Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:36, 15 November 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 14	November 16 >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Junction, Colorado

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

Railroad junction with no significant coverage to establish notability on its own. At best this could be covered by a single sentence in Alma, Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentence doesn't cut it, as this one is in the history books. If only editors had consulted them instead of stupid fact-free entertainment news articles about South Park. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite performed by Uncle G (WP:HEY) and WP:GEOLAND. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent upgrade that establishes notability. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: coverage which establishes notability has been added to the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Americus, Colorado

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

No evidence of a community at this location. Maps show a railroad siding with no connection to nearby roads. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found. Looks like another low-effort "article" based on an entry in GNIS, which does not establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Various books on railways confirm that it is indeed a station on the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad the next station along from Buena Vista, and is not a community, incorporated or otherwise. All of the categories and half of the (two) sentences in this article are falsehoods. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on cursory search of Newspapers.com, which mainly returns coverage of Americus, Georgia even when you try to restrict results to Colorado. However, there was an Americus mining company that operated in Colorado in the early 1900s, and hence several references to Americus mines. But that isn't this article. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and my own long-used standards. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is for deletion; I will salt the title. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raybak Melk Abdesselem

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

This page was deleted 4 times and AFD deleted too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raybak_Abdesselem since then only 1-2 articles were added. He won only junior championships which doesn't show notability, 3 articles in Wikipedia are paid PR and blacklisted by Wikipedia. Calling @Rosguill who AFD'ed previously. The person who created this article has changed the name from Raybak Abdesselem to Raybak Melk Abdesselm and it was created by sock puppets who are banned. The Athlete doesn't pass the notability Wprep (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, while this doesn't meet G4 as the article text and sources are different from the past revision, it does meet G5 as a creation by IntelisMust, a blocked sockpuppet, with only cosmetic edits (and a reverted addition by an IP) since then. I'll let another admin swing the axe as I am nominally involved by way of the past AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and France. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per reasons listed in both this, and previous AFDs. Youth and regional titles don't demonstrate notability. Nswix (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable athlete with no independent coverage found and upon checking I have seen sock-puppets were involved in making his page which was deleted and another sock puppet recreated this to divert attention of Wiki editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.190.110.20 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability all are mentions as he won junior championships, I agree with OP, delete per nom. I found 3 websites on Google with paid disclosure about Raybak which he has paid to write for himself. --JanAminK (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior martial arts events do not show WP notability. I see no success as an adult that would support a claim of notability. My search did not find examples of significant independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Results, databases, and passing mentions are not enough. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Nswix. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garric Simonsen

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on an artist created by an WP:SPA that, judging by the fact that the username is the same as the artist's official website, is likely connected to the subject. The subject does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. While several references are included here, these either do not mention this individual at all, or merely list them as one of the artists included in a gallery. Searches did not turn up much else - image galleries and mentions of participating in an exhibit, but nothing that could be actual significant coverage. The closest that it comes is articles in college newspapers for colleges that he was a faculty member of, which I don't believe would be sufficient for actually passing the WP:GNG. It looks like this article went through an AFD back in 2015, but was closed as No Consensus due to minimal participation, and so has been languishing here, poorly sourced, ever since. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Washington. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not covered in the Getty ULAN, some limited coverage here [1] and here [2] (second one is a limited view based in my IP so I can't pull most of it up). I don't think these are enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding RS for the biographical information presented in the article. Previous request for deletion was closed as "no consensus", but the article was only defended by the creator. Subject fails WP:ARTIST. WP:TOO SOON, no substantial coverage and not in any notable collections. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Birney

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous article was deleted per AfD due to lack of notability. The only difference in this version is that her daughter was recently criticized for tearing down "missing persons" posters related to the Israel-Gaza situation. This does not, in my view, confer notability on the parent. ... discospinster _talk 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Washington. ... discospinster _talk 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is all local from the Seattle Times, either about her time as a candidate or doing mayoral things (budgets, commission workings etc). Nothing we'd use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't satisfy GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation Poll International

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

An article about a reputation management company.I am bringing this to AfD as some might regard the large number of references as making PROD unsafe, but these refs are PR coverage of names included in their various polls, which would fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are not finding evidence that this firm has attained notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw you first reviewed the page, i dont know why you then tagged for deletation. However, i think Reputation Poll has decent coverage if you can search it and it has been featured on key platforms.Nenerue (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was marked as reviewed by Twinkle when this AfD discussion was opened. It would be helpful for this discussion if you can point to substantial coverage about the company? AllyD (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A PR organization doing PR stuff [3], [4]. Nothing we can use for GNG. We need things ABOUT the company, not lists BY the company. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avature

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

I cannot find coverage that demonstrates that WP:CORP is met. Note that I have removed various sources noting awards but all of them where from the same organisation giving the award i.e. not independent coverage. SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information that is left in the article seems to be found on their company website, which makes sense for that kind of basic information.

Regarding coverage to demonstrate WP:CORP I found several independent articles that mention Avature as an HR tech company (see references below). Avature is a well-established company and their article page goes back to 2012. Based on the above and the WP:ORGCRIT provided, we should keep this page.

1. This year, an industry expert mentions Avature released a new product that debuts them in the training market: https://joshbersin.com/2023/10/avature-enters-training-market-with-focus-on-informal-learning/

2. An announcement that mentions a partnership between Avature and LinkedIn: https://www.hrtech.sg/news/avature-integrates-with-linkedin-recruiter/

3. Dimitri Boylan, the CEO mentioned in the article, was named in the best HR tech influencer list: https://talentculture.com/top-20-best-hr-tech-influencers-of-2022/

4. In 2020 the same industry expert Josh Bersin, mentioned Avature as being adaptable HR Tech software: https://joshbersin.com/2020/10/the-new-world-of-adaptable-hr-software-avature-sets-the-pace/

5. This mention technically fails CORPDEPTH, but it mentions Avature as an HR technology vendor of Delta and Walmart: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/technology/pages/delta-walmart-use-hr-technology-stay-agile-during-pandemic.aspx TechieArg (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)— TechieArg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:NORG. To the points above, being "well-established" isn't what shows notability on Wikipedia. As for the sources: (1) is a niche WordPress blog that, when taking WP:AUD into consideration, isn't sufficient for notability whether this person's blog is reliable or not. (2) is a press release, and so is not independent and does not contribute to notability. (3) is also a press release but notability is not inherited, so if the article showed notability for the individual, that notability does not transfer to any and every company they work for. However, even if it's wasn't a press release, such lists are specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage. (4) is the same niche WordPress blog as 1. (5) is indeed trivial coverage. I wasn't able to find anything online that would show notability either. - Aoidh (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ or more specifically there is a consensus against deleting the article. There is no consensus as between keeping or merging, but we do not need to have that discussion here, anyone wishing to take it forward can use the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truism

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

I believe this article fails WP:NOTDICT, and I don't see any potential for expansion. I soft-redirected it a few months ago to Wiktionary's truism entry, but this has now been reverted and contested, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested WP:AFD for this, in lieu of unilaterally blanking it and soft-redirecting it to Wiktionary, since there was objection to doing the latter. I didn't mean to take it to AfD immediately without a proper WP:BEFORE effort. In a matter of seconds, I can find sources addressing truisms as a concept of "beliefs that are widely shared and rarely questioned", including in "values", at the intersection of psychology and cultural anthropology [5]; truisms as a form of logic fallacy because "A truism is not a genuine pro-position—it does not put forward or propound anything. As a statement, it cannot constitute part of an argument, because its very articulation is a reminder that any discussion of its subject matter was over and done with long ago" [6]; a poetical device used by writers like Alexander Theroux [7] and relatedly a visual-arts theme [8] and some works that straddle the line between written and visual arts [9][10]; a concept in US constitutional law about the value of the 10th Amendment (which seems to be a truism on the surface but which has had marked but perhaps shifting real-world policy impact) [11][12][13][14] (these may not be neutral sources, but make a politico-legal argument that could be given WP:DUE mention); as a category of institutionalized assumptions or rules of thumb in medicine which long gone unchallenged until recently [15]; as a subject in the philosophy of realism and anti-realism, pertaining to provability or verification of events or claims [16]; some humor-related meanings [17]; in software engineering, "broadly-applicable principles of software construction ... that ... may not apply in specific cases" but which may be testable with model-based assessment of methods [18]; and so on. These are all just from the first page of general Google search results on truism -wikipedia -wiki -blog -forum -dictionary, and I'm sure even better material could be found with Google Scholar or some other journal search. I thus lean keep on this, because it is very clear that more than just a dictionary entry can be written about the subject (and for that matter already has been, since our presently stub article already cover a philosophy usage pertaining to statements that are true but untestable for lack of contextual conditions or support, and the concept's relationship to humorous lapalissades). It's completely normal for Wikipedia to have articles, even short ones, on rhetorical devices, features of language, types (or failures) of reasoning, and classifiers of writing, and truism qualifies as all of those, in different usage senses, not all of which will be captured by even the most robust dictionary (which Wiktionary generally is not). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact perform a BEFORE search, and of course the word "truism" crops up in a lot of sources. I just can't envisage what an encyclopedia article about truisms would look like based on the sources I've seen. None of the examples you provide are actually about truisms – they are about values, or the 10th Amendment, or medicine, or software engineering, etc. (Your second link, "Truth and Truism", comes closest, but despite the title I think it's really talking about self-evidence, which has its own article.) I don't see how these sources can be put together into an article that doesn't still boil down to a simple definition and a list of examples. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-evidence as an alternative to deletion. These are essentially the same concept, with different names in different contexts (rhetoric, epistemology). Cnilep (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Cnilep. Does not seem to have enough content to justify a stand along article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

1. https://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm

The article states: "How do you argue a truism? Pretty much the same way as a tautology. You state that the case is a truism, explain how it is a truism, and why this means the case should be rejected. For example, to show that “genocide is bad” is a truism, you would argue: “Saying that genocide is bad is a truism. No one disagrees with this. The government case makes it virtually impossible to argue against their case. You should dismiss the government case as being a truism unworthy of debate.” Follow up your truism argument with your own definitions and explanations of why these definitions provide a fairer ground for debate. Be wary of making a “truism” argument. Much of the community does not think that a truism means a government should lose. Usually, if a government runs a fairly common sense case, you can press for details about implementation so you can make arguments about the way in which they address or solve the problem they cite or make topicality arguments based on how their advocacy falls within the words of the resolution."

2. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/801203/pdf

The article states: "A truism is not a genuine pro-position—it does not put forward or propound anything. As a statement, it cannot constitute part of an argument, because its very articulation is a reminder that any discussion of its subject matter was over and done with long ago. An anti-discursive instance of discourse, the concept of the truism casts doubt on the existence of non-truistic truth, yet it would appear that truth does little to push it away."

3. https://www.itemonline.com/opinion/truisms-can-be-untrue/article_b995b4a1-5e58-5b6c-aaca-88374f06a4be.html

The article states: "A truism is a statement considered to be profound and accepted as truth. Like most people, I too accepted them as little pearls of wisdom and many found their way into my vocabulary. However, the wisdom of many truisms that have lived through countless generations has begun to lose the luster of truth."

4. Harris. A Philosophical Treatise on the Nature and Constitution of Man (1876)

The article states: "The introduction of truisms and falsisms into our field of view brings us to the root of the difficulty about the truth and falsehood of statements, and enables us to dispose of it. For to regard a statement as true is merely to ignort the difference between it and a truism -- to regard it as equivalent to a truism ; and the conception of the truth of a statement is thus simply one as to the equivalence of two statements one of which is a truism."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Truism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883)

AfDs for this article:

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

Reopening this deletion request as its been over 2 years since the first deletion request resulted in no consensus waiting for additional sources to prove sufficient notability and no such sources have been found. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick initial look makes me think that this is either a keep, based on NEXIST, or a redirect to the List of Yorkshire County Cricket Club players - which is the long established consensus for dealing with articles where we can find so little biographical information to create an article and have little chance of doing so. In this case we have dates and the era in which he played. Playing for Yorkshire Second XI plenty of times between 1911 and 1913 suggests to me that there's a likelihood that sources exist in regional newspapers - presumably the Yorkshire Post and others. Put that alongside the offline Yorkshire book source already offered and I wonder how much detail there is on the bloke. He got a very short Wisden obituary, which is unusual for single appearance players, and my gut feeling is that there may be other offline sources there that I have no hope of being able to access. If he were a New Zealander we'd know easily - in this case we'd need someone with access to suitable newspaper archives in the UK. Given that we can verify who he was and that he existed from multiple sources, I have no reason to think that delete is an option here - this is either a redirect, which I wouldn't be opposed to, or a keep Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My position remains the same as the previous AfD. Given his 1 FC appearance, and Second XI appearances for Yorkshire, probably the most covered county in the country at the time, there will be significant offline coverage of the subject. At worst should be a redirect to List of Yorkshire County Cricket Club players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to redirect, but I don't think leaving the article limping on in this sad state for another 5 years is a good solution. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. An infobox would be a nice addition. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more on his brief career. Johnlp (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Johnlp's addition and the suggested potential redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (see above for initial comments) - I'm happier to keep after Johnlp's additions Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions and above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Jago

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

A women's cricket player who played 2 games and received no other significant coverage - clearly fails WP:GNG. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I agree there are a lack of sources - almost all are brief mentions of attending the same school as other England cricketers, the best I could find was this: https://bergmanosterbergunion.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/BOU-Magazine-2018-pp65-83.pdf (page 81), mostly trivial information and not enough for GNG - EdwardUK (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've used the source shown above, and also found https://thisnzlife.co.nz/moa-bones-limestone-caves-and-velvet-worms-explore-the-prehistoric-treasures-on-and-below-a-familys-waitomo-farm/ which is a profile of her and her family, and expanded the article from that. PamD 09:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: the wording "Ann Jago visited New Zealand after her tour as a member of the English Women’s Cricket team" (from the NZLife source) suggests that she played in NZ for England, but that isn't shown in the article. PamD 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: - That is an interesting one - England didn't tour New Zealand after the South Africa tour until 1969, and nowhere includes Jago as part of that tour (pretty sure she had finished playing by then). The visit to New Zealand before that was in 1957, again can't find any evidence of her being on that tour. CricketArchive doesn't have her playing any matches in New Zealand, hence why it isn't included in her article. Perhaps she simply visited New Zealand for fun after the South Africa tour? The wording of that sentence could imply that. Mpk662 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: International cricketer, and looks like she passes GNG given the excellent work of PamD above. Played more than just two matches as well, and have updated her infobox to reflect that. Mpk662 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be enough GNG coverage in the article now, after update, for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International Women's Test cricketer, now expanded, but a keep eitherway. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now a clear keep. There may be more stuff on Kent sources - there’s been a big push on awarding women’s county caps recently and as an international she may be covered in that stuff. I’ll check annuals at some point Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Done more than enough for me to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Boylan

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

Unremarkable CEO. I'm unable to locate any coverage that indicates that WP:BIO is met. The reliable sources that are included in the article only contain brief very mentions e.g. [19] [20] or are transcripts of interviews [21] [22], neither of which are of use for demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: being a CEO with no other notable qualities does not satisfy WP:GNG Dazzling4 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Economics, Internet, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existentialist anarchism

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

For years this article has existed as what amounts to an argumentative essay, attempting to demonstrate links between existentialism and anarchism. None of the cited sources ever appeared to describe an "existentialist anarchism", nor does it appear this term has significant coverage in reliable sources.

Google Scholar only turns up 13 hits, none of which go into the term in any real depth.[23] Only three of these sources predate the article, and none use it as anything more than a throwaway term. The only source that appears to go into it in any depth (Wahl 2018) explicitly mentions that he is attempting to develop it into a "philosophy of the future", declaring it to be "all-too-neglected" by both present-day philosophers and anarchists. I don't see anything in these sources that would bring the article to a length much longer than a stub.

Given that this article appears to fail to meet our general notability guidelines, I propose it be deleted. There's nothing in the text that's really salvageable, and the only redirect locations I can think of are only tangentially related. Grnrchst (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom that the page reads like an essay and there do not seem to be many sources which describe the idea in depth. The other sources whch use the term (or "anarco-existentialism") appear to be using it in different ways so it is difficult to use them to write a sourced coherent page. JMWt (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In an earlier discussion on the article talk page I suggested it might be notable, but I'm convinced otherwise by Grnrchst's evidence. Maybe worth writing up a little bit about the Wahl article on Existentialism? -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the talk page discussion: unclear scope, only loose affiliation between existentialism and anarchism in available sources, potential citogenesis fluffing this concept this concept beyond its actual influence, article written as an essay, insufficient coverage for a dedicated article and no good candidates for merge targets. czar 12:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is nothing worthwhile here to Redir or Merge. Fails WP:GNG completely for lack of clear reference in WP:RS. Generously, I'd call it WP:SYNTH; more likely WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker, Kentucky

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unremarkable unincorporated community. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a couple of cemeteries there, but I was not able to locate any source to support this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Rennick has one passing reference to a creek named Whitaker Fork. There was a mine here, which is consistent with the topographic maps. I don't know that even the Whitaker Coal Co. would be notable by our standards, so I think it's best to delete here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking for now; I haven't had a chance to review what Hodge has to say about this and I'm about to be mostly inactive for over a week. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rennick and Hodge this might be supportable standalone, as Hodge gives it a fair amount of information, but probably should redirect to Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky) which is definitely supportable standalone. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Whittaker with two "t"s in Hodge, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky) per Uncle G. Looks to be a real place and not an error so worth a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Beech, Kentucky

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: several things don't add up. The article says the town was destroyed by mountaintop removal mining. If I use the coordinates from the article, it definitely shows a reclaimed surface mine in this spot. It's on a hilltop away from a main road - not a natural place for a community to sprout up. Except for possibly a company coal town, these little East Kentucky town are always down in valleys along roads. So maybe was this a coal town? Coal towns were built to house families of miner who worked in underground coal mines, which were labor intensive (unlike surface mines). They were near the mine's tipple and the main entrance to the mine. The tipple, in turn, was on a railroad line. There'd be settling ponds nearby. I don't see railroad tracks or settling ponds which would still be visible.

Maybe the article's coordinates are wrong?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to United States Geological Survey topographic maps going back many decades for these coordinates (37°14′28″N 83°18′5″W / 37.24111°N 83.30139°W).

