census places so that it's impossible to tell precisely how many inhabitants live in these villages. Msz2001 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50k+ "village" articles for a country of fewer than 40 million people is actually pretty excessive. Particularly if the actual proposal is for half of those to not even include data of how many people live there, meaning most will literally just be "XXXX is a village in YYYY, Poland". ~25k would be closer to what you would expect proportionate to population. The USA has a population of more than 300 million but only has 73,057 census tracts. Iran has a population of nearly 90 million and has 46,000 official villages.

GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to populated places that are legally recognised as such. It is based on the assumption that, for example, an incorporated city or chartered town, will likely have covergae in secondary sources sufficient for an article to be written about the,. Simply being included on a register does not confer any status or power on the populated place, of the kind that would make coverage in secondary sources sufficiently likely for the presumption to apply. Further, any presumption can be rebutted - it is not simply automatic regardless of any other facts. In this case, it has been rebutted by showing a lack of coverage anywhere else. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Openstreetmap shows that it has its own local boundary, but I'm not sure if it uses census boundaries or not. If a redirect to Zwierzyniec Mały is wrong, it's likely a standalone place and I'd err on the side of keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not listed as a Sołęctwo in the Gmina [12]. Leaning delete for this one, if there's no appropriate redirect, although Zwierzyniec Mały may be OK. The OSM shows Czarnorzeczka to have a separate boundary but also within Zwierzyniec Mały. Rupples (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2024 (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!} 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marquez Branson

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

Non-notable football player. Never actually played in the NFL, can't find anything in newspapers.com outside of basic transactions and a handful of game recaps, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Wizardman 14:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, with the sources added my stance is a neutral one, I don't feel comfortable saying outright keep or delete. Wizardman 22:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Wizardman 14:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with the nom, unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG [13][14][15][16][17][18] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that (2 3 and 4) is run of the mill reports, but the first and last (5/6) one might be enough. I'll wait and see how others feel. Wizardman 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have enough in sources offered for WP:BASIC. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first source listed above is based almost entirely on quotes, the last is also interview-heavy and lacks depth. Both are from spring/summer 2010, so fail SUSTAINED. This article is basically sourced to local mentions of his college play and hype that didn't materialize, which is not sufficient.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. SUSTAINED only appears to discount biographical articles when they are only discussed significantly "in the context of a single event" – as we've got in-depth Denver Post articles from May and August, as well as an in-depth Associated Press feature from July, each of which are not accurately described as "entirely quotes" – we have enough for a pass of WP:GNG, despite it being weak. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to BLP1E regards whether to create a bio vs an event article, not simply notability, but anyway both pieces of coverage are on his practice squad activity which is one context. And I said based on quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A three-year practice squad stint ≠ "one event"; that's similar to saying that a "football career is one event" – now, if the only coverage was two stories on "Branson signed to practice squad" from the same approximate date, then I would agree with you. However, this is sigcov across four months from different major outlets, which is not accurately characterized IMO as "entirely based on quotes" – that is enough for a pass of GNG in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're both pieces on the team's hype of Branson as a potential replacement for Scheffler, regurgitating some of the same quotes, with almost nothing of substance to say on him. Also the May 19 piece says he's "off the practice squad" now, the July 31 piece claims he's on the practice squad, so what's that about. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three relists is kinda ridiculous I mean I'll withdraw my stance if this gets this closed. Wizardman 02:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the evidence that the subject only received coverage over a four-month span, on the same topics, and so fails SUSTAINED? JoelleJay (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough for a biography. Mentioning his name in the three season articles (see What links here) seems more than enough. Geschichte (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references provided by WikiOriginal-9. While the first four are more-or-less routine, the last two add enough SIGCOV to barely get Mr. Branson past WP:GNG. Passes WP:SUSTAINED as articles presented encompass a several-month window in 2010. Frank Anchor 15:57, 28 February 2024 (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 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhr ad-Din al-Burdwani

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

Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once with the rest of the sources being verbatim quotations. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains a lot of Original Research. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 11 February 2024 (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 Penmynydd as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castellior

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

Castellior is just a farm, not a village or hamlet. I have walked past it on the public footpath. There is no intrinsic notability for individual farms. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's currently a farm. There's a decent amount of information about the farm and mansion, though - and while it was probably added from a database at some point it looks like it may have been entered into the database because there's at least some evidence Romans had settled there, and at least one book, albeit pseudoscientific, claiming the Druids made a last stand against the Romans there (Uriel's Machine p. 413, but quoting another book with a title that is too long to type out.) So I think there's a good chance an article about the place itself could pass WP:GNG, and there's a small chance an article about the farm could pass WP:GNG, but given this is unsourced and not clearly a locality, I have no suggestion. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a notable farm. Here are some sources:

Carr, Glenda (2015). "Castellior". Hen Enwau o Ynys Môn. Caernarfon : Gwasg y Bwthyn. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-907424-74-8.
Pritchard, H. (1871). "Copper Cakes, Etc., Castellior, Anglesey". Archaeologia Cambrensis. 2 (5): 51–66. (Discusses two places named "Castellior" on Anglesey, the latter of which is the subject of this article.)
Muckle, P.; Longley, D. (2004). "Excavations at Castellior, Anglesey". Archaeol Wales. 44 (44): 33–42. ("Castellior Farm, Llansadwrn" confirms it's this article's subject, not the other Castellior discussed in the previous source.)
"Castellior Project Introduction: Quantifying the carbon footprint of a lowland beef finishing system: identifying opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on-farm". Welsh Government - Farming Connect. Retrieved 2024-01-21.
Nurmio, Silva. "Middle Welsh -awr: The Case of the Lost Plural Suffix" (PDF). Studia Celtica. 48 (2014): 139–170. (Contains a detailed etymology of the name on page 156–157.)

So, meets WP:GNG. Goes to show, you can't walk a public footpath in the UK without tripping over something historic. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hints that there is geology to be had, as well, if it's the farm that the geologists are talking about, which I have not confirmed. Name check at Jones 1875, p. 300 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJones1875 (help), too.
  - Jones, Owen, ed. (1875). "Mon, Ynys". Cymru: yn hanesyddol, parthedegol, a bywgraphyddol (in Welsh). Vol. 2. Glasgow & Edinburgh: Blackie a'i fab.
- Uncle G (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Fold into Penmynydd - I tend to disagree that this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NGEO) based on sources shared by Jfire (talk · contribs) or other references I could find - which are almost all incidental.

My view for each of the sources shared by Jfire:

Carr discusses the etymology of Castellior and lists three hypotheses for how this name came to be. As one page in a 300+ page book dedicated to reviewing every single place name in Anglesey, I don't see this as being a strong sign of notability. The page lists three different names used in the past for the locale, and mentions two people by name in the hypotheses for the place name, but neither appear to have published books on this topic (from a very quick search) which could help establish encyclopedic value . (I was not able as present to access Nurmio's paper, however if the core discussion is regarding etymology, I doubt the contents over these two pages can be significantly different)
Pritchard is very much a passing mention that does not establish notability, with four sentences in total covering Castellior, noting that someone said something was there, but with no proof.
Muckle is a report of archaeological excavations. Again, unless there are findings of note (which there do not appear to be) I don't see how this supports notoriety for an individual article.
The 'Castellior Project' is one of many that the Welsh Government supports. Many of these are named after the farm or locale where they are implemented (Pentre Farm, Cilwrgi Farm, Lower Eyton Farm, Fro Farm, Ffrith Farm... all of these were on the first two pages of listings on the 'Farming Connect' program which includes the 'Castellior Project'). Again, I don't see how this establishes WP:GNG or WP:NGEO level of notability for a self-standing article.

I feel these sources would be better used to add in the Penmynydd article a section regarding possible fortifications near Penmynydd. This section can include sourced discussion on the etymology of Castellior, the lack of findings from archaeological surveys in the area, as well as the potential link to Bryn Eryr. Shazback (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources listed by Jfire. I am seeing enough to write a small but properly sourced article. A merge to Penmynydd could be considered editorially since there isn'a a huge amount to say but shouldn't be required. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barabàn

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~, you probably should have proposed this article for deletion. Mach61 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 is that still the case with the sources linked in the comments below? Broc (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible for an artist to have notable works without being notable themselves, but the two sources Broc posted appear to show the band meeting NMUSIC. FWIW I remember finding absolutely nothing in my BEFORE search, hence the strong delete vote, but clearly others have been more fruitful in their searches. Consider my vote withdrawn. Mach61 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know anything about the Italian non-metal music press, but their work has been reviewed by at least two paper magazines. Geschichte (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per by previous post. No sign of a WP:BEFORE above. Geschichte (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte - they are regionally notable. Llajwa (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. Only regionally notable. A couple more sources: [19] [20] --Broc (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep enough sources seem to be present here. AryKun (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2024 (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 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belhe Zaimoğlu

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found interviews, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 11 February 2024 (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 Rajshahi Division cricketers. The article has been renamed to "Jakir Hossain (cricketer)" as suggested below and "Jakir Hossain" has been converted to a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 04:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakir Hossain

