Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 11	June 13 >

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delores Wells

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 06:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Arizona, and California. • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this performer/entertainer does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems fine to me. She was a Playboy centerfold who had a decent, if short, acting career including as a a recurring character in the popular "beach party" movies. I've added a photo and a another reference. She is sometimes listed as Dolores Wells (note the spelling of the first name). Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When searching with 'Dolores Wells' I find a few more sources of images in her in newspapers. Nice tip Polycarpa aurata. They are now in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. Her B-movie career alone would suffice. kencf0618 (talk)
Keep. It's not an overwhelming case for notability, but I think enough sources have been added to reach WP:HEY. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2022 (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Florida Atlantic Owls men's soccer team

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

Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. There is an extensive consensus that college soccer seasons do not have a presumption of notability under WP:NSEASONS unless the team has qualified for the NCAA Tournament, and this is an article for a season that hasn't even started yet, so it would be WP:TOOSOON. Recent consensus on this matter was reached here. Jay eyem (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, just like when we mass-deleted similar non-notable articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Redirect to Florida Atlantic Owls men's soccer. The target should not cover just the current team and season, but should primarily cover the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I am ok with redirects, but those are usually best reserved for articles that are likely to be notable in the future. I am not sure that is the case here and think it makes more sense to not leave a redirect, kind of similar to the previous discussion to which I linked. Jay eyem (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been established, a lack of sig cov. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:46, 19 June 2022 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Belmaker

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

dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 05:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not clearly notable in my opinion, and I think that the argument that scientific merit is limited is also valid as stated; there are many other candidates for similar articles who could be considered more notable. In addition, looking into the article history the article is clearly closely associated with the subject, and was created by User:אור פ, who later also removed a tag from the article "Ilana Belmaker" stating that the article is too closely associated with the subject at 16:01, 10 August 2021, which I think is clear evidence that this user is, indeed, clearly associated with the subject. Nothing on the talk page. the user does appear to have a history of conflicts of interest and articles which do not fulfill Wikipedia's standards. User talk:אור פ There are very few citations for most of the content, and the citations that do exist are entirely her published papers with no news articles or significant coverage from external sources to the journal. If this individual is notable, there are likely many thousands of people with similar levels of published work who would also be considered as such. Spiralwidget (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning delete, seems to be a published author, unsure how notable these publications are. Not sure what her notability factor is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject has one fairly highly cited paper under the name Elaine Belmaker, and there might also be other material available under this or other names. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 45 hits in Google Scholar, 39 hits in PubMed, article in The Lancet. this is not notable. I'm not a single-purpose account, I write articles about Israeli people, and because of The unpleasant attitude I received, I prefer to invest my time in Hebrew Wikipedia. I don't know Ilana Belmaker, I'm not associated with the subject. there are likely many thousands of people with similar levels of published work who would also be considered notable - Please write an article about them. if she is not notable, I don't know who is, I get the feeling that you have something personal against articles about Israelis in the English Wikipedia. it seems racism, our even worst. אור פ (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of the ones that come up in AFD have been of questionable notability. Not just anyone gets an article here, we don't really care what social/economic/ethnic background they have, they must pass the notability bar here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here [1] about a British Jew that was kept. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual for anyone to pass WP:PROF, our notability guideline for academics, when they are an associate, rather than a full, professor, so holding the subject to similar standards is far from racism. It is also unusual for such people in English-speaking countries to take the title "Prof.". Is that different in Israel? Rather than accuse people of racism it would be best for you to concentrate on the requirements of WP:PROF, where the most common reason for passing depends on the number of citations from others to articles, rather than the number of articles published which is what your previous post concentrated on. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All (or most) sources used in the article are papers she authored, so are not reliable. All I see (using the various Google services above)are papers she's published, but nothing about her as a person. I'm unable to access either Scopus or Web of Science to judge her citation factor. Nothing in GNews, the NYT or JStor, I would have liked to have seen one mass media piece about her or at least interviews. It seems that at best she's been a mid-level government functionary and a university professor. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. her is some mass media piece about her or at least interviews: [2] [3] [4], and here is another article [5] אור פ (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.not a single articles is about her, there are newspapers articles about incidents in Israel's medicine, she is interviewed in small part of the articles along with other interviewers and the authors descriptions of the incidents, she isn't in the center of the intreviews. As for the last item, its an articles she co-authored in the journal הרפואה (the medicine) - a very low quality journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.204.53 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have enough independent coverage and does not pass WP:PROF. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:45, 17 June 2022 (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!} 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Rivers Conference (Missouri)

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 01:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Missouri. MB 01:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a bit more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 June 2022 (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 Ho Chi Minh City Television. ✗plicit 12:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HTV9

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

Redirect repeatedly contested without sources. Article in its current state does not pass WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Vietnam. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've been getting a lot of bad Vietnam TV pages lately, but there's little I can do about them. The vnwiki article is similarly list-formatted. I do note that, if the sources can be found (and I suspect that nearly all of them are in Vietnamese), this would be a GNG-clobberer based on the information that needs to be referenced. Keep if the sources can be found. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article quality isn't great, but that's not our job. It's a thing, it's part of a national broadcast network. WP:BROADCASTOUTCOMES: "Most national and regional pay television (cable, satellite, linear streaming) services are likely to be notable." Sourcing, Vietnamese not being my long suit, is admittedly problematic but it's likely we're past WP>GNG... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If redirection has been repeatedly contested then there should be a talk page discussion, per WP:BRD. Why is there not? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ho Chi Minh City Television We're not going to delete the article of a major national broadcast network...but also, we're not going to keep an enthusiast site-formatted chronology which is poor quality. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ho Chi Minh City Television per Mrschimpf. No opposition to a merge outcome if anyone who can check the Vietnamese sources wants to take responsibility for that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2022 (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EVRYTHNG