They don't show anything there, either.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for some backstory here, a significant cleanup of these Kentucky geostubs was conducted by me and Uncle G a few years ago. The GNIS entry here is sourced to Rennick, but no reference to Little Beech in Rennick's Perry County document or his "Place Names Beginning in L" document. Nothing on topographic maps. I can turn up a creek by this name in another part of this state in the newspaper sources, but nothing for a community. Rennick's annotated topo map is apparently where this comes from, as it has LITTLE BEECH N. written in as marginalia with an arrow pointing to a point with nothing there. I don't know what this is. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brows Defeat, Kentucky for a similar case. In almost every instance of GNIS pointing back to Rennick and the place not being noted in Rennick's main county documentation, the location has been almost impossible to even verify. Hog Farm _Talk 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Hog Farm. This is our past experience, and this is what little we have to go on in Rennick, and it's an exactly analogous situation to that prior discussion. I've just double-checked the manuscripts, including "B" just in case it was filed under "Beech". It isn't. And it isn't in the book. Or in Rennick's post offices of Perry county mnauscript.
I can only add that in many cases Kentucky is best discussed, as Rennick does xyrself (and as Hodge 1918 does too), in terms of its river system and all of the post offices and whatnot along it. I did this for one county, Rennick and other sources in hand, where we have articles following the river system and the post offices that were dotted along them in various places over the years. Witness Goose Creek (Oneida, Kentucky), for one example. Perry County needs all of this GNIS mess refactoring in the same way.
Little Beech Fork of the Big Beech Fork of the Willard Fork of the North Fork of the Kentucky river was the site of coal mines by Elijah and Abijah Hoskins (Hodge 1918, p. 229). That is what the mining was. I don't have the time to refactor this now, but I'd be looking to refactor this somehow into the Willard Fork, or perhaps even as finely grained as Big Beech Fork, depending from what reading Rennick and stuff like Hodge made the most sense, if I were doing it.
Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hodge, James Michael (1918). "Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties". Reports of the Kentucky Geological Survey 1912–1918. 4. 3. Frankfort, Kentucky. (Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties at the Internet Archive)
Delete if I am understanding the references from Uncle G this is the name of a watercourse by which there was a coal mine and not, as far as anyone can tell, a populated place. Therefore the article on a populated place should be deleted, without prejudice to recreation as an article about the water feature or coal mine at a later date. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left this until last because I think that this one involves going as high up the hierarchy as an outright North Fork Kentucky River article, which we actually had in 2004, and working down from there with sub-articles as necessary. We might get an actual Willard Creek out of it, to which this should redirect if that is the case, but I'm not sure yet. Otherwise this should redirect to North Fork Kentucky River which is where the minor tributaries that don't get standalone articles will be. Rennick doesn't seem to have enough for a standalone Willard Creek, now that I've gone over Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky) and Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) and Trace Fork (AfD discussion), although from the number of tributaries alone Troublesome Creek (North Fork Kentucky River) is definitely standalone. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ as it appears the issues re: GEOLAND qualification have been resolved. If it and Heiner/Hiner need merging or other renaming, it can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trace Fork (née Whitsett, Kentucky)

Fails WP:NPLACE. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: same as Whitaker, Kentucky
Dazzling4 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a satellite view, this looks like an old coal town, probably for a long-shutdown coal mine. It's got a typical coal town's street layout - like a subdivision pasted on the side of steep hill. (I've been to Perry County, Kentucky but not to this place. I am familiar with how old coal towns were organized).
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into this later, but see WP:RENNICK for something that is generally a good starting point for looking into these type places. Hog Farm _Talk 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Rennick has several mentions of this - we get The Ky. R. Coal Co. had a mine and camp at Whitsett, a statement that it was a station on the Danger Fork spur along with Duane and Heiner (possibly Hiner, Kentucky?), and a statement that Whitsett was a local station on the L&N railroad near the post office of Tub, Kentucky. Per this from 1919, a coal tipple and conveyor were built at Whitsett by Kentucky River Coal Company in expectation that a railroad would be extended through there (which it did so). Mr. Whitsett ran the company, which is apparently where the name came from. If I'm reading this correctly, there was a Whitsett No. 1 Mine, with the associated post office in Hiener. A late 1920s court case heard arguments about allegedly unfair rates to ship coal from Whitsett. I'm finding a number of references to this place, but always as a mine and railroad on-shipping point with the Kentucky River Coal Company. Searching in newspapers brought up only a wave of usage of the surname. I'm inclined to see this place that likely doesn't have enough coverage for a stand-alone article, but one that would warrant discussion in a future article on the Kentucky River Coal Company. Between all of this and the topographic maps, there's a fair chance that the actually community that was historically here and what A. B. is seeing evidence of is actually Hiner/Hiener/Heiner. Hog Farm _Talk 23:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hodge 1918, p. 175 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHodge1918 (help) has a Haddix mine here at the Lost Creek Road Fork of the Trace Fork of the Lotts Creek Fork of the North Fork of the Kentucky River and Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) is how Rennick 2000 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRennick2000 (help) systematizes this too, including both Whitsett and Heiner in one whole. This is how I would systematize both this and the GNIS mess substub at Hiner, Kentucky. There's probably not enough to break out the Lost Creek Road Fork out as a sub-article, but there's definitely enough from both Rennick and Hodge for Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky).
    - Hodge, James Michael (1918). "Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties". Reports of the Kentucky Geological Survey 1912–1918. 4. 3. Frankfort, Kentucky. (Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties at the Internet Archive)
    - Rennick, Robert M. (2000). "Perry County — Post Offices". County Histories of Kentucky (273). Morehead State University.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  - Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is some sort of problem here. The coordinates of Hiner and Whitsett are barely different. Not sure what the best resolution is, given that we can only infer that the mine was here. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So, from Rennick's Perry Co. post offices guide, the Pioneer Coal Company [...] opened a mine and established a camp they called Heiner. By October 18, 1918, when Zach Grass started the Heiner post office, this vicinity had also become the northern terminus of the three mile long Danger Fork Spur of the L&N. A village just above the post office was then called Whitsett. On November 22, 1927, the post office and station became Pioneer. But by 1936 and until the post office closed in 1944, the community it served had again become Heiner. Based on the sum total of everything I've read for this topic, I'm really thinking that between Heiner/Hiner and Whitsett, we really only have one actual community. Hog Farm _Talk 23:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. There's enough for Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) without even getting to this, so this article gets used for its tributary Trace Fork, where Heiner, Whitsett, and even Bulan all are. I am sure that Hog Farm will come along later to mix in all of the above stuff. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously: it's a place with a documented human history. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current state of the article shows several settlements (including Whitsett) that appear to meat WP:GEOLAND and sufficient sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic Publishing

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources currently in the article are either an interview, or a few database entries for some of their products - none of which help establish notability. I couldn't find any any additional sources either. As is, fails the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Samuel Edward Konkin III. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agorism

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

This article has limped on for a decade and a half, without ever managing to pull together many independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the cited sources in the article are directly associated with the subject, largely citing the person that coined the term. And except for the Routledge Companion, none of the sources strike me as particularly good-quality either.

Having tried to research this in the sources I have available to me, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this meets the general notability guidelines. In both the Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought and the Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, it only gets a single passing mention as a term coined by Konkin. This is a far cry from significant coverage.

As such, I don't think this topic is notable in and of itself. This article could probably be merged with/redirected to Samuel Edward Konkin III without much issue. Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Libertarianism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samuel Edward Konkin III as suggested, merging in some of the content as applicable. That bio article could really stand to be improved, and it seems to me that the topic is better dealt with there than separately even if it is an independently notable topic. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Samuel Edward Konkin III. After removing the unreliable blog posts and Konkin's own sources, there plainly isn't enough material to support a dedicated article. Konkin's neologism can easily be covered in the appropriate section of his biography article as part of understanding his philosophy and split out summary style as needed. czar 12:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationale by Czar. Kazamzam (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While there was valid disagreement over the applicability of BLP1E in this context for various reasons, keep arguments did not rebut the concerns raised regarding depth of available independent coverage in light of the article's status as a BLP, and deletion enjoys both a numerical majority and momentum towards the end of the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hatley

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

Subject appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E due to winning a beauty pageant, with a lack of sustained coverage with which to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She appears nowhere in the news after winning the title, very much a case of 1E. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage exists here, here, here, here, and here. 00:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I'm curious to know what page creator @Ejgreen77: thinks of this. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That user was the one to post those sources, but forgot to sign their name. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She also finished in the Top 10 in Miss America 2011. She additionally got more coverage here and here as a victim of a peeping tom incident. Clearly is not a WP:BLP1E case.KatoKungLee (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the new sources listed above help, beyond confirming the pageant win and doing things after as a pageant winner, and they aren't terribly long either, most have a big photo, then a few paragraphs. The peeing tom incident doesn't add to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. If someone peeps on me, it will not make the news.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons mentioned about by KatoKungLee. The level of coverage takes this beyond that of BLP1E. Rublamb (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ridiculously irrelevant. Unless we're now creating articles for squirrels. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

say what? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with KatoKungLee's assessment of the sources; as this is a relatively low-profile individual, the sourcing level for controversial claims is a lot higher, per WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per KatoKungLee. The criteria in BLP1E #3 clearly state: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: [...] 3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.. In our case, The two events - Miss Tennessee 2011 and Miss America 2012 - were both significant, and Hatley's role in both was unarguably substantial and well documented. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OwenX arguemtn against 1e which appears more sound than delete voters. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @OwenX: and others are misapplying BLP1E, I believe; Miss Tennessee is the competition that chooses the state's representative to the subsequent Miss America Pageant, and as such the coverage being discussed here all stems from the same event. More importantly, we have two short sentences of content we can write that is independent of the pageant itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is one event or two, nothing changes the fact that this doesn't meet requirement #3 of BLP1E: the event (or events) is significant, and her role in it was substantial and well-documented. There may be valid reasons to delete this article, but BLP1E isn't one of them. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Freinland (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing needs to be impeccable for BLP sources, and quite frankly I don't think is here as proposed. Per Ritchie333. Daniel (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Pregnancy Association