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted, then Jakir Hossain (politician) should be moved into place. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rajshahi Division cricketers, and rename as Jakir Hossain (cricketer) so the primary name is free for the politician. Batagur baska (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rajshahi Division cricketers after page move as suggested above. Subject looks to fail WP:GNG, however there is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list after renaming per above. AryKun (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2024 (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 Anarchism in Sweden. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Vila

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

This article has existed as an unreferenced stub since its creation in 2012. As part of the unreferenced article backlog drive, I attempted to find some sources to add to this article. But unfortunately, I came up very short. I managed to find a database entry of Vila's grave plot,[21] an obituary to Vila that I can't access, as it's locked behind a paywall,[22] and a brief mention in a journal article.[23] But that's it. I'm not confident that the subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Given this, and that I can't find any targets for merging/redirecting, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Spain, and Sweden. Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He's been published by Bakhåll, a respected Swedish publishing house. There seems to be another potentially relevant text in Göteborgs-Tidningen 25 May 1987, but I can't access it. It seems plausible he might live up to our notability standards, but I can't access the text to determine for certain. Someone at a Swedish university with access to the newspaper collection of the Royal Library might. /Julle (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anarchism in Sweden and add Anarki till vardags in Further reading. I haven't found much secondary source coverage on the subject, but he is often cited for this book which should be listed in that article. I searched WorldCat, LoC, https://libris.kb.se, Internet Archive, and came up dry. Didn't find anything significant beyond citations for "Anarki till vardags" or the co-author "Thomas Hallon Hallbert." No hits in SvD or other major Swedish newspapers. I'm sure there can be more in Swedish-language periodical archives, so open to those findings. czar 01:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per czar. I've always held off on AfDing this article myself since I went through basically Julle's thought process - a WP:NAUTHOR pass in Swedish-language sources seemed plausible enough. But like czar I've only come up with hints of stuff on Anarki till vardags any time I've tried. I like the solution of redirecting to Anarchism in Sweden. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (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 discussion about the quality of the journal is beside the point because that is not relevant to the inclusion of the article. The issue here is notability, and in this regard, rough consensus agrees that there are insufficient sources to establish WP:GNG. The two "keep" opinions include the arguments "I don't know how the article can be properly sourced" and "We need to stop with the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", which indicates that their "keep" recommendations are not in line with applicable policies. Sandstein 08:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion

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

This does not pass WP:GNG, the relevant notability guideline. The only source is a link to the journal's own web site, which doesn't say much and should no longer be considered reliable. The article states that it has been sold to a Chinese company, turned into a predatory journal, and will be replaced by a new legitimate journal with a similar name, but no sources are given for any of this, nor could I find any elsewhere. We cannot include this material without a source nor should we cut this back to a stub that includes only what can be sourced but fails to warn readers about the current state of the journal. Therefore, deletion seems like the appropriate outcome.

My prod saying all this was removed by User:Randykitty with a rationale implicitly referring to essay WP:NJournals: "indexed by Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Scopus, and ATLA Religion Database among others, deserves more dscussion". So here is the more discussion. My position: if it were a run-of-the-mill legitimate journal, as it seems to have been in the past, that might be a valid argument, but now that its recent legitimacy has been called into serious question, we can no longer rely on mere indexing as sourcing; we need in-depth sourcing of its fallen state, and I was unable to find such sourcing.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (2nd nomination), which appears to have some of the same cast of (possibly fictional) characters on its new editorial board and some of the same issues of being formerly legitimate but now potentially predatory. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not finding any sources that meet the GNG. Issues with the board are very concerning but not, per se, a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is definitely something odd going on, although I cannot find sources that could be used to support an article. If you look at the archives' tables of contents for the journal, up until 4th Q 2022 the names and the themes read as decidedly European. Abruptly with the first issue of 2023 there is a change to mainly Chinese names and themes, with a few outliers that are probably middle-eastern. It is not unheard of for journals to move from one institution to another, although this one seems to be attempting to hide the fact. This is a change that would be good to note, but given that it doesn't seem to be documented (e.g. in the journal's own "about" page) I don't know how the article can be properly sourced, and if it cannot be then I !vote ~~delete~~ Weak keep but keep an eye on it as this change is very recent. Lamona (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No longer a legitimate journal and seems to have become predatory. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is tricky because it means that we lose the information about the original, "legitimate", journal. In theory, if a journal makes a major change it should change its name and get a new ISSN. If we can find any reliable source talking about this change, we can keep the article and note that the journal became something else in 2024. Eliminating the entire journal, the good with the bad, doesn't seem "encyclopedic". I'll keep looking for discussion, etc. Also, if it is dropped by the indexing services (which may take a while) then that would be something to add to the article. Lamona (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I do agree with most of that, my largest concern is that we aren't meeting WP:N. Or at least I'm unaware of any non-trivial coverage by reliable independent sources. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is important for WP to keep a scorecard on journals with as good information as possible — because people will be using journals at WP to source articles. If you want to call this an IAR argument, that's fine with me. We need to stop with the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and start rethinking things: this is an information database for Siri and AI. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I sort of get the argument, but we really don't have any meaningful information since we lack any real sources. AI is going to find what we have--what I think Wikipedia brings to AI is some idea of what's important about a given topic. The problem is that we don't know either because we lack meaningful sources. And, frankly, it's pretty reasonable to doubt some of the information we do have. And if our coverage gives people evidence that this is a real journal, when in fact we're not sure, that could result in real harm to folks (publishing in the wrong place, letting someone be conned out of $1K, etc.) Hobit (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm extremely sympathetic to the keep arguments that have been advanced here, but we have a major problem: the issue isn't that this fails WP:GNG, in which case we could say "in this particular case, we have good reasons to ignore GNG", the issue is that it also fails WP:V. Per nom, we'd have to stub this back to what we can verify, which would then be misleading, since we wouldn't have the information about its change of ownership. -- asilvering (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment to closer: please allow 1 more hour, I'm preparing my !vote. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suppose this were a BLP. A SPA and an anonymous IP come by and drop negative comments. What do we do? Exactly: we delete these comments until they get sourced. But this is not a BLP, but a journal, so should we now just believe whatever the SPA and IP say? Personally, I'd say not. But let's look at the accusations and the evidence. The journal is basically accused of having been bought by a Chinese company and having been converted to a predatory journal. Predatory, really? The journal's own website says that it is a subscription journal, which you can buy for the really quite low subscription price of 190 Euros (institutional, the personal rate is 95). Submitting an article is free, no charges. Open access is available for payment of a fee, which is industry standard. (As an aside, this would be the first hybrid OA journal that is also predatory that I have encountered). Doesn't really look like a hijacked journal either. Looking at the most recent articles published, I don't see the usual crap that you'll see in a real predatory journal, but what appear to me to be legitimate articles from legitimate authors. A bank account for payments is given, which is located in Austria, not exactly a hot spot for predatory journals either. Nowhere do I see any evidence of impropriety, nor of the journal having been sold to a Chinese publisher. On the contrary. MIAR indicates that this journal is indexed some of the most selective databases around (Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Scopus, Index Islamicus, ATLA Religion Database, and Philosopher's Index), which normally is taken as a clear pass of WP:NJournals. This would not be the first time that somebody for one reason or another is disgruntled with a journal and tries to insert negative accusations into one of our journal articles. Until we see actual evidence, however, I think we should do what we usually do, which is removing the unsourced negative info until such time that this has been confirmed (or not) by sources instead of hearsay. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Hobit. We don't have SIGCOV in IRS sources of this journal, whether of the original or the hijacked version. This makes it even clearer why we should not have an article on this journal, since if it is predatory that info will not be in the standalone, and if it's not it's then just a pure advertisement for the journal.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG. WP:NJournals is an essay, not a notability guideline. Shapeyness (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: an essay can be cited because it explains something quite well, so you don't have to repeat the same thing over and over again. But if you want to interpret my !vote as IAR, that's fine with me. Not following NJournals would be a loss to the encyclopedia, so, yes, if necessary: IAR. PS: I have edited the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits present it as if it is still a legitimate journal, rather than a predatory one. This is not consistent with its current appearance and I do not think it is a benefit to the encyclopedia or its readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David, please show me your evidence that this is now a predatory journal. I have given the link to its "current appearance", which is legit. What am I missing? --Randykitty (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read the version of the Wikipedia article you removed in your edits which, although unsourced, matches some of the particulars now visible in the journal. It is difficult to check the legitimacy of its newly published individual articles because they are subscriber-only, but they clearly have a different focus, consistent with what was said in that version. And the journal's new editorial advisory board [24] has a difficult-to-explain overlap with the editorial board discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (2nd nomination), including Peter Marra of U. Vienna and Leonie Levin of TU Munich whose existence beyond these editorial boards cannot be verified. Additional (non-reliable) evidence for the existence of the replacement journal described in the version you removed can be found in Janusz Salamon's bio in [25]. Because of these plausible claims that this journal has very recently transformed into a predatory journal, and corroborating (but not definitive) evidence for these claims, I think it would be a mistake to take its past indexing as evidence for its present legitimacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And more so, the whole point of WP:N is that we shouldn't be writing articles about things we don't have reliable, independent sources for. The fact we're debating if this is even a real journal (and in fact I have doubts it ever was...) is a problem. Not because it might not be, but because we don't have the sources to establish things one way or the other. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taking this as a research problem, I looked up each of the supposed "editors" (the four listed here) and none of them have any reference to this journal on their faculty web pages. That's not definitive evidence that the journal is not legit, but it is a clue. (They all appear to be known scholars in religion.) Then I looked up one of the members of the editorial board (Nopriadi Saputra) who turns out to be a business prof. Looking at the other members of the editorial board, none of them are in faculties of religion. I don't have the patience to check them all, but I did try some of the others listed on the page and not one of them explicitly works in the area of religion, and none mention this journal on their pages. An issue from 2021 on the wayback machine shows an entirely different editorial board (and notably no one seems to be from a business school). The "editor in chief" does list his position at the journal on his web site, which is an indication of prior legitimacy. So I surmise that at least BEFORE 2024 there is evidence that this was a legit journal, and that from 2024 it is less convincing. No, I still do not know what happened. Lamona (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that there are some worrisome signs, but still wonder how a journal that has a really low subscription rate and does not charge authors can be hijacked or predatory. I'm also uncomfortable with WP editors deciding, based on unsourced conjecture/accusations and their own OR/SYNTH, whether a journal is legit or not. For the moment, all evidence we have (inclusion in very selective databases) is that this journal is legit. It's too bad that Cabell's currently not available on the WikiLib as that would be an authoritative source on whether or not this journal is legit. --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How frequently do they reassess journals, do you happen to know? All signs are that the journal was legit until quite recently. (Of course, that would also be true of any journal that still is legit; the difference is that here we have some reason to call it into question, and too little in-depth information to refute that questioning.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but their website should mention that, I think. Anyway, if they listed the journal as fake, that would improve our article because then we'd have an RS that this journal has turned to crap. If they'd listed this as legit, I guess we'd still disagree about that be useful or not, depending on how often they update. The same goes for the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker which for the moment doesn't list this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2024 (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 14:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Beechcraft Bonanza V35 crash