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

Prod was disputed; all references appear to be press releases; insufficient third-party reliable sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. ––FormalDude talk 04:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP due to a lack of notability. Sources include a salary review link likely to have been written by the company itself, trivial press release for an award from a market consulting firm, and other articles from non-reliable sources with questionable independence such as this, this, and this. What little coverage there is from actual news outlets, these outlets do not appear to be sufficiently established to count as a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. The only source I consider to be reliable, independent, and secondary is this from the Guardian. However I do not see multiple of such sources covering the subject significantly. There are plenty of trivial mentions elsewhere about their capital raisings or acquisitions, but these business updates do not really add to notability in my view. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has been covered in several analyst reports which meet WP:NCORP's notability criteria. For example this by Proficient Market Insights, this by The Business Research Company and this from Research and Markets. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Analyst reports can demonstrate notability of a publicly traded corporation, particularly those listed on major stock markets per WP:LISTED. According to my research, I cannot see that this company is publicly traded? It appears to be traded on the private market and owned by venture capital investors like Dawn Capital and Samsung per Craft. Hence the analysis you link to does not fall within the letter or spirit of that guideline - which seeks to establish that publicly traded companies are likely notable. Not all such traded companies may be discussed in traditional sourcing methods like newspapers - but they may well instead attract stock analysis instead. This allows notable publicly traded companies ability to meet notability standards. I do not see how EVRYTHNG meets notability here. Thoughts? MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the guidelines are implying that analyst reports can only be used by publically traded companies in order to meet notability criteria. Analyst reports meet the requirements of WP:SIRS in that they provide in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of analysis/opinion of a company and therefore meet the criteria for establishing notability. They're a gold standard really for meeting NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing. Though I can't see the contents of these reports to verify WP:SIGCOV the fact that EVRYTHNG is mentioned in the abstracts gives me enough confidence. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources provided by HighKing are useless unless someone has access to the full report. I'm not sure why they're being used as an argument to keep when they haven't even been added to the article, and likely will not be given their high cost to purchase. I'd maybe support draftification over delete, but I'm definetely not finding those sources alone to be sufficient justification to keep this PR soup. ––FormalDude talk 04:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude technically per WP:PAYWALL the high ridiculous cost of the reports would not prohibit their use, but I certainly agree with everything else you said! Indeed, I feel the high prices lend to my argument above that the sources are not there for public consumption, they are expensive because the article subject is a privately traded company and so the sources, accessible or not, do not even count as sources for the purpose of meeting WP:NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The high cost can also be used to argue the other side. The information about these companies is important enough to fetch a high price. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's much if any correlation between this company's importance and the prices of those sources. ––FormalDude talk 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so neither of us are making persuasive arguments about the price. In any case, WP:PAYWALL applies. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of clarity, I'm unable to verify the contents of the reports. But in my experience analyst reports nearly always meet WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input needed. As a side note, wow, two of the sources presented herein cost $4,000+ USD apiece to access for reading. Maybe some Wikipedians that are a bit affluent can help out here! It's only money, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reports provided by HighKing are not suitable. They are not automatically independent or reliable. And the subject of this AfD is listed there among many other companies, which doesn't make EVRYTHNG a unique or the best or the largest one. Here is the citation from the abstract: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5504908/iot-market-in-uk-2022-2026 "The robust vendor analysis is designed to help clients improve their market position, and in line with this, this report provides a detailed analysis of several leading IoT market vendors in UK that include 8power Ltd., Adaptive Wireless Solutions Ltd., Altiux Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Arm Ltd., AT and T Inc., Eseye, EVRYTHNG Ltd., and Oracle Corp." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticSnowWind (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really vague. Not suitable in what way? Because I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. The abstract, for example, says this report provides a detailed analysis on several leading IoT market vendors. So, t is a detailed (CORPDEPTH) analysis (ORGIND) in a RS. And this doesn't meet NCORP criteria because ... ??? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Meets NCORP criteria per Highking.ChristinaNY (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commune (model of government)

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

Discussion continued on the talk page following the last AfD and ended with agreement to return to AfD for deletion, seeing as there is no common literature on a commune "model of government" or even relating the various insurrections/revolutionary governments colloquially known as "communes". There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Pinging prior participants @Otr500, Goldsztajn, Spinningspark, 力, and AusLondonder. czar 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. See comments below. -- Otr500 (talk)
Delete: Per Nom. Pages such as Intentional community and the disambig page: Commune already exist. Etriusus (Talk) 19:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of those articles that people often want to argue Keep for because it feels like a natural topic for an article, but as czar has repeatedly shown, "Commune (model of government)" is a larger topic than any particular branch of study. As Otr500 has pointed out, the disamb page that covers the implied topics of this article already exists at Commune. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The scope of this article is too broad (no clear direction) for a reader to learn exactly what is attempted to be portrayed. "Commune", as a political entity could be a Participatory democracy, a revolutionary government (Paris Commune), a self-governing province (Jeju Province), city-state (Principality of Monaco) or other "political organization" (from the article) such as a state, that includes "...theories about a certain range of political phenomena." This article (last sentence in the opening paragraph) states: At its core, a commune is just an organization which creates social conditions that prioritize the primacy of the collective over the individual. --- and there you have it. A commune as a model of government is a type of Intentional community. This article branches into Marxist ideologies, the same as State (polity), and delves into to mini-communes (Intentional community that could include squatters) and even workers-organizations. It looks like synthesis with some original research thrown in. Political philosophy articles need to be reliably sourced at every instance so we don't end up with unsourced editors comments exampled by everything after the source: "This hypothetical is an example...". I do not see how chopping the article back to a stub can produce anything of encyclopedic value that is not covered somewhere else. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Jick

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

Can a team's Public address announcer be notable? o apparent non--local coverage DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Anyone can be notable as long there is enough significant coverage on him. There is plenty of coverage on Jick in several publications [6][7][8][9] Alvaldi (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd expect an article with more meat on it, but I guess it's notable, based on what we see as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:SIGCOV provided by User:Alvaldi. Frank Anchor 12:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal

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

All of these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE listings of apparently all individual songs recorded (not "written" or "first recorded" by) by this artist. Most are not backed up by a single source (thus failing WP:V); and are otherwise probably information which is of interest only to very dedicated fans of the subject. Wikipedia is not a fansite, an itunes directory, or, effectively, a database (which is what these lists are). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Lists, and West Bengal. ––FormalDude talk 04:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the entries are verifiable via the linked film articles, but I agree with the rest of the nomination. While I haven't checked, some sources might be available which explore her combined body of work and thus justify perhaps one list article. I do not see any basis for one article per language though. Hemantha (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ultimately, I appreciate the work that @Bubaikumar has done here. However, I agree with the nominator that they do not meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements for verification. ––FormalDude talk 06:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verification might be an issue, but then it's why this article could be improved rather than deleted. The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite. We have numerous lists of songs recorded by artists or filmographies, and never would I imagine such an argument for their deletion. Sources must be added, but WP:CONRED clearly suggests that this should not be a reasoning if improvement can be offered. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite. That is again (now for the fourth time) an unargued, plain proof by assertion. These pages are both WP:INDISCRIMINATE (due to sheer size; but also due to being "Summary-only descriptions of works.") and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (due to being, clearly, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.") Refusing to acknowledge the reality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and persisting with a personal, unsubstantiated opinion, will only make reality hit harder. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: It must be proof by assertion on your part, my friend. Going by your interpretation (or misinterpretation) of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and specifically "Summary-only descriptions of works", no article which lists songs or films by an artist merits a WP article. And to top it all off, if artists are particularly prolific, their work is even less suitable for a WP list. The same goes for WP:NOTDIRECTORY - I completely disagree with your description of this page as a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". Other than citing the same irrelevant policy without being able to explain its association to the proposed page, wikilawyering about it, and addressing everyone who votes against your nomination time and again (on this and others), you haven't proved anything and I find your rationale quite feeble. Let me then recommend again that you let people cast their votes without being forced into an empty argument with you, and the AfD run its course. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you come here and directly call my arguments unfounded; then don't complain that I'm "bludgeoning" when I directly address you (since you directly addressed my arguments) and show how wrong you are. You refusing to accept the validity of WP:NOT is now becoming something of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The only other part of your comment which warrants a reply is the OTHERSHITEXISTS argument, and that just to point out that this, except in the cases when it is a false equivalence, is indeed a good reason to delete the other stuff, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: No no, I do not refuse to accept the validity of WP:NOT - I refuse to accept your interpretation of it, which is simplistic and unwarranted (please take no offence for I intend none, it's not personal). I can't see how WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant here now - I didn't mention a particular article but just said that your rationale suggests that "no article which lists songs or films by an artist merits a WP article". Which is exactly what your flawed interpretation of policy contributes. Your point about "come here and directly..." - I'm afraid you completely misunderstand the process of AfD - people cast their votes based on their view, and it goes without saying that, if they think an article should be kept, they are obviously going to cast doubt on your arguments. The problem is that you seem to not accept that people might disagree with you and find your "arguments unfounded", and this is pretty evident in your bludgeoning here and elsewhere. This doesn't help the process, so let's at least agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with interpretations of policy is fine. Repeatedly calling my interpretation "flawed", without offering any reason why it is flawed and instead simply dismissing it in a true ad lapidem style, is where I draw the line. Are these pages "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit"? Considering that the only contextual information provided is, at best, the subject's biography (often copied exactly between the different pages), which is not contextual information about the list topic, there's not much room for anything but a "yes". Are these "summary-only descriptions of works"? yes. There's not much, if any, interpretation required here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Well, calling your interpretation flawed and disagreeing with is practically the same thing, I believe. And clearly, I did explain why, it's just that my reasoning does not satisfy you, I guess. That all these songs are performed by the same singer is not basic shared contextual information, but even if it was, that wouldn't be enough to dismiss it because it's not a simple listing and neither does it lack encyclopedic merit, as the quote says. You highlight one part of the quote. Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy. Then you will bring sourcing, which is another issue and not at all a reason to delete a page per WP:CONRED. Then you will mention its excessive length with a claim that I find weird at best, as if to suggest that Shreya Ghoshal should be blamed for being more prolific than, say, the Beatles, whose list of songs is not at all a directory, according to you, for reasons you can't explain. Also weird though is your original point that the existence of such a page as the one proposed here for deletion is more suitable for a fansite. Well, we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, I guess. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, in short, your "reasoning" as to how this does not fail WP:NOT is (quoted from your comments above):
This page is not an indiscriminate listing nor is it a directory (no further reasons provided why it is so, see [10])