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

Pregnancy information site run by anti-abortion advocates, fails WP:ORG. I had boldly redirected to list of anti-abortion organizations, but it was reverted on the basis of the encyclopedia listing. I'd encourage folks to actually look that entry up -- it's a few paragraphs of promotion that sounds like it's directly from the organization. e.g. it starts with As an organization committed to promoting healthy pregnancies and to reproductive issues, the American Pregnancy Association pursues its goals through education, research, advocacy, and serving the public interest. APA is headquartered at 1424 Greenway Drive, Suite 440, Irving, Texas. and goes on along the lines of Each day, approximately 5,479 couples experience fertility issues, and APA is concerned with providing information and support for them.. Should be re-redirected. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Medicine. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, if the red link noted above was actually List of anti-abortion organizations in the United States#Texas, per the page's history. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in-depth coverage exists. We need at least two in-depth articles to prove the notability, and there are more than that if someone conducts a proper WP:BEFORE. We shouldn't be biased just because it advocates for "anti-abortion practices". It's a significant non-profit organization, having attracted coverage from The New York Times, Dallas Morning News, and Associated Press when known as America's Pregnancy Helpline (read the quoted excerpt below). Most of the in-depth media coverage pertains to its time as a pregnancy helpline. Now, it's involved in many more activities. Sage Publishing's book has covered it in detail, including a two-page coverage accessible on Google Books. Sage Publishing is a reputable academic publisher, and its reliability can't be doubted by cherry-picking some lines. The two-page coverage includes excerpts like the ones below, demonstrating it is well-written:

APA was founded in 1995 in response to the me-dia attention that followed the decision of an in¬fertile couple, Mike and Annie Shaeffer, to use two billboards in the city of Dallas to announce their desire to adopt. After the Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press covered the story, the national media became interested in the couple. As a result of the national coverage, the Shaeffers received more than 1,000 calls from individuals and couples who needed advice and information on pregnancy and reproduction. This led to the decision to establish America's Pregnancy Helpline, which generated 212 referrals in its first year, and to begin broadcasting public service announcements. Over the next nine years, the helpline provided information and referrals to 147,000 women and families from 75 coun¬tries and the United States. In 2003 the helpline was expanded into the APA.

Additional in-depth articles just about the APA is given below:

Butler, Kiera (22 April 2022). "The Disinformation Campaign Behind a Top Pregnancy Website". Mother Jones.
Corinna, Heather (8 August 2008). "Exposed: American Pregnancy Association Hides Links to CPCs".

There is a lot more "According to..." because it is regularly featured in media, so this makes it difficult to find in-depth coverage hidden between these hundreds of articles. 64.135.238.133 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

at least two in-depth articles - sometimes two. sometimes more. WP:ORG is usually a higher bar than WP:GNG.

We shouldn't be biased just because it advocates for "anti-abortion practices" - Nobody is doing this.

Sage Publishing is a reputable academic publisher, and its reliability can't be doubted by cherry-picking some lines - Sage is generally reputable, but the article it's self-evidently promotional fluff, and anyone basing a !vote on it should look at it in full.

Most of the in-depth coverage is critical, so an article about the subject would need to be primarily about that. In general, if it's a borderline notability case and nearly all of the coverage that does exist is negative, personally I prefer to omit it from the encyclopedia rather than have a short, negative article. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE is an essay, not a guideline and since this is a non-profit, so WP:NONPROFIT is applicable, not WP:NORG. If you still think otherwise, seek a consensus to change the guideline. However, please avoid using a conservative non-profit as a test case. APA meets WP:NONPROFIT because its activities are national in scale (#1) and has received coverage (both negative and positive coverage, not just negative) in independent reliable sources (#2), so we can write a balanced article that will be helpful to readers searching for information about this organization and its activities. WP:NONPROFIT/WP:NGO quoted below, thanks.

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

64.135.238.133 (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE is an essay Nobody mentioned this.

WP:NONPROFIT is applicable, not WP:NORG - When I redirect, you said CORPDEPTH doesn't apply. Now you're saying NORG doesn't apply. WP:NONPROFIT is subsection of WP:NORG and CORPDEPTH is the same section as ORGDEPTH.

avoid using a conservative non-profit as a test case ??? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 64.135.238.133. Notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I was asked on my talk page to look for the Associated Press and The Dallas Morning News articles mentioned in the Sage Publishing book. I found those sources and have listed them below, alongside other sources I found.
1. Butler, Kiera (2022-04-22). "The Disinformation Campaign Behind a Top Pregnancy Website". Mother Jones. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "Here’s another thing it doesn’t mention: The American Pregnancy Association isn’t the dispassionate medical authority it might appear to be. Rather, it’s the brainchild of a Texas-based pro-life activist named Brad Imler, and it’s rife with medically inaccurate information—on both abortion and other reproductive health topics. The site hawks unproven blood tests, infertility treatments, and products purported to support the pregnant person and developing fetus. The American Pregnancy Association presents all of its information and products as evidence-based and medically accurate—but nowhere can one find its activist foundations or learn that it doesn’t have a single medical professional listed on its staff of a handful of people."
2. Purdy, Elizabeth R. (2008). "American Pregnancy Association". In Zhang, Yawei (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Health. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-1-4129-4186-0. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "APA was founded in 1995 in response to the media attention that followed the decision of an infertile couple, Mike and Annie Shaeffer, to use two billboards in the city of Dallas to announce their desire to adopt. After the Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press covered the story, the national media became interested in the couple. As a result of the national coverage, the Shaeffers received more than 1,000 calls from individuals and couples who needed advice and information on pregnancy and reproduction. This led to the decision to establish America's Pregnancy Helpline, which generated 212 referrals in its first year, and to begin broadcasting public service announcements. Over the next nine years, the helpline provided information and referrals to 147,000 women and families from 75 countries and the United States. In 2003 the helpline was expanded into the APA."
3. Goode, Keisha L.; Rothman, Barbara Katz (2021). Pregnancy and Birth: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. ISBN 978-1-4408-6921-1. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1995 The American Pregnancy Association, formerly known as America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline, is established by Mike and Anne Sheaffer, who initially set up a hotline to support pregnant people seeking an adoptive couple for their babies. After receiving over 1,000 calls from people facing unplanned pregnancies with nowhere else to turn, the couple recognized this unfulfilled need in society and wanted to set up a confidential crisis line to allow people to receive the help they needed. In 2003, the helpline became the American Pregnancy Association, which became a foundation of health services for anyone in need, including education, research, advocacy, public policy and community awareness as well as a leading organization for reproductive and pregnancy health information."
4. Atterberry, Tara E., ed. (2012). Encyclopedia of Associations: An Associations Unlimited Reference. Vol. 1 (52 ed.). Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. p. 1915. ISBN 978-1-4144-6872-3. ISSN 0071-0202. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Founded: 1995. National. Description: Promotes reproductive and pregnancy wellness through education, research, advocacy and community awareness. Aims to support women and families by lobbying the legislature, businesses and insurance providers to promote pregnancy and family health issues. Increases public awareness of the reproductive and pregnancy needs, concerns and resources necessary to address these needs. Publications: Week-by-Week, weekly. Newsletter. Price: free. Advertising: not accepted. Alternate Formats: online."
5. "Pregnancy association launches Web site - Prenancy; Confidential service aids those experiencing reproductive problems and concerns". The Salina Journal. 2004-12-05. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "A product of consumer need, the APA is a national health organization that began as America's Pregnancy Helpline in 1995. The agency provides reproductive and women's wellness resources for thousands of women and families through education, research, advocacy and community awareness. Nineteen of the nation's top obstetricians and gynecologists make up the APA Medical Advisory Board, which directs educational content for the association."
6. Fox, Thomas C. (1997). Catholicism on the Web. New York: Henry Holt and Company. pp. 311–312. ISBN 1-55828-516-4. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline Web site is a Dallas-based nonprofit organization designed to provide facts about the many services and resources available across the United States for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. It is the stated goal of the Crisis Pregnancy Helpline to provide each woman with a sense of empowerment and hope and to connect her with services in her geographic area. It wants women to know there are positive options as well as people and organizations willing to assist her as she makes informed decisions about her future."
7. Blow, Steve (1996-07-17). "Couple seeking children adopt mothers' cause". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "I remember the billboard. It said: "Mike and Anne Want to Adopt. We Are State Approved." And it gave a phone number. Maybe you remember a feature story we wrote about the unusual adoption strategy. There was a photo of Mike and Anne Sheaffer standing beneath the billboard. The story ran on New Year's Day last year. ... Mike enlisted some trusted employees in his company to help take the calls. He vowed that every caller would find a sympathetic listener and, where possible, help in meeting their immediate needs. ... Today, Mike oversees a full-fledged nonprofit agency - America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline (1-800-67-BABY-6). It's a free, confidential referral service for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. And there are 10,000 such pregnancies each day in this country, Mike said."
8. Articles that provide background material about America's Pregnancy Helpline founders Mike and Annie Shaeffer but that do not mention the association so does not contribute to notability. I am listing them here so that they can be used to provide more background material about the founders. The sources:
  1. Aron, Jaime (1995-01-02). "Getting the word out: North Texas couple gets hopeful response after billboard plea for baby". Waco Tribune-Herald. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "As their chances of adopting a child seemed to fade, Mike and Anne Sheaffer decided to take their search to the road. A week ago, two billboards went up announcing: "Mike and Anne want to adopt. We are state approved. (214) 675-BABY." ... Since the ads went up in Dallas - one on a highway, the other on a main road - hundreds of people have called from across the country to offer the names of adoption agencies, stories and encouragement."
  2. Macias, Anna (1995-01-01). "Signs of Faith and Hope - Couple Employ Billboards in Effort to Adopt". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
    The article notes: "Anne and Mike Sheaffer are passionate about their desire to have a baby. The evidence is there for anyone driving past two billboards they have rented on busy thoroughfares. The signs, on the Dallas North Tollway and Lower Greenville Avenue, read: "Mike and Anne want to adopt. We're state approved. Call 675-BABY." The couple have spent more than six years of marriage praying for a baby. But nature has not cooperated, and they are determined to adopt."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the American Pregnancy Association to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