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

Non-notable plane crash. No famous people on board and nothing unusual or notable that would warrant an article on a light aircraft crash. Additionally, the details section is way too clunky, filled with too much information and mostly non-important information. It doesn't really meet Wikipedia:LASTING standards. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two things: It is a little early to state that it has no lasting impact as it literally just happened. Also, the state of the details section has no relevance here as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Alvaldi (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say was that if the article does stay, the details section needs to be improved. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aviationwikiflight, if the article remains it should be renamed. Why should the title be so specific as to the model of the aircraft, which is not the focus of this ONEEVENT. Also, please note Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. — Jacona (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if we were to assume that every GA plane that crashes could have lasting impacts, then wikipedia would be filled with dozens if not hundreds of GA accidents. These accidents happen most of the time without any lasting effects. 103.220.79.9 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon, it can always be restored if it ends up being a notable. tedder (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY Pdubs.94 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and wait as the crash is a recent event (just happened a few days ago). The article might have been created too soon, we shouldn’t rush to delete articles per Wikipedia:There is no deadline. 64.141.44.242 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there is no deadline but like, an accident investigation lasts ranging from a few months to 2 years. The point is that, as 103.220.79.9 stated is that if we wait for the final report of every accident investigation involving light aircraft and it turns out that, like 1 year later, it doesn't lead to major changes, then wikipedia would be cluttered with plenty of Ga aviation accidents.

You said we shouldn't rush to delete articles but at the same time, we shouldn't rush to create articles without much factual information per Wikipedia:There is no deadline. As of right now, this place crash while tragic isn't notable enough to be on wikipedia Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's premature to even say the crash was a result of engine failure. Loss of engine power could have been a result of fuel starvation (fuel selector on the wrong tank) not just an engine mechanical failure. The FAA has not yet even released a preliminary report. 192.55.55.54 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has the crash been receiving continuous coverage since the crash or did it die down after two or three days? If it is still receiving significant coverage it might indicate that it will have a lasting impact (if not, we can always nominate it again after a year). But if the coverage died down after 2-3 days, then it is more of an indicator that it will not receiving continuous significant coverage in the long term. Alvaldi (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Major coverage stopped like 5-6 days ago. Local coverage has lasted until the 6th of February (3 days ago) and most of these articles contain the same information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline#View_three:_Don't_postpone_dispute_resolution James.folsom (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject currently lacks the sustained coverage, is a failure of WP:NOTNEWS. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2024 (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 11:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmoor Beast

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

Unsourced since creation in 2006, no substantial edits since then, no sources found while working on WP:FEB24 backlog drive. Appears never to have been notable, sadly: there may have been local news coverage of the three events up to 2005. The charity running it is still registered but has reported no income or expenditure in recent years. Article mostly comprises the rules for the race. PamD 11:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and England. PamD 11:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a "monster thing" that also has the same name [26], but nothing for this charity event. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2024 (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 11:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory

AfDs for this article:

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

Per previous nomination, alleged micronation based only on old fandom page. No reliable sources found. Wikishovel (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Africa, and Europe. Wikishovel (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing inherantly notable about made up micronations. If they are the subject of SIGCOV in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, they might pass under GNG. This one isn't and therefore doesn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other articles about "micronations" that lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the so-called "micronation". Cullen328 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any coverage at all for this, seems to just be a random thing someone came up with. AryKun (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete spam. SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable secondary sources on this, doesn't seem notable. LemonOrangeLime (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2024 (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 11:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban Resort and Aquapark

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

Tagged for notability since 2017. Neither the hotel nor the aquapark seems to get significant coverage. It gets a passing mention as a 'smaller' aquapark in My London and Birmingham Updates mentions the aquapark once as being the 'easiest for a family trip'. In Bulgarian, the hotel is listed on all of the usual tourism websites like Visit.bg but this is the same coverage that every hotel in Bulgaria gets. This type of coverage is not enough for WP:GNG and Hotel Burgas Beach and Grand Hotel Sunny Beach were basically deleted for the same reasons. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 05:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajitha Raja

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL TheWikiholic (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student politics is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, and I still struggle to understand why Indian editors are so uniquely more prone than anybody else to thinking it would be — but the article cites absolutely nothing like the volume, depth or range of media coverage about her that it would take to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD closed as keep, and various sources identified in that discussion have not been added to the article. My search before reviewing the previous AfD had similar results, e.g.

D Raja's daughter to contest elections for DUSU president (PTI/Hindustan Times, 1 Sept 2010) - some biographical/educational background, some interview
For Aparajitha,lineage alone won't seal victory (The Indian Express, 2 September 2010) - based on an interview, with some context
Aparajitha Raja is in the eye of a 'patriotic' storm (Business Standard, 27 Feb 2016) - some interview, with context
Insider-Out (The New Indian Express, 13 Mar 2016) - "Well-known Bengali writer Mandakranta Sen has written a poem, I Am Aparajitha, dedicated to her."
JNUSU polls: Women candidates fielded by all parties for president's post this year (India Today, 31 Aug 2017) "...creating a buzz among all candidates is Rajya Sabha member and Communist Party of India leader D Raja's daughter Aparajitha Raja, who tore into JNU administration in her nomination speech on the campus..." with additional reporting on her platform
JNU sedition case: Court to consider chargesheet against Kanhaiya, others on January 19 (The Indian Express, 15 Jan 2019) - she is briefly mentioned with context and quoted
JNU Sedition Row Serves Right-Wing Govt’s Agenda: Aparajitha Raja - (The Quint, 19 Jan 2019) - an interview with some introductory context

Beccaynr (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has several in-depth pieces almost entirely about her by major news outlets, alongside some smaller but still substantive coverage for her runs for student union presidencies. The reason Indian editors think that student politicians are notable is because student politics in India are vastly more important than in the rest of the world and several of our major universities are better-known for their politics than actual research. AryKun (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion, NPOL provides inclusionary criteria to accord presumed notability, it cannot be a basis for exclusion. Those advocating delete provide no analysis of the sources from the last discussion, nor address the result at the last AfD, which was a fairly clear consensus for keep. Notability is not temporary. There is more than adequate sourcing to satisfy the GNG/BIO. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree to AryKun's comments -- Tinu Cherian - 13:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOL is irrelevant here, the claim for notability is per WP: BASIC. The sourcing demonstrates significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as shown also in the last AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chikki Panday