I completely disagree with your description of this page ([11])

your interpretation of it, which is simplistic and unwarranted ([12])

it's not a simple listing and neither does it lack encyclopedic merit ([13])

Reasoning being the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason; the above is definitively not "reasoning", since it shows no supporting evidence, no logically sound argument, lacks any attempt to engage with counter-arguments, and is pretty much an "I'm right you're wrong" monologue coupled with a blatant disregard for the facts (if List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal is not a "summary-only descriptions of works", then nothing is). As such I'll stop wasting time with people who flat-out refuse to argue about it, and let a reasonable closer come to their conclusion about how much weight these non-arguments should be given.

Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy. Still persisting with the false equivalence? Again, the Beatles list contains a total of 300 entries, all solidly backed up by reliable sources. List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal - on its own, ignoring all of the other similar lists nominated here, has 375; List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal has over a 1000; ... These lists are simply not comparable in any way due to sheer differences in scale; and the additional problems posed by WP:V issues mean they are really fatally flawed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Getting an accusation of false equivalence from someone who compares pages of singers' songs to a theoretical "List of airplanes" is becoming amusing. Even more so though is you cherrypicking phrases from my explanations while all you did in your "reasoning" is quoting irrelevant lines from WP:NOT and giving the same simplistic rationale that this page (and others) is too long (as if Indian singers are to be judged for being too prolific). Please, I don't get what we're doing here; what I see here is a clear case of desperate WP:BLUDGEONING and intolerance to others' contrasting opinions (further evidence of this can be found in your replies to those who vote here after me). This isn't what I would like to waste time on and keep arguing with. My vote is keep and my opinion of this nomination has been made clear already. We're done here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your position here is riddled with oblivious hypocrisy. ––FormalDude talk 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: A) I wonder what makes you want to address me for the first time with this rude, unconstructive and baseless comment. B) Your opinions (or lame way of expressing them) do not interest me. C) Discuss content and not me. D) Actually no, I'm not sure I want to discuss anything with users like you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a list of original songs "first recorded" by the artist. Can't see how it is any more WP:INDISCRIMINATE than other lists of works (such as filmographies and discographies). -- Ab207 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how a list with over a thousand unsourced entries is INDISCRIMINATE? Too bad. If there are other similarly large and excessive, unsourced lists of works, they should also be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable article subject by a notable Indian singer, it just needs sourcing. This seems more like a case of WP:I DON'TLIKEIT. We don't discriminate against artists because they are prolific. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an utter textbook strawman which looks like WP:ITSIMPORTANT ("Acceptable article subject by a notable Indian singer"). We do discriminate against articles which fail WP:V and WP:NOT; and the second condition can't really be fixed with "just needs sourcing" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You admit the article needs additional sourcing, therefore implying that is not suitable for mainspace, yet you've voted keep. Make it make sense. ––FormalDude talk 09:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Discussion seems to be split across another similar, mostly-identical AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discographies of singers, when verified and discussed in reliable sources, are of encyclopedic interest and thus wouldn't fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is telling that we have an entire WikiProject dedicated to this purpose. The article in its current state does not include sources for most of its entries, but that does not mean that they don't exist.
- Considering all the 2022 songs from List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal, we have:
  - "Jab Saiyaan": coverage in The Indian Express
  - "Heer Raanjhana": coverage in Hindustan Times
  - "Ami Je Tomar": coverage in The Siasat Daily
  - "Mere Dholna": coverage in Firstpost
  - "Makhmali": coverage in ThePrint
  - "Gulabi": coverage in The Free Press Journal,

but our article lists unsourced entries for all these songs. I cannot personally verify each of the hundreds of entries in the article within the course of this deletion discussion for obvious reasons, but it seems to me that there isn't a problem with sources not existing, and I disagree with the interpretation that this information does not have a place on Wikipedia when sources exist. The problem, then, ultimately lies in this article not carrying these sources. As this essay eloquently puts it, an article which may currently... lack sufficient sources... can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. The remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. Best, DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Shreya Ghoshal is notable, with 292 cited sources. Many of them discuss her work, the topic of the list, which is also notable. Plus, of course, we should never delete anything that might resolve an argument in a trivia quiz. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coming here from WP:ICTF, Discography of an internationally notable artist. Such articles are split following WP:CFORK, when they grow too large. Dont use WP:BURO to delete articles that people look for. If you dont want a separate page, it will have to be merged into one discography article. There is no question of deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Urdu can be merged with Hindi. Other than that there is not much to do here. WP:CFORK is being followed. Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discography of an internationally notable artist is besides the point. In its present form, this fails WP:NOT. Whether the artist is notable or not does not mean that an excessive, unsourced and indiscriminate (most of these songs are not notable, and thus this fails WP:CSC as being an exhaustive listing that is clearly not reasonably short) is acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian You've made your point quite clear. I'd advise stopping now — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly pointing out WP:ATA or other arguments which miss the point shouldn't be controversial. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with the parallel AFD, I'm not really seeing the WP:NOT issue here. A shorter list for a less prolific singer would not raise an eyebrow, so this appears to be a perfectly fine use of WP:CFORK. These lists also aren't mere information-dumps; among other things, they connect the song to the film it was sung in (many of which are bluelinked), which is potentially quite helpful to the reader. These lists need more sources, but there doesn't seem to be any question that the information is verifiable. -- Visviva (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just refuting the "no change" bit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik. And OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument to begin with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: It's interesting that you brought up specifically these two AfDs which clearly should not have been closed and were clearly deleted too early. WP:DRV is in order. Thank you! Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to keep making me laugh. Like here, the only keep arguments were "but other similar stuff exists". Like here, any reasonable closer would have (and correctly has, in these cases) dismissed such arguments which miss the point. But feel free trying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh I am shocked. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik at worse should have been relisted or merged. DRV for both is in order. Please proceed. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:RandomCanadian: Okay, if you say so. The fact you're not willing to read beyond what suits you does not mean others' arguments are not valid.