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

I don't see any in-depth coverage of this organization whatsoever - only trivial mentions and attributions, and nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - It looks like a topic that is likely to expand on the near future, so keep for now pending that. Irtapil (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- comment WP:CRYSTALBALL
Industrial Insect (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Merge~~ From some quick research the ITIC is part of three loosely related entities with its parent the IICC, and an American "friends of" group the AFIICC. The meaning of the letters don’t really matter at the moment. What does is that the three form a quasi-private quasi-military intelligence organization with large resources of money and research and the ability to extend the military intelligence capabilities significantly. They get overlooked because they’re private, but this means there’s no oversight either. A Standalone article should be based on the IICC, showing how the other two support it and military intelligence. The three together have more RS including info critical of them which allows more NPOV. Short of someone volunteering to take on that article (I can’t) the info here should be merged into one of the Other Israeli intelligence org articles so that the info is there for an enlarged article later. Ayenaee (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GidonB. I’ve changed my vote from "merge" to "keep" to avoid confusion from the way I expressed myself. My waffle 😊 basically meant "keep" so it can be merged into IICC future article. I have added the new article to my to-do - it just won’t be done quickly. So any who has more time is welcome to steal 😀 it from me. Ayenaee (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to ITIC. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 09:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG per sources already in article. // Timothy :: talk 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the GNG. Sorry, I do not understand the merge opinions. ITIC is just another name for Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. That's not a merge. Also, we CANNOT merge our article into an article that we do not carry. Yes, the article should absolutely be renamed and rewritten as an IICC article but all that is beyond the scope of AfDs. Someone should want to actually engage in that. That person CAN and is encouraged to be bold and just move the article at that time! Until then, this unit is also notable so keep is the way forward! gidonb (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep given notability but some of these references are dodgy. Have cleaned up what I could but a lot of the mentions in cited sources are passing mentions, but multiple mentions so. 50/50. Kazamzam (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Kirby series. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Knight

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources at reception sec doesn't really talk about the character. The only usable sources were about him being banned at Smash Bros, nothing else. Also, I'm more concerned that most people cared about the GAR situation (another guy at the talk page, like can we end this?) at the past unlike its notability, hence I decided to afd the page. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Kirby series. I think some of the most decent sources include This and this and there is also a mention here, but it doesn't strike me as a character who is known very well outside of being banned in Smash. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above...as much as one would think Meta Knight would be notable, it does make sense he's not: what can really be said about the character? The Smash Bros. stuff only goes so far, and even in the original AfD, there was great difficulty in finding sources with most asserting "there had to be some" for a character that was already 15 years old at that point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Kirby series. The current sources do not demonstrate notability of the character and a Google search yields no significant coverage as far as I can see. Fieryninja (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Coverage doesn't pass the WP:SIGCOV needed for a separate article, but there is a good target to WP:PRESERVE some of the content. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has a good bit of coverage mainly for being banned in tournaments. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahla Parveen

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

Not notable Motivational speaker, fails meeting WP:GNG -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Kerala. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Exactly two hits in Gnews, the ones used in the article from the Indian Express. One is by the Lifestyle Desk, so very much a PR piece. No suitable sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your rationale behind nominating this particular article for deletion. It may fail WP:GNG and let's wait for others opinions on this issue. Abishe (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the article discussing information that is not notable aside from the authorship of her first book, "The Beauty Purpose in Life," which would need further evidence to prove notability. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Abishe did an excellent job by writing this article. But I must say that we can't keep it for now. As I am from Kerala, I did some research about her and tried to discover sources. As a matter of fact, she is a well-known motivational speaker. But we all know that popularity has little to do with establishing notability. I did a google search about her in Malayalam (സഹല പർവീൻ, സഹ്‌ല പർവീൻ). The outcome was disappointing because I was only able to obtain one source, which is an interview. Because of that, for the time being, she does not meets our GNG standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WALTR

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cariuma

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

Looks not-notable, with no reliable independent, in-depth sources BoraVoro (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I created the page because the brand is very popular among skaters and it's also a major vegan shoe brand just like Allbirds and Veja. I have already created pages for shoes and saw that this was deleted because the company had tried to create their own page but I didn't remake it because they told me to. I'll work to improve it and add more sources but none of the sources I used come from the company at all. LeDroider (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in Barron's,[24] USA Today,[25] and Insider,[26][27] although I'm not sure how much "affiliate commission" comes into play. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess sources presented against our RS guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found dozens of news articles using Google News. I have not had time to evaluate them.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with A.B. about the plethora of news articles from Google News. The line between promotion, review, and "objective" information is fuzzy but the notability is not in question. Kazamzam (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awaz Sayeed

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Theatre, Telangana, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the nominator comment on why they believe there is a "Lack of notability" because honestly it isn't very helpful. Has a local language search been performed to check for reviews of their seven books? Generally authors who have been translated are notable, as are authors who have theses written about them. This article has been around since 2007. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only 2 sources located in any language of wikipedia are both Permenent Dead Links PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per A.B 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is about all I could find [28], but I'm unsure if it's the same individual. The lack of sourcing/inline citations in the article doesn't help and the external links are not RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alternate transliteration is ʻIvaz̤ Saʻīd —siro χ o 03:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Rekhta, the online encyclopedia of Urdu literature, has an e-book about Sayeed available for download. Rekhta transliterates Sayeed's name as "Ewaz Saeed".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Can you prove that these are the same person 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question so I compared pictures of Sayeed over the decades. It’s the same guy.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while adding a bunch of maintenance tags and clearing out a lot of the unreferenced bio. Might also be worthwhile to move from Awaz Sayeed to Ewaz Saeed per A.B. above. Kazamzam (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This boils down to whether the sources meet our standards for reliable sourcing. There are split views below and not enough participation to see one 'side' reach a consensus on this issue over the other viewpoint. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preslaysa Williams

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Preslaysa Edwards

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR. Of all the twelve sources, only the Columbia College school paper mentions more than one piece of information about her; all the other sources are nothing more than single mentions of this person. No source seems to exist that gives an overall biography or other similar information, as needed for WP:NBIO.

Sourcing to qualify for WP:NACTOR does not seem to have changed/increased since the last deletion discussion for this article/individual (2020-11-26): WP:Articles for deletion/Preslaysa Edwards ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, and New Jersey. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's arguments. Kazamzam (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She qualifies under WP:AUTHOR, hence the new content that prompted me to resurrect the article. The OP here is ignoring the prominent book reviews she has received, which are sourced in the new article. natemup (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She isn't just an actor, as the page clearly notes. Meet notability guidelines for being a notable author. natemup (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:COI in having close relations to her should be noted in this discussion. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've noted it. We have collaborated online and met once in real life. natemup (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't address what I said here. It invalidates your deletion request. natemup (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you think she qualifies under number 3 of "Creative professionals". I think that is really a stretch: "..a significant or well-known work.." I guess it depends on what defines a work as being "well-known." ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), one review in Kirkus (it's not a paid review so it's valid for notability), two reviews in Library Journal (link 1 and 2), and additional reviews in Booklist and AudioFile Magazine that can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. In addition, Booklist selected one of her novels for their Editors' Choice 2021 of the best books of the year. I agree that Williams didn't meet notability guidelines for an actor when the previous AfD was decided in 2020. However, since then she has released two well-reviewed books through HarperCollins, so per WP:Author she now meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review SouthernNights' sources and argument as proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Publisher's Weekly ones are synopsis articles, they don't really review the books, Kirkus is about the same. I can't find the other two (Booklist, AudioFile Magazine)... It's still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are standard reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. You can find the others in Wikipedia Library. SouthernNights (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. natemup (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm really trying to find things in RS. This interview in Writer's Digest [29] and the tiniest of mentions on NPR [30] are about all I can find. Still not seeing AUTHOR notability. Probably TOOSOON, her books only came out in 2021 and 2022. Not much chance to gain critical attention in two years I suppose. This book mentions her in passing [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reliable sources already cited. Not sure what you're talking about. natemup (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability under actors or writers/authors. Sourcing is scant. Books have not gained much critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Supremes#Filmography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Supremes In The Orient

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

Sole source on page is from Motown, the Supremes' record label, and I found no further coverage, reliable or otherwise. Should be redirected, but I didn’t see it mentioned on the Supremes' page so I'm not sure where the most appropriate target is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Supremes#Filmography.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Supremes#Filmography (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the short documentary film, is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Supremes#Filmography per Cunard above. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bunmi Famosaya, Mni

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

The article, as stands right now, is almost without any sources. Apart from that, with a quick online research, there is no WP:SIGCOV with multiple, reliable, and independent sources with depth of coverage for this government officer. The article has been primarily edited by users with a potential issue of WP:NPOV. Although there are some sources with coverage, like this [32] and this [33], these are heavily promoted as personal advertisement without enough secondary coverage. Chiserc (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Chiserc (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a chair of a minor body in a small region, not notable globally. Thmymerc (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical balancing

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

Totally unsourced text dump, possible WP:OR no indication of notability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Dazzling4 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see any sources to support this and wonder if it is based on a misunderstanding. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage found (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the edit history of the editor who created the article, this is most likely a hoax. --McSly (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Acharya