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

non-notable User4edits (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is the same perso:n www.opindia.com/2021/11/mumbai-police-summons-chikki-brother-of-chunky-panday-ncb-aryan-khan-drug-case/, which is a blacklisted spam site here. I see nothing for this businessman we'd use for sourcing; nothing at all that I can find to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A quick Google News search for Chikki Panday and चिक्की पांडे (in Hindi) has yielded a substantial number of articles. A new section has been added, accompanied by some sources, and additional citations will be appended soon. Also, yes this is the same person mentioned in the link you shared above so the subject satisfies the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 1.23.250.87 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not establish NBIO or pass GNG. User4edits (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Brother of a famous actor" isn't notable. Had he not been summoned by police, he'd still be a non-notable businessman. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, as emphasized in my vote above, aligns with the WP:GNG standard. WP:SIG specifies that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have cited two additional sources to further substantiate the content and will continue to augment the references for a comprehensive overview. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:INVALIDBIO WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the article is not based on WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY and it appears there might be an oversight in reviewing the WP:GNG guidelines, which specify that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I also must point out that in this edit, you removed two of his official positions in a central government institution without any valid reason. Furthermore, attempting to suggest that the article is based on an WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY biography is not accurate. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying an appointment in a committee of MTNL, that too only a specific region of Mumbai is equivalent to a committee of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India) is absurd, and so is being named as a member for representing one out of 28 states in 2008 (16 years ago). Both are misleading and appear advertising. Nonetheless, the subject is not notable, and will be dealt as per this DR, I see you've undone my edit, best of luck. I don't own anything here. User4edits (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Week Keep -- Tinu Cherian - 13:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Oaktree b and @User4edits, no notability Tehonk (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has substantial coverage in various reputable sources aligning with the criteria outlined in both GNG and BASIC. As per these guidelines individuals are considered notable if they have received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources that are reliable, independent and unaffiliated with the subject. Furthermore it's emphasized that even if the coverage in any single source may not be extensive the aggregation of multiple independent sources suffices to establish notability. Given the presence of multiple sourced materials within the article the subject in question unequivocally meets the criteria stipulated by these policies to affirm notability.- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 02:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that an analysis of pageviews for the article reveals consistent engagement with significant monthly views since its inception. Notably in 2015 the article garnered nearly a million views on two separate occasions. While pageviews alone do not establish notability this observation underscores the level of interest and attention garnered by the subject. Although unrelated to the notability policies it serves as an additional testament to the subject's relevance and public interest. - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17, BADNAC speedy overturned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to my above comment 18:52, 5 February 2024 -- 1.23.251.79 appears to be a WP:SPA familiar with WP:POLICIES but contributions only to save this DR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanne Pandey (Both Pandey/Panday are married) See Special:Contributions/1.23.251.79 Thanks,

User4edits (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a red flag, not helping the deletion request. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Fitindia above. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS ^💬 07:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if keep voters highlighted the sources they believe show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable to me based on the sources provided. I performed a quick search on the subject and there appears to be some level of notability passing GNG. Mevoelo (talk)

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!} 06:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rufai Waris

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

Draftified the article for sile purpose of being improved. Yet moved back to main space without addressing citation needed tags and notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG. A thorough name of the artist cannot be seen on google /bing search before talking about references. The article cited sources which seems to be obvious blog and non of them is reliable. Otuọcha (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Otuọcha (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I firmly believe that article is justified and should not be deleted. It can be strengthened. I have already added two additional sources which I believe are stronger than what is cited above. The number of links to the page should not be a criteria for deletion.‪Pfomma‬ (talk) 5:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are press releases or promotional puff pieces by dubious publications that have no indication they meet WP:RS. S0091 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have thoroughly researched about the subject of the article and must say there was no sign of notability. Failed WP: ANYBIO, WP: SIGCOV. Otuọcha (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject has not been discussed in reliable sources to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans 17:37, 21 February 2024 (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 00:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Nanda

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

non-notable, "top" insurance agent, insignificant coverage from family lineage. User4edits (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article Ritu Nanda does seem to have enough coverage in the press and does have a few newsworthy articles. I think she passes basic WP:GNG. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She owns an insurance agency, not a large national or international insurance company. A small business owner is rarely notable. Sourcing is largely obituaries, nothing before that. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources are an interview, a press release, a brief mention and a brief notice about her death. Several of her family members are notable but notability is not inherited. S0091 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2024 (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 11:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suelyn Farel

AfDs for this article:

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

Not finding any decent coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. At best, we could redirect to her husband Julien Farel, but that is a puff piece of someone with marginal notability. Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lot of PR styles stories on Farel, mock interviews about her 1000 dollar per haircut salon and there is a lot on the husband. There is a couple of interviews but nothing of substance. scope_creep^Talk 08:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Admiral's Caravan