@Venkat TL: I have little time at the moment, will do once I get more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghoshal is a high-profile singer and has been nominated for multiple major awards, including for her work in Bengali songs. Many of these have millions of views on YouTube and were reported in Indian media. I don’t see how it’s any different from many other similar lists we have on Wikipedia. Yes, it obviously needs sourcing but we should do that instead of deleting. FrB.TG (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The singer being notable misses the point. WP:OSE misses the point. This failing WP:NOT cannot be fixed with sourcing (although the lack of sourcing does indicate additional issues). Closer should disregard the above and all similar non-policy based comments per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How will sourcing it not fix it? Isn’t that what the issue is here: failing of WP:V? Also, WP:NOT is a very vague way of disregarding an article. OSE definitely applies if thousands of other similar articles exist, including even featured lists. If this is sourced entirely, it will be no different from those lists. If we’re to delete it based on any other reason than WP:V then all the other similar articles also need to go. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thousands of other similar articles How many of these literally include thousands of entries? How many of these lack so many sources it is probably more worthwhile to WP:TNT and start from scratch? How many lack any pertinent context and sources showing such except for basically a copy of the lead of the parent article? Simply saying "other similar stuff exists" is not convincing usually, even less so when the "similar" stuff is not actually similar to begin with... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So your approach to this is "let’s delete it because it’s too long"? That is absurd. Deletion is not clean-up. There are ways to cut it down (maybe only include the most notable songs?) but deleting the lists, one of which gets 250k views a year, is not the answer. If it fails WP:V, we can start by sourcing it. Nothing is beyond fix here. FrB.TG (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As previously noted by DaxServer, the discussion splits across several identical AfDs. The nominator has just opened another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle. A previous one for Armaan Malik has been restored by the closing admin after closure for further discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is wide spread disruption and wastage of time by one guy with wrong understanding of notability policies. Similar Afds. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They meet WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seminole Warriors Boxing

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

While there exists sources ([14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]), I wouldn't consider the sum indicative of notability. SWinxy (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Florida. SWinxy (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this is notable boxing promoter. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the organization itself. Passing mentions in articles on boxers they promote doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. According to NCORP, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2022 (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, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambicans in the United Kingdom

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

Fails WP:GNG; there is no significant coverage of Mozambicans in the United Kingdom as a group.

Prod removed with the edit summary Removed Proposed deletion/dated tag: let's not quietly pick these off one by one {{AfricansinUK}}. Courtesy ping to Kvng. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Delete due to prior PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sourcing has come forth to prove this is a notable intersection of topics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite some other well-developed articles on similar subject, I am unable to find sufficient sourcing for this one. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2022 (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. The first week's worth of comments doesn't seem to show any agreement on what to do with the article, while some of the comments since the relist are somewhat vague and lacking in depth. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Liew

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

Most of the sources are typically press releases with overwhelmingly promotional tones and suspicious claims from news websites with low reputations. 虹易 (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which news websites have "low reputations"? And how are you addressing the sources brought up in the prior AfD that were why it resulted in a Keep decision? As an example, the Chinese Wikipedia article on him is rather extensive in all respects, including sourcing. Here's just a few examples:

Monan, Li (December 28, 2021). "这个"美食家"不一般《食公子经典》传记上线一周年" [This "Gourmet" is not ordinary, the first anniversary of the launch of the biography of "Shi Gongzi Classic"]. China Business Herald (in Chinese).
Mingyuan (May 10, 2022). "食公子的美食家入门-看菜辨味" [Foodie's Introduction to Foodies]. CCTV Fusion (in Chinese).
Ying, Ren (December 16, 2021). "饮水思源的食神始祖食公子" [The ancestor of the god of food who drinks water and thinks of the source, Master Shi]. Xindushiwang (in Chinese).

It sounds like you're trying to claim things as "press releases" of your own accord without evidence. Food and foodie news coverage is routinely written in a praising manner. Silver seren^C 03:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Journalism, and Malaysia. – robertsky (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:Hi! I feel sorry for failing to notice there is a previous AFD. But I did roughly examine sources in the Chinese Wikipedia. The majority of the sources supporting the achievements and awards of the subject are from news websites in mainland China, with which I am pretty familiar. Based on my experience, I am sure that they are just cheap press releases. In mainland China nowadays, news publication is "industrialized", thanks to Xi's crackdown on journalism, in the sense that even those traditional government-backed newspapers tend to sell their news at "transparent" and insanely "low" prices. The first source is from China Business Herald (zh: 中国商报). Its "news" article is sold at as low as 90 CNY (< 15 USD), as listed in a news-selling platform connected with hundreds of state-level or traditional reputable local newspapers[23](scroll down and the search box is on the right side). And from its text,

...he is also listed on Wiki(pedia) in dozens of languages in the world and various Chinese online encyclopedias. As the first person in Malaysia, he was selected as the modern Chinese gourmet who stood side by side with the eight ancient gourmets, Confucius, Cao Cao, Du Fu, Su Shi, Zhang Dai, Li Yu, Jin Shengtan and Yuan Mei.

It is ridiculous, far from just praising. The second cctvzyzg.com, even implied by its domain "CCTV", is an unknown website (copycat of cctv.com, I suppose). It has little traffic[24] and no links from zhwiki[25]. The third xindushiwang.com appears to be a content farm with a fake ICP license number. In mainland China, the government requires every website to be licensed before serving. If it was true, [26] should include it (No.豫ICP备19028662号-6 or its domain). It also explains why it is hosted on Hong Kong servers, which is barely possible due to excessive Internet regulation policies and the Great Firewall. The other sources listed in zhwiki are no better, except for some magazines published in Malaysia, which usually do not constitute "significant coverage" or are irrelevant.--虹易 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@虹易 thanks for the additional information. in my opinion, if the subject is really notable, there should be a balance between domestic and international sources. however, this is really skewed towards international sources, and like you have mentioned, many aren't really notable. – robertsky (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That is exactly the point that I tried to express. --虹易 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. and per what I have mentioned before in the first afd, which is similar to what the nominator rationalised. – robertsky (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Indeed a notable subject of food critic in Malaysia. The news in mainland China could be he further development in China market newly in the recent years. As mentioned before, other offline sources maybe discovered. There are also some other reliable news report :http://www.takungpao.com/special/239159/2021/1217/667287.html. Since he passed Afd, he should be passed WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrisontan (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, the article from Takungpao is even worse than those listed in zhwiki. The text contains numerous grammar, punctuation errors, and chaotic sentences. It seems to be generated by a broken machine instead of a sane human. --虹易 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it is translated from broken machine, because as you know the article contained a lot of prose written in classical Chinese, for me, I can understand it totally. And the translate machine cannot translate the classical Chinese well. Arrisontan (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, what do you mean by "classical Chinese"?--虹易 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

引用了一些典籍、古文类文体，这些都是翻译机器不能翻译的 Arrisontan (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, just in the paragraph: "连仿维基、百科,具大量转载,国外报导都是他", "从他传记获海量人数支撑的六行权重性“全站链接”,智能萃取他与世界美食家并列", "以为他创建各国十数个维基,中国他传式百科,具少不了食公子的履历。 ". These are obviously not valid sentences whether in modern or classical Chinese. I would call them a string of Chinese words chained in chaotic order. --虹易 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is a long sentence that require a high level of understanding to the expression, but it still can be understand. Arrisontan (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if say it is a machine translate article. it seems not. Because Ta Kung Pao is a state-owned newspapers, the editor would not let a machine translate thing published anyway. Arrisontan (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source then. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The takungbao.com is serving mainland China with simplified Chinese and takungpao.com.hk is serving Hong Kong with traditional Chinese. As I explained earlier, such kinds of state-backed newspapers in mainland China are cheap enough nowadays. That article won't cost a few dollars to get posted. And in a poll in November 2019, "Ta Kung Pao once again took the last seat with a credibility score of 3.30, making it the media with the lowest credibility score in Hong Kong"[27][28]. The "article" posted in the "state-backed newspapers" just again proves that someone buys tons of low-quality press releases or advertorial. (I would not like to dive into the problem of the news itself for now. I think a consensus can be established easily in zhwiki, if necessary. There are plenty of editors familiar with or fluent in both modern and classical Chinese.) --虹易 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrisontan if he were to further develop in China, we should have seen sources from the more mainstream/familar online media from China than these random sites, even if they are short articles. – robertsky (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can find some mainstream and online media platform written about his biography and introduce him.