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, the notability test for a journalist is not passed just by offering technical verification that she exists, and requires external validation of her significance (noteworthy journalism awards, significant coverage and analysis about her and her work, etc.) in sources other than her own employer -- but this literally just states that she exists, and sources her existence to one 31-word blurb announcing her hiring for a job and a transcript of a piece of her own journalism. But we're looking for sources where she's the subject, not the creator, of the content, so the transcript isn't support for notability at all, and the blurb would be fine for use if she had more WP:GNG-worthy sourcing alongside it, but isn't substantive enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only valid source in play. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, India, and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination pretty much covers it, doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE yields nothing out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Protestant Christian Church in Bali (selective merge). There hasn't been a whole lot of participation here so per Timothy, encourage a standalone article as a replacement for the impending redirect should sourcing develop. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Bhoga Marga

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

Fully advertising (even in all of the history), and as far as I can tell most of the sources aren't reliable or aren't independent of the subject. At the very least this article needs a rewrite, but in my opinion this looks like a WP:TNT situation. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Suntooooth, this article and the Indonesian Wikipedia version, id:Maha Bhoga Marga, both cite offline refs. Can you give us your assessment of each?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give a thorough response for a few reasons:

I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus;
I don't speak the language of the sources, so everything I'm gathering is from inference and some machine translation; and
I think I probably overstated when I said most of the sources are unreliable or aren't independent, since I can't tell for sure either way with most of them. I'm not sure why I thought most of them were unreliable.

After looking at the sources today, ref 6 (Mastra, I Wayan (2010)) jumps out to me as an autobiography making claims about third-parties (which if I'm interpreting WP:BLPSELFPUB correctly seems dubiously reliable) and possibly not independent, although right now I don't have energy for research to determine if I Wayan Mastra is independent of the organisation or not. Ref 4 (Suama, I.N. (1992)) is a thesis, which could be reliable but also may not be, and as I don't speak the language I can't verify whether it's reliable

Sorry I can't give a better answer; I think I was probably a little hasty to condemn the sources when writing my original comment, although the issue of the article being entirely promotional in its entire history is still maybe worth a deletion, and at the very least needs a complete rewrite. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Suntooooth. Well, now it's my turn to claim "I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus" I will try to come back to this in a few days, if possible. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge a trimmed down version to Protestant Christian Church in Bali as an AtD. If sourcing develops for a stand alone article, it can be split in the future. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient for notability Star Mississippi 02:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Seasons Place, Penang

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note the previous AfD, to paraphrase, "Size confers notability, this is a large mall hence notable." except there is no guideline about size of a mall and notability and this mall is actually pretty small/local. What it most certainly isn't, is notable. No SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine to me and seems to meet content requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any outstanding issues regarding the article's notability should have been resolved, now that the article has been rewritten and news-based citations added, mainly on the development's history. hundenvonPG (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None, absolutely none, of that coverage confers or points to notability. A supermarket opens? They do that. It's all WP:ROUTINE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete. Delete per the source review by Alexandermcnabb, the references in the article do not pass GNG, as routine coverages and interviews aren't going to help this article satsify notability guidelines. If three sources that are GNG-worthy are found, please ping, but otherwise delete. Tails Wx 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BEFORE check does not show any coverage of significance other than what's in the article, which I think is insufficient. Source analysis shows what's available just does not constitute significant coverage. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it could perhaps be moved to All Seasons Park, Penang and expanded to cover the condo towers. All Seasons Park – A Landmark Development, All Seasons Park etc. could provide content on the residential side. The difficulty with a place like this is the search results are swamped by commercial sites advertising businesses in the mall. But there are enough news sources to show notability, as one would expect for such a conspicuous development. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 links you provide seem quasi-advertising and wouldn't count as reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'd be open to restoring this article to Draft space where you could continue to work on it or you could make a request at WP:REFUND and another admin can address your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Humanitarian Drive

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

Newly established NGO fails WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. LKBT (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LKBT, before considering the deletion request, I invite you to explore the article's edit history. The World Humanitarian Drive entry has been meticulously crafted in accordance with Wikipedia's rigorous policies and guidelines, incorporating verifiable information from multiple independent, third-party reliable sources such as WP:IS,WP:INDY,WP:INDEPENDENT. It diligently adheres to WP:GNG without any shortcomings. I am open to engaging in constructive discourse and refining the content rather than just flagging deletion for the sake of deletion. I respectfully request a comprehensive evaluation of the deletion request by any availbale experienced editor or administrator, recognising the conscientious edits contributed by individuals like User:Egeymi and the recent review conducted by User:Hey man im josh. Your thoughtful consideration of this matter is genuinely appreciated. Additionally, I would like to highlight that, in my belief, LKBT may not have thoroughly examined the authenticity of numerous articles worldwide guaranteing authenticity of World Humanitarian Drive.Rainylights (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainylights (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Low quality sources. Organization appears to mostly give out awards. For instance our Raghavan Seetharaman article states:
- "Honoured with ‘Best CEO of the Century for Peace and Humanity’ award by World Humanitarian Drive WHD London"

See the Raghavan Seetharaman article's page history; it's been the subject of repeated sockpuppetry and COI editing.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing SIGCOV from reliable sources, just a ton of press releases and WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid placement. Freedom of the City of London is not particularly difficult to obtain (unless it's Honorary Freedom of the City of London, which is quite rare and newsworthy), so the gushing press releases about it being a hugely prestigious award for Abdul Basit Syed are of no use to us in determining notability of his organisation. Most of the remaining non-PR sources simply confirm that the group exists. Wikishovel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Omnicom Group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepen Shah

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Spiderone, please be requested to exclude Mr. Deepen Shah article for deletion as the details of it are all facts. We will be at your disposal on how or what we can do to make it better and not have it deleted. Thank you.

ToxELB1025

PA for Mr. Shah ToxELB1025 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CNMall41, please be requested to exclude Mr. Deepen Shah article for deletion as the details of it are all facts. We will be at your disposal on how or what we can do to make it better and not have it deleted. Thank you.

ToxELB1025

PA for Mr. Shah ToxELB1025 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Shaw's personal assistant? Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear…. Mccapra (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oaktree, Yes. I'm his PA/VA and we are requesting for his article to not be deleted. We will do our best to improve it and provide more supporting details, references and links to it.

Thanks,

Errol ToxELB1025 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a newly created Buzzd article; the coverage given is exclusively about that Blackberry app. Coverage in the New York Times is basically an interview with this person and another individual... Otherwise, !delete as not notable due to lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be a good WP:ATD. I think Buzzd is now called "LocalResponse" but not sure if it would meet WP:NCORP. Maybe to Omnicom Group where we could mention that company's purchase of eztxtmsg? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There seems to be a thin claim of notability that could be addressed by expansion, though the WP:COI issues are a concern. I would support a redirect, if an appropriate target existed. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to the Omicron Group seems ok, with a discussion of the purchase. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Smokescreen (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Toys. Mach61 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we do this with the sockpuppet guy the other day? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I still didn't find anything substantial from my WP:BEFORE 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was your Before? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And is there a reason you're interested in AfDs and won't sign up for an account? Forgive me if that sounds rude, but considering the previous nominator was blocked, renominated AfDs that didn't go their way and seemed interested in evading their block I feel it is a question worth asking. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete covered by zero RS's. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. this nomination is most likely by a sock of the previous nominator, and as such would fall under bad faith. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 21:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC) striking original vote per Ferret. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Nomination was made by the request of a WP:SPA ip at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD request for Smokescreen (Transformers) (2nd nomination). Given that the original nominator at the first AFD, Grandmaster Huon, is indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, it is a high probability that this nomination was made as an end around a permanent block by that user.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the evidence that this IP is a sock of the blocked user? I mean, I'm not denying the possibility that they are a sock, but suggesting a connection between the two without evidence doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. Perhaps a CU can assist us. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by CU/blocking admin of Grandmaster Huon I see no connection between this IPv6 editor and Grandmaster Huon, who is not blocked for sockpuppetry but for CIR issues. No comment on the AFD itself, clearing the air on the socking allegation. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrowssapSMM and 4meter4: Be aware that your !votes are essentially invalid as a result, and likely to be ignored by the closer. You may want to evaluate the topic and give a policy based reason for keep as a result. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret My mistake on the sock. I mistook your mention of "multiple accounts" in the block as a sock report. I mainly commented here because I saw the note by Drowssap and agreed a nomination likely made by a blocked user shouldn't stand.4meter4 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks, Ferret. As I wrote in above, the allegations were made irresponsibly and without evidence. WP:DUCK is generally good advice, but this is just not assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus and you are now not assuming good faith of us and are also violating WP:AGF. We are all want to keep the encyclopedia a safe place that is functioning well. Mistakes happen. Be gracious.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not imply that your action (making an accusation without evidence) was done in bad faith. I said it was irresponsible, meaning you should have done things differently. Assuming good faith doesn't mean one cannot call out another user for a poor decision, even if it was done with good intentions. To be clear, I have no doubt that you meant no malice with the accusation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would still like to hear from the nominator; while there is likely a reasonable explanation it is a striking coincidence and IMHO a highly unusual choice of a first edit for a passing unregistered user. That said, I am not sure my word has any weight as I have decided to take a hiatus from editing due to the recent spate of shitty nominations based on entirely Google-based BEFORE making me highly wary of sinking further time into creating content that might get taken out by driveby trolls and the usual mob of axe-grinders. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(it is also relevant I feel that the blocked first nominator made attempts to get other users to make nominations by proxy) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leaning Keep. As with many of the early Transfomers toys, Bellomo's Transformers: Identification and Price Guide has SIGCOV. There's some SIGCOV in Stuart Webb's Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic Volume 2: 1987-1989. I am pretty sure this subject this will pass GNG. As is the case with many Transformers characters, there are so many incarnations through toys, comics, TV, movies, games, etc. —siro χ o 05:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, has toys =/= notable; I didn't find anything for his incarnations either 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by "has toys =/= notable"? —siro χ o 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Smokescreen has lots of toys, but that isn't enough to constitute SIGCOV 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The toys themselves aren't the SIGCOV. SIGCOV about the toys is. —siro χ o 02:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's really just reviews though, not anything substantial 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Identification and Price Guide contains only brief descriptions of toys 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments put forth by Siroxo, or at worst merge to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no RS's to speak of though. 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi random IP person, as you seem to have no problem jumping in on some votes but seem to have missed a direct question, may I again ask what your Before was? I'm guessing by how vociferously you're referencing it that it's not just a Google search and it involved reliable specialist sources that not just any muppet with a browser and a search engine can find, so before I try to squeeze some actual research on the subject into a busy work week it would be handy to know which sources aren't worth checking. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I performed a search on Google, Google Books, and Google News. All I found that was, in fact, about this specific character was either from toy sites or Transformers fansites.
  