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

I don't believe this book is notable. I found one very small review of the book, from 1892 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/44037323) and one minor mention of the book as one Carryl wrote in Guide to Literary Masters and their works from 2007. I was not able to find any really notable coverage. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator: reviews were identified by Cunard. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. "The Admiral's Caravan". Boston Commonwealth. Vol. 32, no. 14. 1882-11-12. p. 7. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: ""The Admiral's Caravan," by Charles E. Carryl, with illustrations by Reginald B. Birch (New York: The Century Co.), is a delightful book for children or for anyone, for that matter, who has not lost the love for genuine fancifulness; for the vivid, child-like imaginativeness that seems sensible enough to the wise, while the unwise see in it nothing but foolishness. Mr. Carryl's 'Dorothy' learns no scientific knowledge, points no moral, sugar-coated or otherwise, does nothing, in fact, but to go to sleep on Christmas Eve and forthwith make au excursion in dream-land that is charming in its incidents and gay in its fun, while at the same time its strangest transformation-scenes are true to the peculiar logic of dreams. Readers of 'St. Nicholas' are already familiar with Dorothy's adventures, made yet more vivid by Mr. Birch's capital illustrations. A child like child is sufficiently rare in literature to be precious: Dorothy is such a child; and Alice, with all her 'looking-glass' experience, would surely claim her as her dearest friend. The gray cover with its bright figures is in excellent keeping with the story."
2. Street, Douglas (1985). "Charles E. Carryl". In Estes, Glenn E. (ed.). Dictionary of Literary Biography. Vol. 42: American Writers for Children Before 1900. Detroit: Gale. p. 124. ISBN 0-8103-1720-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "In The Admiral's Caravan nonsense takes precedence over action. There are instances in this story in which nonsense and wordplay seem to serve the author's whim, having little impact on the plot itself. Taken singly these passages afford the reader moments of amusement within the novel. Dorothy, for instance, comes across "a charming little cottage with vines trained about the latticed windows, and with a sign over the door, reading, The Outside Inn." As she pushes open the cottage door to investigate, she finds "there was no inside to the house, and she came out into the field again on the other side of the door." This wall was papered and curtained nicely "but there was a notice pasted up beside the door, reading—The Inn-side out as if the rest of the house had gone out for a walk, and might be expected back at any time." It is precisely because of incongruities such as these that Carryl's stories were enjoyed. The absurdity of The Admiral's Caravan gave readers a distinctive entertainment, one eclipsed only by Carryl's earlier work. Judging from responses of readers printed in St. Nicholas magazine after the novel's serialization, nineteenth-century America had rarely experienced such inventiveness from a native-born novelist.""
3. "Books Reviews: The Admiral's Caravan". The Golden Rule. Vol. 7, no. 4. 1892-10-27. p. 75. ProQuest 88722883.
  The review notes: "The Admiral's Caravan. Charles E. Carryl is our American peer of the author of "Alice in Wonderland." His "Davy and the Goblin" proved it, and this new and most charming book confirms it. There are the same delightful puns and sharp sayings, the same fantastic personages and odd antics, even the same occasional whiffs of droll poetry. The admiral's caravan, together with Dorothy, go down the Ferry to Nowhere, "where the nobodies live on their nothing a day," enter the tree-top country, see the marvels of Bob Scarlet's garden and the toy-shop, and after a few adventures with the sizing tower, Humphrey, the camel, and other queer creatures and things, Dorothy and the caravan get safely home again. The child or the grown-up person that cannot enjoy this book has something wofully wrong with him. [New York: The Century Company. Pp. 140. $1.50.]"
4. "The Admiral's Caravan". Publishers Weekly. No. 1081. 1892-10-15. p. 623. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The scene of the story is laid in Dreamland, the principal characters being a little girl and a wooden admiral and his companions. Dorothy witnesses a great many queer scenes and meets many odd characters in Dreamland, her adventures being something like those of Davy in "Davy and the goblin," by the same author."
5. Benét, William Rose (1934-02-03). "The Phoenix Nest". The Saturday Review of Literature. p. 457. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "I have often pondered the fact that England had only one Lewis Carroll, while we had two grand nonsense men who spelt their name with a "y," (Samivel.) First, Charles E.—author of that immortal story, 'The Admiral's Caravan," and that immortal ballad in it, "The Plaint of the Camel"; ... No grander tale for intelligent children was ever written than "The Admiral's Caravan." When it began to appear in St. Nicholas, with the marvelous Birch illustrations, I know two children at least, in the old days, who were ecstatically happy."
6. "A Quaint Child's Book". Book News. No. 123. November 1882. p. 81. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The Century Company have made up a tempting book of material which first appeared in the pages of St. Nicholas. "The Admiral's Caravan" is a book for boys and girls. The scene of the story is laid in Dreamland, the principle characters being a little girl Dorothy, and a wooden admiral from the Blue Admiral Inn, and his companions, the Highlander, and Sir Walter Rosettes. There are animals and birds that talk, and animated dolls, and a camel that is fed on glue, and laments its hard fate in verse. Philadelphia Press."
7. "More Books for the Young". The Dial. Vol. 13, no. 156. 1892-12-18. p. 397. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The Admiral's Caravan" (Century Co.) is a charming story for younger children by Mr. Charles E. Carryl. It is modelled upon "Alice in Wonderland," but it is clever and contains some amusing verses. The illustrations by Birch are capital."
8. "Books of the Season". Current Literature. Vol. 11, no. 4. December 1892. p. 388. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "For youngsters who care to be bewildered by innocent foolery, the spectacle of incredible beings occupying impossible situations, jocular attitudes and far-fetched explanations somewhat after the manner introduced to the world by a certain adventuress Alice is provided The Admiral's Caravan by Charles E. Carryl, with illustrations by Reginald B. Birch (Century Co.). The book is full of clever illustrations and its verses are as bright as its prose."
9. "Children's Books". The Christian Union. Vol. 46, no. 23. 1892-12-03. p. 1068. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The Admiral's Caravan, by Charles E. Carryl, published by the same company, suggests" Alice in Wonderland," and yet has a charm of its own. The children of to-day need these purely imaginative books to counteract the effect of school pressure, and the dilutions of history, science, and literature that are the mental" infants' foods" of the present day. ($1.50.)"
10. "The Admiral's Caravan". The Critic. Vol. 18, no. 562. 1892-11-26. p. 296. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The Admiral who personally conducts The Admiral's Caravan in Mr. Lewis Carroll's new goblin story was an admiral of wood on a pedestal in front of the Blue Admiral Inn. He had for neighbors a red-whiskered Highlander, who mounted guard before an instrument shop, and a Sir Walter Rosettes, who stood holding a bunch of tobacco leaves outside Mrs. Peevy's tobacco-shop, or rather Smoker's Emporium. But the Admiral was alive, as he proved to Miss Dorothy by calling out 'Cracks in my legs!' as he caught a glimpse of them through his spy-glass. After this, it is hardly to be wondered at overmuch when the Admiral descends from his pedestal, and, with Dorothy, takes the 'Ferry for Nowhere.' The jolly cruise of the good ship 'Sideboard' through an enchanted forest; their stay at the Outside Inn, which, when you get inside, you find is inside out; and the curious botanical lore gleaned in Bob Scarlet's garden, the reader must learn of from Mr. Carroll himself. He will never regret the time so spent if he lives to be as old as the Admiral himself. ($1.50. The Century Co.)"
11. "Illustrated Holiday Books for Children". Review of Reviews. Vol. 6, no. 35. December 1892. p. 632. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: ""The Admiral's Caravan" is reprinted from St. Nicholas with Mr. Birch's numerous irresistible illustrations as well. The admiral and part of the caravan appear in gold and colors on the cover, and will greet the eyes of a good many girls and boys at Christmas time—for Dorothy, the little heroine, fell asleep on Christmas day, and saw a great many wonderful and charming things on that dreamland trip. Mr. Carryl here kindly gives us a report of them, which the little folks by all means ought to hear."
12. "The Admiral's Caravan". Art Amateur. Vol. 28, no. 1. December 1892. p. 35. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The Admiral's Caravan is a story the scene of which is laid in Dreamland. A little girl, Dorothy, a camel, a robin, a stork, a wooden admiral and a Highlander have a good deal to do and say during the progress of the story, and some of them make their observations in verse. Charles E. Carryl, the author, has imitated more closely the style of "Alice in Wonderland" than is commendable, but that will not be obvious to children, who will delight in the story and in Reginald Birch's spirited illustrations. The verse seems to us the best thing in the book. The song of the mouse is a piece of genuine poetry, and the lament of the camel is a bit of genuine humor. The volume is bound in gray cloth, with a cover in gold and colors. (The Century Co., $1.50.)"
13. "The Admiral's Caravan". The New York Times. Vol. 42, no. 12964. 1893-03-13. p. 3. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "The Admiral's Caravan, by Charles E. Carryl, which was originally published in St. Nicholas and afterward in book form by the Century Company, has been translated into Italian and issued at Milan by Birch in the Giornale dei Fanciulli, with all the illustrations."
14. "The Admiral's Caravan". The Independent. Vol. 44, no. 2292. 1892-11-03. p. 1564. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The Admiral's Caravan. By Charles E. Carryl, author of "Davy and the Goblin," with Illustrations by Reginald B. Birch. (The Century Co., New York. $1.50.) This is another Dreamland fancy, from the author of "Alice in Wonderland," and "Behind the Looking Glass." Tho not equal to those immortal fictions, it is quite original in the conception of the "Admiral," and the wit and humor occasionally recall to the reader a strain the author has sung before. It has, however, a distinct tone and character of its own, and is very entertaining. The story is an amusing and extraordinary fiction reprinted from the St. Nicholas and illustrated with Birch's graceful and spirited inventions."
15. "The Admiral's Caravan". Boston Evening Transcript. 1892-10-28. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The Admiral's Caravan. by Charles E. Carry, author of "Davy and the Goblin," is a book for little girls and boys. The scene of the story is laid in Dreamland, the principal characters being a little girl and a wooden admiral and his companions. There is also a camel who is fed on glue and laments his hard fate in verse. The story is reprinted from St. Nicholas, with all of Birch's charming illustrations, making a volume of 140 pages, bound in gray cloth, with the admiral and part of the caravan stamped in gold and colors on the cover. Published by the Century Company. New York."
16. "The Admiral's Caravan". Journal of Education. 36 (18 #893): 303. 1892-11-10. JSTOR 44037323.
  The review notes: "The Admiral's Caravan, a charming holiday book for smallest boys and girls, by Charles E Carryal, is reprinted from St. Nicholas. The scene is laid in Dreamland, and the adventures of pretty Dorothy, the wooden Admiral, and the camel who was fed on glue are such as will greatly interest the little ones. The volume is daintily illustrated by Birch, and has an illuminated cover. New York: The Century Co. Price, $1 50."
17. "Brief Mention: The Admiral's Caravan". Chicago Tribune. 1892-10-22. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: ""The Admiral's Caravan," by Charles E. Carryl, originally appeared in St. Nicholas. In reviewing "Davy and the Goblin" by the same author we spoke of Mr. Carryl's indebtedness to Lewis Carroll, and in "The Admiral's Caravan" the resemblance to the Alice books is even more marked. It is easy to recognize the source of the strange transformations and changes of size, the quips and quibbles, the preposterous poetical rhapsodies that form the stock in trade of Mr. Carryl. But whatever may be thought of its originality, the book is exceedingly funny. The characters go sailing on a paragondola, dance the quadrupedrille, discipline an insubordinate camel who has the bad taste to grumble in rhyme, and incur a series of perils from the "ungovernerubble fury" of a revengful robin, Bob Scarlet by name. Mr. Birch's pictures are as clever as usual, but in some of them little Dorothy's mouth is too much like the ace of clubs. (New York: The Century company. $1.50.)"
18. Waldman, Scott (2012-11-21). "'Wicked' author donates papers to UAlbany". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
  The article notes: "The school already has an extensive collection of children's literature, some 15,000 titles that run from 1850 to 1960. Among the items displayed at a ceremony in the school's Science Library was Charles Carryl's 1891 book "The Admiral's Caravan," about a young girl named Dorothy who takes a journey with three wooden soldiers, which was published almost a decade before Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.""
19. "Holiday Juveniles". San Francisco Chronicle. 1892-10-30. p. 9. ProQuest 572690136.
  The article notes: "A pretty holiday book for children is "The Admiral's Caravan," by Charles E. Carryl, with illustrations by Reginald B. Burch. The story is full of quaint concerts interspersed with the most delightful songs, and Burch has added to the work of the author many charming sketches of little Dorothy and the queer people that she met in her adventures. The book has an attractive cover with a funny design in colors. [New York: The Century Company. For sale by A. M. Robertson, 126 Post street; price $1 50.]"
20. Reynolds, Neil (2007-12-28). "Acceptable nonsense from a broker". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
  The article notes: "As a writer of absurd and whimsical verse, Charles Edward Carryl fits somewhere between Lewis Carroll and Cole Porter - as these lines from his 1890s The Admiral's Caravan, a Christmas Eve adventure with a young girl named Dorothy and an assembly of dim-witted animals, demonstrates: ... He dedicated The Admiral's Caravan to his daughter Constance, saluting her as his "sweet chatterbox": ... These works are a treasury of silly and absurdist literary concoctions. In The Admiral's Caravan, heroine Dorothy picks up a lawyer's lost document labelled "Memorumdums.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Admiral's Caravan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews identified by Cunard. Toughpigs (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews identified by Cunard. -- Evertype·✆ 16:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garmeh and Jajarm

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

Not finding sources that match the article name, "Garmeh and Jajarm". It could be a duplication of an article under a different name; or possibly a transliteration issue. The Persian Wikipedia article doesn't have much more info.