https://gd.sina.com.cn/news/jk/2022-01-06/detail-ikyamrmz2036790.shtml (Sina Corporation, China mainstream online platform focus on entertainment, life)
http://whzg.chinareports.org.cn/plus/view.php?aid=12726 (China Reports Network, China state-owned magazines, but need to access through VPN)
http://hsqz.china.com.cn/chinanet/index.php/Home/Index/readcontent/contentid/27499 (China Internet Information Center, another China state-owned media)

It indeed have other sources to support him active in China in recent years as there are other familiar and mainstream newspaper reporting him. The above just few examples seem more reliable that exactly report by the official news web and discussing his works and life. Arrisontan (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, Sina is a mainstream portal website with huge traffic. IMO, it is somewhat reputable 10 years ago, but not today. This article in Jan 2022 doesn't even have an author's name. And it shares exactly the same content as the one from zgswcn[29] with some sentences trimmed (almost every sentence in sina can be found in zgswcn). So it is pretty clear that either both the two articles are advertorials paid by the same broker, or Sina blatantly steal the article from zgswcn.com without attribution. In whichever case, it reflects an awful reputation. The second article consists of a bunch of mixed usage of halfwidth and fullwidth Chinese punctutations which indicates the lack of basic proofreading before publishing. Chinareports.org.cn is a state-owned political magazine, which must have an editorial team, but seemingly not the case for the website. Again, no author's name. So is the third one. What's more, except for the one in Takungbao which is incomprehensible, all these reports published in mainland China follow a distinctively unorthodox grammar and write in a special style, which I have never seen before in published Chinese newspapers as a native speaker. Such styles are neither modern nor typical classical Chinese, and neither spoken nor oral. It is absolutely impossible that every website/newspaper just shares this unique grammar and style of writing. I am confident that they are written by a single person or team before getting published on tons of strange websites, which again supports my assumption that they are typical undisclosed press releases or advertorials. Last but not least, these sources in mainland China cover significantly Liew‘s activities, awards, achievements, and titles in Malaysia, instead of China, with a whale of compliments. I fail to find a reasonable explanation of how they learn about and verify these details with no correspondents or journalists in Malaysia if there is little or no coverage by media in Malaysia. Also, it should take no effort to find numerous reports by highly reputable media in Malaysia and the world on "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" and "World Gourmet Master", as claimed by those media in mainland China. --虹易 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although what you said Sina is steeling articles from the web, but it still not can be regarded as your claims that it is content paid by advertorials. And there has no exact prove that written by the same person. What you have argue just a presumption.

It can't be said that the subject does not have reports from Malaysia newspapers, just that Malaysia medias not uploading their news online, they more focus on offline publishers, which I dig from the previous version of Wikipedia, he indeed have reports https://archive.org/details/20200611_20200611_1640 // https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/sin-chew-daily-melaka-edition/20170906/284283890208084// https://archive.org/details/food-digestbut not coverage, so it got no count as sources.

Malaysia news developed their online media in these years only and they just selectively put what's report offline to online platform. That's why previous Afd concludes offline sources must be somewhere. Arrisontan (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrisontan, it is a basic evaluation per WP:RS and common sense. I think it is crystal clear that these tons of extremely low-quality sources in mainland China are cheap press releases and advertorials with countless problems, most of which are obvious enough if it was on zhwiki, such as the chaotic article on Takungpao. Other than those sources in mainland China, most sources in Malaysia are WP:PRIMARY, and so are the three above. And most importantly, none of them support or just mention the claims "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" and "World Gourmet Master", as repeated in every source in mainland China. Among Chinese newspapers in Malaysia, Guangming, Kwongwah have online reports as early as 2007[30][31], Overseas Chinese Daily News and Sin Chew Daily as early as 2009[32][33].--虹易 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please find in detail that the above sources I provide did mentioned him is the "World Gourmet Master", the examples of Malaysia news you provide, as I said like some they are selectively upload online which quite frustrated. The claims should be focus on whether he is enough [[WP:GNG]] which passed him in previous Afd, but not the statement of "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" etc. The focus of your points is a bit out of the track. Arrisontan (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

some they are selectively upload online which quite frustrated indeed, which I am puzzled. If you had ruffled through the edit history of this article, the sourcing of the really promotional versions that had been scrubbed were old articles uploaded/used by the creator of this article, which I can safely say, who has obvious COI (there's off-wiki evidence to collaborate on this as well). If there are old articles about the subject, there's a good chance that she would have an archive of the news articles, and uploaded more. – robertsky (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Can't comment on the quality of the sources listed. I find one listing from the International Business Times, Singapore, which is an unreliable source. I find nothing else to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean weak keep. Sources as mentioned by Silverseren are certainly reliable and meets WP:GNG requirements. I would have voted delete if whole article depended on IBT (which is certainly an unreliable source) but this is not the case. Previous AfD discussed these so repeating them is not effective. 2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144:Regardless of the first one, the latter two listed by Silverseren are just content farms & counterfeit websites. How could they be reliable at all?--虹易 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to change sources, there are no proof that he is not famous in China, some other reliable source that you said from official web can be found

https://gd.sina.com.cn/news/jk/2022-01-06/detail-ikyamrmz2036790.shtml (Sina Corporation, China mainstream online platform focus on entertainment, life)

http://whzg.chinareports.org.cn/plus/view.php?aid=12726 (China Reports Network, China state-owned magazines, but need to access through VPN)

http://hsqz.china.com.cn/chinanet/index.php/Home/Index/readcontent/contentid/27499 (China Internet Information Center, another China state-owned media) Arrisontan (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been covered above in @虹易's reply. – robertsky (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources, it is consider as original and it is definitely not content farms or counterfeit website. Arrisontan (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i concur with what @虹易 said about these sources (other than the one that needs vpn, which I don't have access at the moment), individually, they are not reliable. I won't comment on the reliability of the sites themselves. Most of these articles were pushed out in Dec 2021 - Jan 2022 period, which to me seems to be a PR/marketing push. If he was truly notable, there should have been continuous stream of news/articles after that, but no, we have yet to see more articles dated after this. – robertsky (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are still continuous publishing to April, just then it is just relevant to his opinion, so i didnt put up. However, it can still be consider as in a continuous form until now http://www.cassbase.com/html/Exclusive%20information_1690_4006.html Arrisontan (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As is noted in the article, "the original text is excerpted from 'Food Psychology' published in November 2020 in 食公子经典", an autobiography by Liew. Again, at the bottom of the article, familiar sentences: "a famous world gourmet master in Malaysia, an international judge, the ancestor of the god of gourmet, and "a modern gourmet that is as famous as the eight ancient gourmets in China." It is a financial research institution's homepage, not a newspaper. Certainly, it has nothing to do with food and gourmet. And I don't think it has a reporter. How would they happen to know such a person and how could they verify those claims then? Look at that section called "Exclusive reports", it is full of low-quality press releases about random topics irrelevant to finance or ecnomics[34]. --04:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep: He's got a significant amount of coverage in Chinese and Malaysian media such as Ta Kung Pao, and given his long spanning career, there's definitely going to be a lot of offline coverage as well. It would be wrong to dismiss him as being non-notable. Babib90 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Babib90 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, a lot of reporters/journalists have/had long spanning careers with no notable coverage. All that have been presented so far are his own writings and promotional pieces of him. If there are offline sources, it is highly likely that these maybe his articles as well. Ta Kung Pao was analysed by @虹易 above, and from what they laid out, doesn't seem to be as reliable as you think it is. – robertsky (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources provided on the article's talk page suggest the topic meets WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FormalDude. As I explained above, none of those sources published in mainland China seems serious at all. I am very confident, as a native Chinese speaker, that they are cheap and extremely low-quality press releases or advertorials written by a single person or a small team in distinctively strange and generally unacceptable Chinese grammar. That's the reason why I raise the second deletion discussion. And I would like to analyse any other source if you find them to look credible. --虹易 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FormalDude and WP:HEY. Meets WP:GNG now. 173.179.229.12 (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 虹易 thoroughly explains why the sources being cited aren't adequate to establish any notability; I have yet to see anyone refute or even deny their claims. Plus, just read their titles. It's quite clear that none of these sources can be taken seriously. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehttp://www.takungpao.com/special/239159/2021/1217/667287.html" actually from 济南网,"最终因其传记为世界维基、中国百科、将他与古代八位美食家及现代五大美食家比肩"really?--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI won't speak to the sourcing (since I don't read chinese), but I trust the chinese readers assessment thereof. Furthermore, despite what at least one person above claims, the only change to the article since its nomination for deletion is changing one source from a live link to an archive. Rockphed (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ferri