  Admittedly, I should have been more specific. 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  So... you've done a Google search? Yikes... fair play for the candour at least. Will see if I can juggle some stuff around and do actual Before at some point in the next few days. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also, I don't see anyone providing RS's 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  And I don't see good Before. We're all full of useful observations today. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
❓ If it's "per nomination" your !vote should be "delete". InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smokescreen doesn't appear to be notable separately from the franchise/subfranchises as a whole. Cortador (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of Transformers. Article is still just a pure plot summary with no analysis/reception, and what I see above are hopefull wishes that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sigh. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your vote, but there is no List of Transformers article (perhaps for good reason) 2605:B40:1303:900:314F:5A6F:E30D:81A7 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are List of Transformers film series cast and characters, List of Transformers comics characters, List of The Transformers (TV series) characters, and List of Beast Wars characters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, my apologies 2605:B40:1303:900:314F:5A6F:E30D:81A7 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Abstain form voting, but a suggestion that I would like to make is that perhaps someone could make a combined article with Autobots Bluestreak, Prowl, and Smokescreen since they are all the same design. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Autobot Cars, The book Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic Volume 2: 1987-1989 seems to be the only reference that is WP:SIGCOV. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After several weeks, there still not evidence of enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. At best, it can be used as a Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Autobot Cars, where an entry and description of the character already exists. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete There is a consensus that this hasn't passed the WP:SIGCOV bar for its own article. Nearly all the !votes here describe either deletion or merger, particularly if we ignore socks and IP editors. The best compromise would be a merge per WP:ATD, allowing editors to work out the appropriate material to WP:PRESERVE (or clean-up) through the editing process. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. I see a rough consensus that this article should be moved to Draft space. Editors interested in working on improving it can find it there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeji (singer)

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

No significant individual notability as a singer or actress outside of her group - suggest redirect per WP:BANDMEMBER Evaders99 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evaders99 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there seems to be significant coverage for individual notability here. Coalah (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where Coalah? Care to link the sources? dxneo (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the sources already present in the article, if those aren't considered significant coverage by most editors then I see the case for deleting. Coalah (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coalah, remember it was AfD'd with those sources present. The English sources cover the ensemble other than that one of "The Universe". Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and does not seem to pass notability outside the works of their ensemble. Since I cannot review the non-English (green) sources, I am leaning towards delete. dxneo (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe its better to move the article into a draft instead of deleting it. Lililolol (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lililolol, you do realise that you voted "keep" although your statement supports "draftify/userfy" right? dxneo (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved the article back into mainspace because according to WP:ATD-I the article should not have been draftified. Lightoil (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She simply doesn't meet WP:SINGER/WP:BANDMEMBER at this point of time with no SIGCOV for individual activities other than passing mentions from Itzy's related activities. I'm not going to debate why the AfC was even accepted given that the acceptor was CU blocked however I'm happy to support dratification (or re-dratify ... the bold dratify looks fine to me) with its history moved along to draftspace. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The article needs more improvements which can be done by moving it to a draft K-Pop contributor (✍️•📚) 13:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing seems more than adequate; most are in RS (green per source tool) and I've used most of them writing other Korean bios for Wiki Loves Asia myself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Industrial Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom We really don't need an article on this at all separately. Nate • (chatter) 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a separate company, traded separately on two different stock exchanges. Reliance Industries only has a minority of the shares of Reliance Industrial Infrastructure. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eastmain's comments above are compelling.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Disagreement rests on whether or not these are two separate companies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -per Eastmain's comments.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parmatma Ek Sevak

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and Maharashtra. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1. The sect has significant following in eastern part of Vidarbha.

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Being thanked by someone on Twitter isn't notable. This article has one source and the rest appears to be copied verbatim from the scriptures/holy texts this religion uses. I can't find mention of them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based the lack of sources I can find in English. If there are sources shown in other languages I’m happy to reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 02:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV. Interestingly someone in the early page history pasted a huge dump of unsourced text that is probably a copyvio (though the detector doesn't come up with any significant hits) that still lives on the page today. It should have been reverted but never was. Uhai (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Boko Haram#Campaign of violence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 Monguno bombing

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

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

Keep - Seems to have reasonable coverage and to be an important event. I'm a firm believer that an event in the present day requires different sourcing standards than one that happened 40 years ago, in the same vein if this event took place in the USA or western Europe there would be significantly more coverage, as it is you have two high quality sources covering it and that feels appropriate as a keep given the geography. BHC (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Nigeria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Boko Haram or something. 1 sentence in the "campaign of violence" section about how a bomb went off at an abandoned camp of theirs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as is always an issue with crime article AfDs, I must stress, notability ≠ death toll. Yes, several people died, but there is no other information available on this, and by all accounts I can't even tell if this was on purpose or not. It was never covered or mentioned after as far as I can tell. Add to the section Boko Haram#Campaign of violence - there is nothing else to say besides this one paragraph so we are losing absolutely no information. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant event which meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Two sentence article. I think the best target is Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency but Boko Haram#Campaign of violence would also work. // Timothy :: talk 02:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boko_Haram#Campaign_of_violence: And also, list at Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency#2015 Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with Boko Haram#Campaign of violence. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 02:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jeppu#Educational institutions. But I will subsequently handle the ambiguity by making this into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cascia High School

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

A search for sources could not find anything indepth to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Note there is a school in Chicago of the same name. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeppu#Educational Institutions in Jeppu, the appropriate locality, as an AtD. There doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to satisfy GNG. Rupples (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect as there another school in Chicago of the same name. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about moving to Cascia High School, Jeppu then redirecting? Rupples (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hoping to generate more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, possibility of a partial merge. The Chicago school is St. Rita of Cascia High School and is colloquially known as "St. Rita" so there should be no ambiguity. —siro χ o 19:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Editors remain divided on the quality of sourcing available. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Gabriel

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

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

If someone wants to try and TNT it and start over, go ahead, I was unable to. Meanwhile we have an unsourced page mostly written by three editors with no other edits, one of whom would seem to be related to the subject. That reeks of COI editing. As an aside, while I'm not familiar with the subject, this edit by one of the single purpose accounts seems to indicate that the name of the article is not even the subject's given name. The same user removed other personal (unsourced) information about him. Hydromania (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No time to look into this now, but as I said when deprodding, there are plenty of hits in Ebsco search for ""Trip Gabriel" journalist". The first hit, from The New Yorker, at least provides reliable indept confirmation that he worked under this name and was the editor of the NYT Sunday Styles section in 2009. (MAN ON THE STREET. By: Collins, Lauren. New Yorker. 3/16/2009, Vol. 85 Issue 5, p50-55). I wish nominators would assess what sources might exist, not just comment on the current state of the article's sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA In addition to hundreds of Proquest hits, some book coverage [34] (2pp), [35], [36], [37] (2pp). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale in Special:Diff/1183767902. This wasn't Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people material, but the rationale behind that applies here. Entirely badly sourced biographies of living persons should not stand as placeholders for decades just in case someone might eventually research the person. The old "better a redlink than this" applies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draft~~ Send it back to draft space so it can be reworked with the sources as mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely pointless unless someone is going to work on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Correct again, but the companion article I linked discussed the first, so is about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for being an important NYT correspondent, as proven in the NPR article, the medical journal speaking about his medical condition and the extensive bibliography in the NYT and other publications. The New Yorker article also notability. Two or three RS, which is usually what we ask for in Afd, hence the article passes notability and can be "!keep" voted. I hope that explains it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment this should be draftified for potential to cleanup and submit. Cray04 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sources are reliable.