Within the English WP article, in Persian (جاجرم) translates to only 'Jajarm', and there is an existing Jajarm County article and a Jajarm city. Also there is a city named Garmeh article. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been tagged since April 2008 for unreferenced. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have added a source . I dont know if its enough for GEOLAND. --- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 12:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is unclear if that reference appears to refer to two locations, or a single place. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No source that supports what this place is or was and the Farsi version is tagged with a proposal to merge it with Garmeh City. Also, looking at the history of the English version, an editor proposed merging it with Jajarm County [27] Another editor removed the tag with an edit summary simply stating it's notable but did not bother to add any sources [28]. S0091 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2024 (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!} 06:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyX

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep may be notable per NEXIST (sources that exist but have not yet been added per language barrier, or something like that. At least, the US TechCrunch has a good source on EnergyX. --BoraVoro (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not know one word in Korean (sorry) and for lack of time I cannot do a comprehensive analysis of sources in Korean right now. Even so a few observations. Next to this article, there is an article on this company's main project. The company is already mentioned there. So delete is not really on the menu. At minimum this should be a redirect. Merge is not really on the menu either, as talking a lot on the parent on the project's page would create content drift/UNDUE/COATRACK etc. A merge in the opposite direction would be possible. So the options HERE are redirect or keep. The company is young yet operates in an area that receives coverage. The text is promotional and I will add a payment warning. gidonb (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I support either a keep or redirect and object to a delete or merge, per reasons detailed above. gidonb (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Delete is now also an option so the post scriptum has outlived its useful live. It was a summary for that moment of my comment above it. gidonb (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the sources on this. scope_creep^Talk 21:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the first block of references in hope of getting some input:

Ref 1 [29] Forbes 50 fastest growing startups. Non-notable trade award. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 2 [30] "EnergyX wins the 2023 Korea 4th Industry Leading Company Grand Prize" Non-notable trade award. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 [31] "Seoul-based energy funding startup bags $5.1m in Hyundai-led round" Funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 4 [32] "Park Seong-hyeon and Hong Du-hwa, co-CEOs of EnergyX “Energy independence through buildings is the key to future cities". Not independent. Conference. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS
Ref 5 [33] "EnergyX presents sustainable building platform and vision at the 2023 Carbon Neutral Expo". Not independent. Conference. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS
Ref 6 [34] Funding annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 7 [35] Funding annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The rest of the references are the same low quality. None of them meet the bar defined in WP:SIRS, effectively failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

vote removed: Thanks to scope_creep for the source analysis, but I must disagree with some of the conclusions drawn. While an award might not be notable, if the award gets coverage in an otherwise reliable, secondary, and independent source and the coverage is significant, it counts towards notability. Similarly, articles about a funding round, if more than trivial or incidental (ie., significant coverage of the funding rather beyond a line or two in a tipsheet about the round) can count towards notability if its more than a brief mention and otherwise SIRS. DCsansei (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Striking my vote per the paid editor observation made by BusterD, probably best to start over. DCsansei (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei: Do you have actual evidence per WP:THREE which is considered best-practice since last autumn. I do hundreds of these company articles, since 2008 and I've seen the same argument multiple times. It is false. Your slightly confused. In 2018, the WP:NCORP guidelines were completely rewritten to be stricter. Funding is now considered trivial coverage and is non-rs. Also trade awards, which are given out like water to drive business relationship are generally considered non-notable on Wikipedia. So if you some references that prove the company notable, post them up instead of posting conjecture and non-truths. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick up on the comment above. If the *award* gets coverage, we need to examine the content of that coverage to see whether it includes information *about* the company that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If the "coverage" is a cut-and-paste and all the "coverage" is essentially the same article, then no, it fails our criteria. And in this particular case, none of the coverage about the "award" meets our criteria. Similarly, articles about a funding round might meet the criteria if the *content* of the article meets the criteria and isn't simply regurgitating information from a press release or the company website. There is a difference between notability of the company and "coverage". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion explicitly about the sources presented would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, they hasn't been a single reference presented that supports WP:SIRS correctly. Its relatively a brand new startup, the usual SAAS type startup and not a single piece of coverage that has been presented that hasn't been created by the company. The supposed trade awards are by long consensus, more than a decade, are non-notable. Does anybody have evidence that the company is notable, or is it another brand new company using an agency to manage its Wikipedia brand. It is brochure advertising and non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm choosing not to assert keep for what is obviously a purely promotional and paid page creation or redirect it to another clearly promotional and paid page creation. The nominator's source analysis leaves very little for this page to stand on. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Question: What distinguishes this contracting firm from any other? BusterD (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Answer: an undeclared paid editor. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have nominated the building for deletion as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergyX DY-Building. Based on my reading, every edit this contributor has made has been to Korean construction firms and the projects they sell. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (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 despite the "awards" and "funding rounds" which are not part of our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 22 February 2024 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Summer As A Salvation Soldier

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

My familiarity with Icelandic music isn't all it should be, but this guy doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in the Icelandic media such as these [36][37][38][39]. Alvaldi (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 11 February 2024 (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 Brzozowo, Sokółka County. There are some good arguments for deletion here, but redirection as an ATD wasn't soundly refuted. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brzozowo-Kolonia

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, included in TERYT and OSM as a separate unit, but is actually a sub-unit of Brzozowo per GUS and Geoportal. I also can't find anything on it besides a barn fire. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GEOLAND only raises a presumption of notability for legal recognised populated places, not individual buildings (these fall under WP:NBUILDING) or individual farms (those fall under WP:NCORP). The location given in the article is simply that of Brzozowo. There is no evidence here that this is anything but a farm in Brzozowo. Even if it were to be shown to be more than just a farm, the presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND is rebutable by showing that the place likely is not and never has been notable, and searching shows this to be the case - nothing exists describing this place. Additionally WP:NOPAGE is clear that there is no need for this page even if some kind of coverage could be found - it would simply be redirected to Brzozowo.

This article is one of tens of thousands created by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski. There was no checking at all of the data before the article was created. Many, many of these articles have the wrong name, wrong location, and wrong location-type in them. FOARP (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Colony/kolonia". Weird. @Stok @Malarz pl _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar as Czarnorzeczka. Brzozowo-Kolonia is standalone kolonia (one of polish types of localities, usually smaller then village), listed in SIMC database, PRNG database and Dziennik Ustaw (Polish Journal of Laws). So it's a "legal recognised populated place" as described in WP:GEOLAND. Malarz pl (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) A Kolonia is not a "standalone" community but an extension of another community (in this case, very obviously of Brzozowo as indicated by the name). It is also not a village, since that would be a wies.

2) The location given in this article is that of Brzozowo, not any other place. Whilst an empty field some distance from Brzozowo is labelled "Brzozowo-Kolonia" in GMaps, the farms around this location all have postal addresses in Brzozowo. Where is Brzozowo-Kolonia? Who lives there?

3) "Legal recognition" is not simply being listed on a database. It requires some empowerment, some status, being conferred on the populated place.

4) If the place is populated, then what is its population? And if the Polish census does not collect population data for it, then isn't this a rather strong indicator that it isn't notable?

5) GEOLAND only gives a presumption of notability, it does not give automatic and unchallengeable notability. In this case the presumption can be rebutted just by pointing out that its very name indicates that it is an extension of another community.

5) Even if GEOLAND is passed, WP:NOPAGE is clear about what to do with a locality about which we have essentially nothing to write - we would simply redirect it to Brzozowo. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County ~~Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka,~~ as an AtD. It's the name of a solectwo (a ward and/or a legally recognised settlement) with council representation and councillors per this list, so people live there:[40]. Rupples (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Another possible redirect is to Brzozowo, Sokółka County, the neighbouring settlement, which is also listed as a solectwo. Brzozowo, Sokółka County gives population figures. If they include Brzozowo-Kolonia this may make for a better target, but do they? Rupples (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples Yes, the population figures of Brzozowo contain the kolonia as well, I just need to correct the presentation of this on Brzozowo's page. Because of how the census areas work (as mentioned in the Czarnorzeczka discussion), it may be best to create a templated footnote. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm seeing this as a rural hinterland to the village of Brzozowo, although the village itself is rural. Better the two articles are tied together. Rupples (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not clear on which article should get the redirect to or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still side with deletion as a more simple solution - I don't particularly buy WP:CHEAP in this case since for a mass-creation problem it turns out to be anything but cheap to redirect hundreds/thousands of articles rather than deleting them which is far more straight-forward. Kotbot created tens of thousands of these articles without any checking whatsoever, it is misguided to think the solution to that is to redirect them one-by-one when that would take decades to complete.

However, like I said in my original !vote, if a redirect is warranted, it should be to Brzozowo, Sokółka County which it is straight-forwardly an extension of according to its name. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, do you know for certain that the editor running Kotbot made no after creation checks? Didn't the bot have to go through an approval process? Rupples (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples - As far as I can tell there were no checks. The entire thing was premised on the idea that the PL Wiki articles used as a source for the data in them were already correct. As far as the approvals process went, it did not appear to involve any actual checking of the articles, merely people vouching for the bot.