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

Almost entirely self-promotional, peacocking bio of a WP:GNG non-notable individual. Lots of sources, but none WP:RS except three, none of which however is WP:DEPTH/WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Purely a promotional article. Notability has not been shown. Sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads more like a resume attempting to meet WP:GNG than an article that actually passes it. Given sources poorly/don't indicate necessary notability. Gnomatique (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2022 (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 13:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Brazilians

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

Romanian Brazilians

Articles on this subject have already been deleted, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian Brazilians and a G4. I haven't seen the deleted article and so am not tagging this article for another G4. However, the same arguments apply as in the AFD, including not everything is encyclopedic and not enough information to be encyclopedic. The references verify that what is in the article is verifiable. The question is whether the subject is encyclopedic, and it has already been decided once that it is not.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	brasilia.mae.ro	Says that Romania has an embassy in Brazil	Yes	Not about the subject	Yes	No
2	romanialibera.ro	Romanian newspaper - Says that there are 200,000 Romanian Brazilians	Yes	States that the subject group exists	Yes	Yes
3	romenos.com.br	An article about one group who emigrated from Romania to Brazil	Yes	Not really	Yes	Yes

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ethnic groups, Romania, and Brazil. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article about the same subject has been deleted but it was completely different, the sources i used for this article are also presented in the Romania-Brazil relations article, there are a lot of pages about european diaspora in Brazil, my article is very similar to others such as the Bulgarian one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Brazilians). Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i added more sources to the page and expanded it with a section about notable romanian brazilians. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot more sources and deleted unclear parts, but i still do not understand why this should be deleted since it is clear that there is a Romanian presence in Brazil, this is an encyclopedia. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for how long will this last? Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladdy Daddy Silly, hard to say but we look for more participation. It's hard to make a decision on an article with only two people weighing in their opinions who disagree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well i updated the article since the deletion discussion started, i added more RS and i cleaned up some parts. I added a category about famous Romanian Brazilians that redirects to the proper page. I don't understand why this article should be deleted, it has nothing to do with the previous article that bare the same name, there are similar pages about every diaspora in Brazil, only the Romanian one misses basically. Plus the OP who started the tp didn't reply to any of my comments. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An idea and a smile

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

WP:GNG. It's hard to see what this is even about, never mind if it should have an article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Applying the duck test, this looks and quacks very much like OR, since the single cited source is apparently the book itself, if Google translate is accurate, and the overall writing level is very much not the standard academic English style one would expect if this were based on existing sources. The level of detail is obviously excessive (this looks more like a book summary for, I don't know, a high school class, than an encyclopedia article). The writer does not appear to be notable either, so the claims in the article that this is a book by a great writer seems almost like dubious aggrandisement. Thus, fails both WP:NOR and WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author is non-notable, and no external sources besides that of the book itself. Spiralwidget (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete going to need better sources for this to meet any sort of notability guideline, and I can't find any (on the subject or the author). Gnomatique (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnetrix

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

no significant coverage in RS, including those cited. Does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:NPRODUCT. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Maryland. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability, no good sources found. Fram (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for Soft Delete due to prior PROD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 26 June 2022 (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. (also nomination withdrawn) Canley (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Filopoulos

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

~~BLP of a sports executive doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - notability isn't inherited from the roles he has held. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, thanks to the recent improvements to the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom there is no inherent notability from the roles he has had. This article fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED definitely applies here. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Despite contrary unsupported assertions, clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Assertions of WP:NOTINHERITED are specious. With very little effort I was able to find multiple RSs and have added them to the page. Nom and reviewers: Please be mindful of performing proper WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion. An absence of citations on the page is not a reason to nominate the page for deletion: it's a reason to improve the page and add suitable RSs. Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Deus et lex (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several references were added to the article on 18 June 2022‎ (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MrsSnoozyTurtle Even if you withdraw a nomination, it won't close the discussion, as multiple other people have voted deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed the notability tag per recent improvements. Segaton (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duqm Port

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

Notability of the port seems to be inherited from the UK Joint Logistics Support Base located within it. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No deletion rationale (let alone a valid one) provided. The sources in the article seem to be specifically about the port (and the UK logistics base located within it), thus clearly satisfying requirements for SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of reliable sources about this port, such as [35], [36], [37] and [38], and have not yet seen one that even mentions the UK base there, so I'm finding it difficult to work out what the nominator is talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oman-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it’s a major port with plenty of coverage. Mccapra (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I was very close to closing this AfD with consensus to delete, due to notability concerns per WP:NLIST. The article itself contains no references to sources that discuss the topic of US cities and their areas, and why the area delineated by their borders is relevant or significant. The vast majority of this discussion didn't focus on finding or identifying sources that could be used to demonstrate the notability of this topic, which is, of course, required in order for any article to exist. However, towards the very bottom of the discussion, User:Newimpartial made a good faith effort to find a few sources. While these sources are somewhat tenuous in my opinion, I believe that they are just far enough over the line to cast doubt on whether this topic is non-notable, and push this discussion into "no consensus" territory. My advice for the editors working on this article would be to expand your search for sources that discuss the grouping of US cities by land area and include them in the article. Otherwise, this article will be at risk of being nominated for deletion again in a couple months' time (which, if it happens, should focus on a deeper analysis of the available sources to demonstrate notability). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States cities by area

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is obvious statistical trivia. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, particularly in cases like this where the only source is the WP:PRIMARY data from the US census. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Using this logic, most of the "List of ... by population" articles should also be deleted, which is absurd. This list, for instance, averages almost 900 views per day, so it used a lot. Also, WP:PRIMARY doesn't forbid use of primary sources, stating in particular 3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, which describes how the census info is being used here. Indyguy (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason. Population, unlike area, is at least usually a straightforward number (one can say X people live within the City of London, Y within the London urban area, and Z within the metropolitan area); and is one for which sources can be readily found (ex. [39]); and which tends to at least be correlated with other factors (economic, social, ...). Area? Sitka, Alaska and Seattle (both on the list) seem to me pretty much like the textbook example of apples and oranges. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". A trivial statistical intersection might be interesting to people interested in that kind of stuff, but that has never been a standard for inclusion.