Realistically speaking, the articles were created at such a rate that no-one could have been checking more than a tiny fraction of them. In a 48-hour period centred around the creation-time of the article we're discussing here (18:43, 31 July 2008) Kotbot created more than 5,000 articles, does anyone really think Kotniski was checking these? FOARP (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I think it makes most sense to delete this as it is legally distinct from Brzozowo, Sokółka County despite the name. A redirect could cause confusion. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilawa-Kataka you should strike the above !vote because as nominator your !vote is already counted as delete, so this is in effect a second !vote. How does the redirect cause confusion? Surely, now it's been ascertained that the official population figure is the total for Brzozowo, Sokółka County and Brzozowo-Kolonia combined it makes sense to combine the two articles and put a note in the Brzozowo, Sokółka County article explaining that neighbouring Brzozowo-Kolonia is also recognised as a sołectwo and its population is included in the figures shown. Rupples (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples Neither significant nor likely confusion, admittedly, but it is possible it could lead someone to believe they were legally the same entity (rather than just in the same census area). Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to implement the proposed alternative to deletion would be helpful in achieving consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County, per the usual 'part of the village' logic. I do oppose deletion, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 28 February 2024 (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!} 09:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Finlay

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions. Sources are all WP:ROUTINE. Could also be redirected to Margaret Price Finlay. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, California, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duarte CA is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would receive an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test at the local level of office hinges not on minimally verifying that the person exists, but on maximally sourcing substantial content about their political impact: specific things they did as mayor, specific projects they spearheaded as mayor, significant effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and the article is based entirely on primary sources rather than evidence that she has enough media coverage to pass NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 20 000 ppl is a decent enough sized city, but all coverage is routine goings-on in the city and talking about stuff the mayor does. Nothing really for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2024 (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!} 09:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Davis (politician)

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

Unnotable mayor holding an unnotable position. No sufficient sources found to indicate notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the size of the bundle. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Police, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glendora is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would receive an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test at the local level of office hinges not on minimally verifying that the person exists, but on maximally sourcing substantial content about their political impact: specific things they did as mayor, specific projects they spearheaded as mayor, significant effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and the article is extremely overdependent on non-GNG-building junk sourcing, like Flickr photos and her own self-published campaign site, rather than evidence that she had anywhere near enough media coverage to pass NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Also reads promotionally - it's not encyclopedic to talk about the fact you like fun runs. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per All. Okoslavia (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2024 (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!} 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KWCV (disambiguation)

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page that contains the primary topic and only one other topic. PROD removed for what I consider rather weak reasoning. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. BD2412 T 03:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are only two pages and one is a redirect. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless Disamb. Okoslavia (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2024 (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!} 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson M. Lopez

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

Non-notable chess player. The sources cited here either do not contain significant coverage (e.g., a brief mention in a New York Times article) or they are not reliable (e.g., ofchess.org). The only significant coverage I could find [41] is not enough to meet the GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Internet, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2024 (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!} 09:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami mall incident

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

Non-notable event with only primary news reporting that is likely to lack persistent coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Crime, Events, United States of America, and Florida. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brief viral social media incident. Agree for reasons stated it's very much non-notable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable meme that didn't last long. Initial burst of coverage, but it's been largely forgotten about now, a month later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:10YT. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Cenat riot, which was kept, it involved a Level 4 mobilization, property damage, and a social media influencer getting arrested—with all the resultant drama. This one purportedly had a citywide mobilization also, so if a reliable source can be found for that (only mention I found was a police chief blurb on a TV report) I would consider redirecting to List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States. And the alien stuff is just silly. In the meantime, only one injury and four arrests does not a riot make. Note the opening sentence begins, "The Miami mall incident was a small riot ..." and the closing sentence begins, "Rolling Stone magazine wrote of the incident, 'Why this large though unimportant shitshow at a Miami mall would be misrepresented as the beginning of an alien takeover ..." (my emphasis) — StonyBrook _babble 09:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per policy WP:NOTNEWS 1keyhole (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2024 (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 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Costantino Mario Ruspoli, 4th Prince of Poggio Suasa

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. No sources in article except a geneology page, BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 04:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Italy, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any coverage in reliable sources. Shaws username (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be a non-notable member of the family. Being born into a formerly princely family is no guarantee of notability, as it is not inherited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2024 (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 11:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeds

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

Non-notable consulting company. The only sources appear to be trade publications, and all of the reporting appears to be run-of-the-mill. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 4 February 2024 (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 04:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would expect to find more sources but there's just not a lot out there. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article in present state is overly promotional and unencyclopedic with listing of office locations etc. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (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 11:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excelacom

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

Fails WP:CORP, borderline speedy delete. The only source close to a secondary reference in a reliable source I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was this passing mention on MarketWatch. The rest is press releases and company listings. Wikishovel (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Virginia. Wikishovel (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was created by a user with a few thousand edits, so I don't want to assume the worst of them and say this was paid, but it's really bad, and all of the sources are slop -- of eighteen, all except three are the company's own websites! The other three are to a paid newswire service, a passing mention on a AWS site, and whatever this is. If there's any non-slop found, ping me. jp×g 🗯️ 06:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Wikipedia article is about a telecommunications company that started 24 years ago, now has more than 500 employees, and its offices are located in 12 cities spread over 8 countries. This international organization is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Multiple secondary sources are listed as references to support the information in the article. The article quality will improve over time; please have patience and give this article a chance. This article should not be deleted. Any issues can be discussed in the article's talk page. Engineering Guy (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's disappointing that most of the citations are covered by this company and few vlogs which is not counted and fails WP:NCORP. CSMention269 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Okoslavia (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous comments – sources are all WP:SELFPUB. 100% promotionally worded. Speedy deletion would make sense here, honestly.

TLA (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Kıralioğlu

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

I do not think that the person has an encyclopedic value and during research, only sites with advertising references come up. Redivy (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Redivy (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cited references in the article demonstrate the subject's notability according to WP:NACTOR, highlighting their significant roles in multiple notable TV Shows and stage performances. Please note that sources such as Cumhuriyet, Hurriyet and Tiyatronline (for theater productions) are in general considered to be among the most reliable sources for Turkey-related subjects. In addition to this, there are many more references related to their roles in other productions that they contributed, which are not yet cited. @Redivy, could you provide an assessment of the references with regard to this criteria and explain why you believe the references do not support the subject's notability? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This recently went through an AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia, where it was deleted as participants agreed that the person did not meet the subject-specific guideline. I find this important to note as WP:NBIO and its trwiki counterpart have the exact same wording when it comes to actors and their roles. Sources cited in the article are mostly namedrops and have no significant coverage on the subject, barring a few non-independent interviews. Fails both the relevant SNG and the GNG. Styyx (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx: Could you explain why you believe the criteria in WP:NACTOR is not satisfied? "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I'd like to note that the same exact question remains unanswered in the Turkish Wikipedia discussion, and many of the editors there, including the nominator, did not elaborate on any of the references brought up in the discussion, and there was nothing similar to a WP:BEFORE. For comparison, I'd like also to mention a comparable AfD discussion that resulted in a speedy keep on Turkish Wikipedia, due to the actor criteria that I cited, so I am really puzzled to understand why the same criteria was not used for Baris Kiralioglu. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because his roles are not significant enough; he is named last or at least very close to last in most of the sources listing the actors in a production. You can't have an indefinite amount of significant roles in a series so much so that every single actor playing passes NBIO. Also note that just passing NBIO is only an indication that sources might exist and that the subject still may be not notable if those are not found. Throwing every single source in the article where the person is barely mentioned instead of focusing on a few select sources where the person is covered significantly is not helping your case here either. Styyx (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Styyx, for taking the time to respond. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that the order of actors in listings can be used to determine their significance. Wouldn't it be better to leverage reliable sources for determining significance? I think this article in Hurriyet definitely demonstrates that his role in İçerde was significant enough. His portrayal of the former Turkish prime minister in Pocket Hercules: Naim Suleymanoglu was mentioned in multiple news outlets such as NTV and he appeared in the official trailer, so I believe his role there is significant as well. Also, what about all those theater plays he acted in and directed? Regarding finding sources with significant coverage: some of the cited sources are high-quality interviews with detailed introductions. Other than that, we have significant, in-depth coverage for the works that he has significantly contributed to, which establishes his notability. After notability is established, primary sources can be cited for noncontroversial biographical information for the article content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one thing to add is that the reference list is still likely to be incomplete due to various reasons:

a) Istanbul has a very rich journalism culture; however, not all newspaper or periodical archives are available online.

b) Kiralioglu seems to have professional collaborations with Italian artists, and we might have missed sources in Italian.

c) A number of local or national Turkish news sources gets to shut down every year or so, and as a result, their archives are no longer available online. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The order used by reliable sources is just common sense. If you are the tenth actor to be listed somewhere, then your role is not significant. I still maintain the opinion that the subject is not covered in-depth by reliable and independent sources; furthermore notability can not be based on the assumption that sources exist. I find it very unlikely that they do anyway, given that none of the sources that do exist are of high-quality, so it's an ambitious stretch to suggest that all the in-depth coverage about this person ceased to exist or exists very deep. The theater plays where he did have significant roles are not notable on their own. Styyx (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @Styyx for contributing to this discussion. My final remark on ordering would be about the deletion discussion for Güzin Çorağan in Turkish Wikipedia, during which you were an administrator, I believe. I just checked the official opening credits of the show Bizimkiler, and she appeared 25th in the listing. And you had no objection for her role being considered significant there. Barış Kıralioğlu appears within the first 5 or 10 actors in these kinds of credit lists. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on that AfD was an informational note about the involvement of sock puppets to the administrator wishing to close the discussion. There is no remark on notability, nor do I remember evaluating the article in the first place (and for the record, I have never been an admin on the Turkish Wikipedia). Styyx (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Styyx. Aintabli (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Aintabli. I'd like to briefly recap what I would consider to be potential problems in Styyx's arguments.

a) Although WP:NACTOR is very likely to be satisfied here, they don't accept it due to an unjustified argument that his name doesn't appear within the first 3-4 names on actor lists. However, major Turkish news outlets like NTV have published news stories where Kiralioglu's role in a production is even mentioned in the article headline. One could easily regard this as equivalent to being listed at rank 1.

b) Styyx does not recognize that once a specific notability guideline is satisfied, it is considered highly plausible that reliable sources exists for the subject except for rare cases, even if we have not reached them yet. With it, the burden of proof for showing the absence of sources shifts to the other side.

c) SNGs could function independently from the GNG (as with academics or geographical places). It's not explicitly stated whether WP:NACTOR should only serve as an indication that sources might exist or if it is regarded as an alternative presumption of notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing a significant person does not always equate to having a significant role. The plot only covering that character briefly doesn't suddenly make it a significant role, even if it's the president, in this case. So no, one could not easily regard this as having the main role in a title.

I have already stated above why I find it unlikely that sources exist. If you do, however, want proof of the absence of sources after the burden somehow fell on me, here are some additional sources I have found: __. Do I even have to say this?

From NPROF: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". In this passage it is explicitly stated that NPROF works different than other SNG's, with NBIO (which includes NACTOR) being used as an example. An SNG overriding the GNG is an exception, not the norm; NBIO is not one of those rare instances. The only other times this is the case is at NASTRO (only kind of, since it requires sources as well) and NCORP, which has even stricter requirements for sourcing than the GNG. All others use the terms "may" or "likely" when talking about notability. Styyx (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per TheJoyfulTentmaker. Kolhisli (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Styyx. Sources are brief mentions or interviews which are primary sources. His roles are not significant enough to meet NACTOR. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to the discussion, @S0091, really appreciate your time. One thing to note is that there is no general agreement about whether interviews should be considered to be primary or secondary sources, as discussed in WP:INTERVIEWS. Also, I was wondering if you could tell more about how you determine the insufficient significance of his roles in a) films like İçerde and Cep Herkülü, and b) theater plays, such as Karanlıkta Komedi, and Müfettiş. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Styyx has already explained why Kıralioğlu does not meet the significant roles criteria so I am not going to cover that ground again other than to state I agree with their assessment. For interviews, anything he says about himself is primary, per both the policy (read both primary including note d and secondary) and the essay which states The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Above, you tout this interview as "high-quailty" but is a Q&A with a standard introduction which is a couple sentences about him as were the others. At this point you veering into WP:BLUDGEONING the process so you might consider stepping back. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some final remarks... Firstly, let me clearly state that I have no conflict of interest with this subject, if anyone was wondering. I came across its deletion discussion on the Turkish Wikipedia, and after that, I created the English stub. It remained a stub for more than a month until this AfD was created. My questions were honest, sorry to hear that S0091 considers them to be bludgeoning. The author of the bludgeoning essay accepts that it is often misused, by the way. If it was already clear to everyone except to me that the two Wikipedians would be in perfect agreement with regards to a) significance in this context is determined by being within the first 3 or 4 actors in a listing and b) the theater works should be considered non-notable even though they have received significant coverage in the Turkish mainstream media, then I apologize for my last question. Regarding interviews, the footnote d in primary states that, whether an interview is primary or secondary is context-dependent. In the ones provided, I believe there are sufficient remarks by the interviewer throughout the interview such that those would constitute information from a secondary source. It is not easy to get an interview in Hurriyet, as one can easily guess. Also, NBIO states that if a single source is not in-depth, then information from multiple sources can be combined, so the sources contribute to notability, even if we did not have NACTOR. --TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Styyx source eval. I agree found sources are database records, name mentions, or interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If someone finds WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dent-de-Leone

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't think it needs to pass WP:NBAND Geschichte (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NORG probably. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:15, 4 February 2024 (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 discuss the topic company directly and an in in-depth manner, none of the references I found meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 5 February 2024 (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 MC Ren#Film career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Game (film)

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

There is scant evidence that this film exists. The only reference is to an article from a questionable source, which was written after this Wikipedia article was created and, as it only wrote one short paragraph, could have easily been copied from the article itself. Looking at Google results, I cannot find anyone who says that they've seen the film or any coverage from when it was allegedly released in 2005. I found a screenshot of the alleged DVD cover, which has different credits from in the article. The other actors listed don't seem to have any content on them online. As MC Ren was a member of N.W.A, it seems unlikely to me that this film would have been released with such little attention, which makes me suspicious that this is a hoax. As it's hard to prove a hoax, I'll settle for now for saying that there are no good sources for this and it should be deleted. Epa101 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Epa101 (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and also that with this source or that one (or both), to MC Ren#Film career, where it is mentioned but with no source. Delete. See below. Happy to change my mind if sources are presented.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that your first source is reliable? I couldn't find a year of publication anywhere. If it's a self-published e-book from recent years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's done a lot of its research on Wikipedia. Epa101 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that may well be the case. Let's discard it. That leaves us with Bustle, which is, I guess, generally reliable but the quality of the article and the fact that there's only that available (that I could find and if I didn't search that hard, I searched) is indeed suspicious. We could contact Allie Funk at Bustle? And ask if, by any chance, when she wrote her article in August 2015 she didn't base it on WP... As for the soundtrack, you might want to check this. (YouTube (Warning: strong language) (obviously but I feel I have to mention it if others wish to open this) (really not conclusive but uses the same cover) The authors of the 2 WP articles (film (2014), soundtrack (June 2015)) are apparently different but both seem to have an interest in MC Ren (obviously), and the person who inserted the info in the MC Ren page is a 3d one. I don't want to suspect anyone unduly but yes, you're right, it's odd. I'll be cautious and !vote Delete. Maybe see with the Commons users who uploaded the files for the CD and DVD? If it's a hoax, it's "excellent work." Not that elementary....Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listened more carefully to the 1st song (other Youtube links show the film poster (#1Hood Movie of the Year)). The 1st song is indeed titled "Lost in the Game". (I'd say there's a pretty good chance this is real) The tracks do correspond to what the article about the soundtrack says, titles, duration, 27 min of music (for a 60 min film, that could make sense). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm, I think, the DVD exists on the usual websites. So I am going to re!vote Redirect this and also that with the Bustle source [42] to MC Ren#Film career, where it is mentioned since 2006 but with no source. I apologise for the trouble.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I've been absent for a few days. I have been busy elsewhere. I'm happy with the suggestion by @Mushy Yank that we redirect it to MC Ren#Film career. Some good research on YouTube too. Epa101 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MC Ren. I couldn't find anything about this film except for Ebay listings and this article. Cortador (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (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. GNG met with a rewrite in the article needed. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Central Communications

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage about the company. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Companies, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is substantial coverage and profiles, particularly in Evansville, Indiana, where this company was based, e.g. [43] [44] [45]+[46] The company existed for decades, and coverage will likely be fairly easy to find in Evansville and other markets where they operated (e.g. Knoxville). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant, independent reliable sources per Sammi Brie. Meets WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaireeodell (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to Sammi Brie's sources above, I did find coverage here and here (one of Sammi Brie's clippings!). That's more than enough to pass GNG, though the article itself needs a re-write. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 03:24, 8 February 2024 (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 04:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstone race winners

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Silverstone race results

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

Do we need another list of winners when many of these articles about races taking place there have their own list or is part of it, thus making this completely unnecessary. Many others are not necessary to the most ardent fans such as feeder series. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a fairly clean cut case of WP:FANCRUFT. A quick WP:BEFORE check of the sources in the article and a Google search suggests (at least to me) that there is very little chance of WP:LISTN being met. SSSB (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (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 00:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that much of the page's content isn't notable enough and the championships listed are too diverse to belong on the same page (for example, Superbike and World Touring Championship). For other famous motor racing circuits, the list of winners can only be found on the event's (grand prix) page. For example, on Monaco Grand Prix rather than on Circuit de Monaco, and on Italian Grand Prix rather than on Monza Circuit. Moving some of the lists for individual championships to the page of the championship itself could be considered if they are notable enough. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2024 (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.