As for the primary sourcing, the reason I highlighted this is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is usually a summary of existing, secondary sources, not data collated from original primary sources. Anybody can go through US census data and come up with random statistical intersections. That is not sufficient reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia.. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Trivia indeed; these aren't even metropolitan statistical areas or some other population-based grouping, for which a list by area might actually have some use (not saying that should exist either). I could not find a source discussing city areas in a fashion equating, as RandomCanadian notes, tiny towns and huge cities. Funny fact, though. Ovinus (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (which are often provided by the cities and the states themselves). This is common information found in sources such as The World Almanac and city/county size is cited in nearly every article, and this article already has a hard 100-entry limit which means it's not absurdly-sized. Nate • (chatter) 02:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The data being correct does not make it encyclopedic. Basic information being noted in the individual cities' articles does not mean a list of it is appropriate. Wikipedia is not the US census database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list in particular seems to fall foul of “listings of unexplained statistics”— city “borders” seem pretty arbitrary, with very small towns in Alaska being “huge” and most big cities being “tiny”. Not sure how this is useful beyond trivia and specialized research, neither of which we cater to. Dronebogus (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is what an encyclopedia should have. Wikipedia:Five pillars states Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. The Census data is not in doubt as being accurate. Listing the size of the largest cities according to it, and giving information about them in an easy to sort table, belongs here. Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articles. Dream Focus 13:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is even relevant. Anyone can go through the Census data and spin out some random statistical intersection. WP:BUTITEXISTS; or "it's true"; are not valid reasons to keep it. Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articles I fail to see what one would learn form this, except maybe answers to (ironically, since we're talking of "pop culture") trivia questions and some comparisons between big apples (yep, the Big Apple's on this list too) and random places in Alaska. Readers don't learn anything from lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; and merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would be compelling if there were a general or specialized encyclopedia, almanac, or gazetteer (the US Census is none of these) which has this list or something similar to it; I doubt there is one besides Wikipedia and its mirrors. There is also a difference between extracting data from a census and extracting data from a less general ranking or list of cities. Ovinus (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need a WikiAlmanac at this point, and also maybe to informally topic-ban Dream Focus from AfD due to terrible party-line keep rationales. Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, cities in Alaska are large, but that doesn't make this indiscriminate or trivial. It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl. It's a perfectly reasonable compilation of a superlative of encyclopedic data. If anything this could add a population density column. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl. Without reliable sources to support this, this is nothing more than WP:ITSINTERESTING. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS – from the WP:GLOBAL perspective, it resembles a theoretical "List of Nebraska soccer players by height". — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, re: Wikipedia:Five pillars invoked by User: Dream Focus. Gnomatique (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statistics for population and area administered are standard values for describing political entities. They are common and thus encyclopedic. Ask yourself, why is Russia known as #1 in the world? Its not by population, not by economics, everyone knows Russia is the largest country in the world by area, Vatican City the smallest. In fact, the statistics are commonly combined to calculate density. This OP is deliberately putting blinders on to common statistical values in order to mass delete other "by area" articles. This is improper procedure. This should be discussed as a group not as a sequence of individual AfDs. And I suggest, because of the amount of damage success at this could do, we should hear from a lot more people involved with the statistics of political entities. It would be a huge disservice to the Wikipedia readership to have something of this magnitude deleted by a handful of . . . I will withhold my expletives at this time. Trackinfo (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While countries are indeed compared as regards size, cities are hardly ever, because the current administrative area is rather irrelevant in city ranking. I thus find your comparison a bit misleading. Just because we compare mountains by height, it doesn't mean we should have a "List of US cities ranked by tallest building". — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. E.g., urban geographers and demographers, urban planners and those interested in the relationship of size and population and their synergistic effects. This is a view from 50,000 feet, and aids comparisons and analysis. For example, the relatively large size of Detroit, combined with a markedly downward population shift has political and economic consequences. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS, and city boundaries are often decided inconsistently. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. No SIGCOV in RS covering the different land areas of various cities (which, for the record, change very frequently due to annexations, etc.). -Indy beetle (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of secondary coverage. It's not particularly useful to compare a combined city-county government with a population of 1000 to a major city of 1 million. That's why we have List of largest cities by area which compares the size of urban areas regardless of where the actual boundaries may be drawn. –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that this was posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was later removed). TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. I had already posted here days before that happened. Dream Focus 16:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an accusation, against you or anyone else. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story". TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the boundaries of cities is an historical and legal issue. They are subject to change. And it is highly variable across the country. Metropolitan statistical areas are an analytical tool. All that being recognized, I don't think that is a reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the kind of list that many paper encyclopedias contained before Wikipedia put most of them out of business, but I'm struggling to find any use for it. The "by area" just asks for cities in Alaska to be at the top, because many of them incorporate small centres with very large areas of barely inhabited land, and it was certainly no surprise when I just looked and saw them there. Along with the American habit of calling every town a city this just seems to be, as I saw someone write about another topic recently, a nothingburger. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is clearly a WP:DISCRIMINATE list of information. Most of the arugments I read above are that its "indiscriminate" (it's not, it's clearly defined) and that it isn't useful. Well... useful isn't really a measure that we use for notability--but I found the article and this discussion because I was looking for a list of US cities by land area. Seems to meet the measure set forth in the essay WP:IMPACT to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear WP:NLIST pass. Many of the Delete votes represent conceptual objections to the list (basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT), rather than being based on policy. Many reliable, secondary sources discuss the content of the list (cities by land area). Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps list one of those many sources that compare cities by area? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the first academic paper that I could find that not paywalled and follows a related approach (its authors choose to present the population and the density but not the area used to calculate density). And here are a couple of journalistic sources offering analysis directly based on land area comparisons between cities: [40] [41]. I only scratched the surface; I have no doubt there is much more out there (some of it paywalled, of course). Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first paper explicitly states that it Core Based Statistical Area and not the "city area". The second link is borderline relevant, although some may argue that it's a "nothingburger" that does not venture beyond raw statistical data ("Oh, there are now cities with a bigger area than Cleveland even though they have smaller populations"). The third link is again unconnected with this present list (it discusses population densities). Does it indeed show that we need to have a separate ranking list on Wikipedia, or it's enough to have area/population data in individual articles? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are misreading the first paper. Tables 3 and 4 each consist of three lists: one based on metropolitan area, a second based on urbanized area, and a third based on principal city area. The content of this WP article corresponds to the city area used for the calculation underlying the third column of Table 4.

Also, it is inaccurate to say that the third link is again unconnected with this present list. It provides the land area of each city it lists and also explains how a city's land area impacts density (using the comparison of San Francisco to Jacksonville).

You have given me an excellent example of why I don't normally WP:SATISFY requests for sources at AfD: when I do give relevant sources, it is typical for editors to misread them (as you have done) or dismiss them as a "nothingburger" (as you have also done). My prior belief - that people asking for sample sources at AfD are typically making a rhetorical move rather than, you know, actually asking for sources - is unfortunately confirmed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Area of populated places is a significant topic. p b p 22:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent arguments presented by Kashmiri and the lacking arguments given for keep so far. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2022 (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. Views are split between keep, merge and delete and I find it unlikely an agreement is going to happen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest counties in the United States by area

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

This is obvious statistical trivia which appears to have been compiled as an original project (one with an original methodology, it also seems, since this goes to lengths to explain how it came to its results) by a random Wikipedian. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't pass WP:LISTN and is trivia, although less so than the counties article. There is [42], but it seems to be taken from this list. Ovinus (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the World Atlas took anything from Wikipedia. Just access the census website or other government sources for the same information. Dream Focus 05:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a list with no sources. Does not pass WP:LISTN TH1980 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (often provided by counties and states themselves). This is common information found in sources such as The World Almanac and city/county size is cited in nearly every article, and this article already has a hard 100-entry limit which means it's not absurdly-sized. And unlike city entries, outside small land annexations here and there, usually the sizes of American counties never change, so this is pretty solid and unchanging statistical data. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The data being correct does not make it encyclopedic. Basic information being noted in the county's articles does not mean a list of it is appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be yet another list cruft. Azuredivay (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statistics for population and area administered are standard values for describing political entities. They are common and thus encyclopedic. Ask yourself, why is Russia known as #1 in the world? Its not by population, not by economics, everyone knows Russia is the largest country in the world by area, Vatican City the smallest. In fact, the statistics are commonly combined to calculate density. This OP is deliberately putting blinders on to common statistical values in order to mass delete other "by area" articles. This is improper procedure. This should be discussed as a group not as a sequence of individual AfDs. And I suggest, because of the amount of damage success at this could do, we should hear from a lot more people involved with the statistics of political entities. It would be a huge disservice to the Wikipedia readership to have something of this magnitude deleted by a handful of . . . I will withhold my expletives at this time. Trackinfo (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area shows the top ten. This article shows 106 although 103 and 105 are missing from the list. Dream Focus 06:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets GNG? How, and do you mean NLIST? Also, be mindful of where "WP:ITSUSEFUL" goes... -Indy beetle (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did some searching, surprisingly, couldn't find much to substantiate this. Seems to fail LISTN with a lack of sources discussing county size across the country in a comparative way a la SIGCOV. World Atlas is the closest we have, but its not a really top tier source (ex-passion project blog). US Census data on its own is basically a primary source, and articles should not be built solely around various census facts without other secondary sources demonstrating significance. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that this was posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was later removed). TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. Dream Focus 16:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an accusation. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story". TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Putting up the template records that fact, and is ethically required by the project. Apparently someone forgot to do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At one time, the World Almanac had a list of the largest counties by area. p b p 23:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is something seen as notable by the World Almanac, and the information is important enough to be listed in all articles for counties, then it obviously is notable enough for a list on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 04:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, where it states, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (bold emphasis mine). This data is encyclopedic relative to the core principles of what Wikipedia is all about. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - It would seem far more efficient to refactor the sortable table in List of United States counties and county equivalents to include a column for land area, so that the reader can easily find the largest counties, the smallest counties, the median county, the largest county in a particular state, the smallest county in a particular state, or whatever other statistic they're looking for. This would be far more efficient than creating a bunch of separate list articles like List of smallest counties in the United States by area, List of largest counties in Texas by area, List of smallest counties in Oregon by area, List of largest counties in the United States by population, List of smallest counties in the United States by population, etc., etc., etc. Make one big sortable table, and let the reader manipulate it to find what they're looking for. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems wholly encyclopedic as noted above. NLIST simply describes one type of list that is generally not deleted; it does not provide any authority for deletion. As others have pointed out, other major reference works have maintained comparable lists. So this list would seem to "satisfy" NLIST even if we read that guideline upside-down as the nom urges us to. The nom's claim that the discussion of land area vs. surface area makes this list OR is risible, since that is an entirely routine concern with area information, and the list creator wisely included both forms of information in the table so that readers could make their own decisions about which measure of area is more important. I have no opinion on whether the list should be somehow merged into List of United States counties and county equivalents (although I think that might be more challenging than it appears). But in any event that doesn't require the deletion process. -- Visviva (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The core topic is verifiable, given by the U.S. census, and it might well be worth noting that [i]t is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. The nominator bizarrely takes issue with the fact that the article has a methodological selection criteria, despite the fact that we encourage lists to not be overly broad. This sort of list is something that is standard in the old print editions of the World Almanac and is regularly reported by the U.S. census; framing this as "statistical trivia" is quite odd in my opinion. And there are indeed reliable sources that explicitly frame this sort of thing as worth including, beyond the raw census data. The American Counties, for example, provides a detailed methodology and list of the 100 largest (and smallest) U.S. counties by land area, which seems to show interest in this sort of thing as recently as 2013. I do think that the page could be updated (The U.S. Gazeteer files are updated with county land area and sea area as of 2021). And routine calculations (like adding land area + sea area = total area) are not WP:OR. This sort of material improves Wikipedia and, if there exists some poorly phrased rule that would prevent us from fulfilling our core mission of creating an encyclopedia that combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers by making us delete basic and fundamental lists of encyclopedic information like this, we should ignore it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area. I agree with the keep voters that this is valid encyclopedic information that is not merely trivia and certainly not original research, but I question the need for a stand-alone article that lists the top 100. I think expanding the County statistics section to the top 20 could be an appropriate cutoff. This seems like a better target than the overall list as linked by Visviva and Scottywong. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per discussion which builds the case well. When a page has this many Keeps and this many view (averaging 234 views a day) it means that from a significant point-of-view the page is an asset to Wikipedia. Delete "voters" should realize that since a large Keep viewpoint exists that also translates to the probable percentage of readers who would enjoy or use the page, benefiting the project. Everyone has a tendency to think that their point of view is correct and universal - not so, and this page falls well within the shadow of Keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2022 (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 Provinces and territories of Canada. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian provinces and territories by area

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS (since the sole purpose of this page is listing a few statistics, which can be and already are covered elsewhere) and is particularly redundant to Provinces and territories of Canada, where the most significant aspects of this are already covered. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada, which contains all the relevant information. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to remark on its notability, but as a Canadian I found looking at the lists useful. Nunavut in particular was a surprise. Curiocurio (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTSTATS is the suggested reason to delete. I quote it here in full Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included. I don't think this article is an excessive list of unexplained statistics. On the contrary, I think it is well explained. I find it not confusing at all, in fact I find it clear. As per the guidance, the data is in tables and has explanatory text. The guidance suggests splitting things into separate articles, which is the opposite of what the nominator is proposing. My reading of this guidance is that if we are to follow the spirit and the technicalities of WP:NOTSTATS, then keep is the only logical conclusion. CT55555 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG reads: "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." How does this meet GNG? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Some examples of where the area of Canada's provinces and territories are included in literature (and there are many, including already in the article):
  1. Johnson, G., Fisher, S. A. (1904). Canada: Its History, Productions and Natural Resources. Canada: Department of Agriculture of Canada.
  2. Federalism and Economic Reform: International Perspectives. (2006). United States: Cambridge University Press p197
  3. Political Competition and Economic Regulation. (2007), Taylor & Francis. p59 CT55555 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that this was posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was later removed). TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. Dream Focus 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an accusation. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story". TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces and territories of Canada. This list is redundant. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not post it at WP:ARS. But I came here from there.

I assumed that the customary notice had been posted here. I still don't know it was or wasn't at the time. If I had noticed the omission, I would have corrected it when I posted my reply. I will try to be more diligent in the future. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, please see here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that template is used, it is neutral, and simply states the fact that is of interest to a project. Without the need for User:TompaDompa's explanation. He too could put it in, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or lightly merge to the main article; not all information is covered there and the statistics aren’t indiscriminate, trivial or “unexplained”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: quite redundant. I see nothing significant on this page not covered already on the page for Canada's provinces and territories, both land and water areas are given. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per LaundryPizza03. desmay (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces and territories of Canada, which also covers this topic. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:12, 17 June 2022 (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.