AaronVick (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy B. Rosen

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Perhaps redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies? Let'srun (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed federal nominee does not qualify as WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Marie Sweet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree on easy call - fails WP:NPOL and there it is. However, we have Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies as a redirect target and AtD... Best

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bailey Jongbloed

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

Subject does not meet either WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee and local judge. Perhaps redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, where her WP:BLP1E is listed? Let'srun (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Connecticut. Let'srun (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my vote over at Jeremy B. Rosen - we have a suitable target in Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Sun

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

No notability, lacking sources and citations. Citations do not meet WP:OGCRIT, and aren't exactly independent Comintell (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Comintell (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no WP:SIGCOV out there at all and nothing in the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new author here and try to figure which area I am able to contribute. I cannot see a violation of any kind but would like to have more information where I can find the notability guidelines referring to sports teams, so I can make my article better. Greetings --Puppygray (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:Notability (sports)) Industrial Insect (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. See also the corresponding micro-stub Apex Moon. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No where near satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V (2021 film)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All reviews are usable. This one seems to have been established by Diamond Babu. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kailash29792's comment establishes there is at least one more reliable review, which, with the one DareshMohan mentions, makes at least 2. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist. Neutral Fan (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutral Fan: Can you add another review? I only see Maalai Malar as being notable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep if the sources are as they appear. I cannot read in Tamil. I don't want a notable film to lose out because of the natural bias that almost everyone who works on the English Wikipedia speaks English. Will defer to any Tamil reader who finds the sources wanting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24: Being a Tamil user, I nominated it for deletion. This a low-key film. There is one notable review from Maalai Malar. Malini Mannath, used to write for The New Indian Express but this review was from her blog page. Could not find any sources about Malini Mannath, herself, which is why she does not have her own page. The other review Film News 24x7 is probably fine because of Diamond Babu. Hope this helps. Just cause you don't know the language doesn't mean it is inherently notable (you can also use Google Translate ). DareshMohan (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination. DareshMohan (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Island (1999 film)

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one review from the Edmonton Journal via Newspapers.com. It needs one more reliable and suitable review per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one more reliable review: Variety [40] DonaldD23 talk to me 11:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy withdraw this nomination. Excellent work, Donaldd23. The Film Creator (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Keep, nomination withdrawn. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Charade (1953 film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes] and only passing mentions on Newspapers.com. I continued my WP:BEFORE and found a capsule review from Leonard Maltin via Google Books, and capsule reviews are considered “insufficient to fully establish notability” per NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's all of the stuff about this film in Hirschhorn 1977, pp. 26, 108–110 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHirschhorn1977 (help) to start with. And maybe Morley 1989, p. 89 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMorley1989 (help) has something about this. Craddock 2000, p. 195 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCraddock2000 (help) has an entry. Then there are detail sources like Barlow 2004, p. 83 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarlow2004 (help). Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hirschhorn, Clive (1977). The Films of James Mason. Citadel Press. ISBN 9780806505848.
- Morley, Sheridan (1989). James Mason: Odd Man Out. Orion Publishing Group. ISBN 9780297793236.
- Craddock, Jim (2000). "Charade". Video Hounds Golden Movie Retrievee: The Complete Guide to Movies on Videocassette, DVD and Laserdisc. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 9781578591206.
- Barlow, Aaron (2004). The DVD Revolution: Movies, Culture, and Technology. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 9780313024535.
To which one can at least add

So obviously Keep! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would be shocked if we're getting rid of any part of James Mason's filmography. Kazamzam (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NFIC: "The film features significant involvement [...] by a notable person and is a major part of their career." James Mason played one of the leads in all three segments and was also producer and writer. --Bensin (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Keep (nomination withdrawn). Eluchil404 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Little Miss Millions

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and only found passing mentions here and here via Newspapers.com. The Film Creator (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first leading role for Jennifer Love Hewitt, and so meets inclusionary criterion for WP:NFIC#2. It likely meets WP:GNG–it's covered in a few biographies: [41][42][43], given the year of release, and the fact that it was played at holiday seasons, it should also have further paper sources not necessarily available online. —siro χ o 08:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree...first leading role for JLH. Also, found this at newspapers.com [44] DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreeing with Donaldd23 and Siroxo, who provided convincing sources. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources above, and the nominator has been advised of doing a deep WP:BEFORE so many times already. Absolutely know that every possible source has been exhausted before considering either PROD or AfD. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liane, Jungle Goddess

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

Unsourced. No showing of notability or SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Germany. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: At this point, I feel sufficient sources have been found to prove up at least GNG and likely NFILM. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it doesn't have to be unsourced. The German Wikipedia article has sources. It was a very successful film that also raised some controversies, pushing frontiers in what was then acceptable (near-naked woman!). Given that it was released in 1956, we have to have some understanding that everything written about it at the time, and for decades after its production, will be on paper. Its current availability and internet presence demonstrates that it has lasting cultural value. Elemimele (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form. It's very likely both the film and book are notable [45]. Other helpful bits of SIGCOV that should help get us to GNG for the film itself:[46][47][48][49] —siro χ o 08:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added some sources to the page. Clearly notable, as a basic internet search can show. Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was about to withdraw the nomination, but "withdrew the withdraw" after taking a closer look at some of the sources offered by Siroxo, most of which appear to be passing/trivial mentions, where this film is offered as one item in a list of examples. I'm not yet convinced there's enough here to make this film stand on its own as independently notable. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now convinced and will withdraw. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I that case there is no need for me to also vote keep. The German article has three references and lists three books as sources. Did you do WP:BEFORE? --Bensin (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but this film isn't that well known in the English-speaking world and so there was a dearth of sources. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move‎. to List of cities in the Dutch Carribean and then editorially re-scope the article.

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

List of cities in the Netherlands Antilles

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, Netherlands, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:LISTPURP. It's grouped by island so is an informational list, and it's also a navigational list for a reader seeking information on cities in the former country. The lack of existence of the country is not a problem for the list. —siro χ o 08:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of cities in the Dutch Caribbean and merge List of cities in Aruba into it. I agree with nom that we don't need an article on a defunct entity, but there probably should be one for the broader topic rather than pages for the individual islands, especially because in most of these places the cities are not politically independent. Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge as stated. Keeps the information in a relevant list. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Terrorism in the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Midwest pipe bombings

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

I am typically loathe to delete articles, but there is simply nothing to be said on this. If I was to expand this article with all the information available on it, I could get maybe one or two more paragraphs. I wish there was more coverage, as the little information we do have is deeply bizarre, but there isn't.

Here is what a WP:BEFORE check turned up:

a mention in a lulu.com published book about weed (??)
two brief mentions in department of treasury legal documents
1 sentence in a book by a reliable (?) author
numerous news articles, but all date from the immediate aftermath or him being sentenced - no further (or any) analysis, remarks about the general situation, or any sort of commentary beyond dry facts. if he died in prison or was released it was never remarked upon so the story cannot be "completed"

And even besides the dubious notability there is simply not enough information to write a full article. An insane man placed a bunch of bombs and then got put in prison. I'd suggest what little information exists be merged somewhere but there's really nowhere to put it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gnewspapers basically has what's already stated here; the guy made 20 pipe bombs, they looked for him, found him, put him on trial and was found guilty. [50]. I suppose we could flesh out the article a bit more, but it doesn't seem to have had much lasting notice. Coverage is only from 1984 and into 1985 that I can see. Just a guy doing nasty stuff that people seem to have forgotten about. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terrorism in the United States#Left-wing and anti-government extremism per WP:ATD-R. I added a mention of the bombings there. A sub-obtimal choice would be to keep and rename this Earl Steven Karr, since more sources exist about him outside of the bombings, but the bombings themselves seem more notable in the long run. StonyBrook _babble 05:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea to merge and then redirect better than the proposal to delete. BTW the article was actually originally made (not by me, by an IP editor) as an article on Karr. My bad for not finding the thing on ProQuest - I assumed whatever I could have found on him would have turned up when I searched on the Wikipedia library but I guess not :/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the guy Karr tried to murder has an article. I still don't think this is enough for notability but, huh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what Drewmutt, the editor who moved the title, would say about the prison source (he seems to be away). In any case, the prison info could theoretically be added to Christopher John Boyce even if Earl Steven Karr's content is redirected to the Terrorism article. In any case, per WP:MERGEREASON #3, this article seems a bit too short (as it stands now) to stand alone. But I am still willing to consider renaming as a second option. StonyBrook _babble 06:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. A prison attack is already mentioned in the article (though I am unsure if it is the same one?) so a short sentence elaborating would not be out of place. The article's content being redirected to the terror article is a satisfactory solution. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Active discussion about merging or renaming without consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment !redirect as mentioned is ok too if we decide to go that way. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per StonyBrook - agree no enduring notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in the United States. As terrible as this was, and there have been many around the world, this one is small-time compared to incidents like Oklahoma City bombing or Boston Marathon bombing. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. List of largest libraries is a much shorter article and I think a Merge of this article to that one would be disproportionate and cause a focus on the U.S. on an article that has a global focus. I think the arguments that this be retained as a standalone article are persuasive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest libraries in the United States

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

This seems to be a content fork of List of largest libraries. I think the same information can be used in that article. It is also the only article of its type tailored to a specific country. Interstellarity (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Out of date statistics: List of largest libraries data back to 2009, and List of largest libraries in the United States as old as 2016. The internet has had significant impact on libraries and their holdings. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not a content fork, but an article with a focus on a specific nation, one that happens to be one of the larger English speaking countries in the world. Out of date statistics are fine here and seem to be clearly labeled at this time. (And considering Maile's point above about the impact of the internet, there may even be value in keeping statistics for various time periods.) Meets the general criterion of WP:NLIST, for example: [51][52][53]. —siro χ o 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a United States stand-alone list. Different criteria from Largest libraries in the world. i.e. - there is no way to quantify how many people visit the US libraries. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Siņutkina

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

The subject, a Latvian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nom. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 18:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts involving the United States

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of wars involving the United States. Although yes, there is technically a difference between an "armed conflict" and a "war", the line between the two is blurry and often politically charged. Rather than making a difficult and controversial decision on how to classify every conflict, it seems like the consensus has been to list them all as wars (see the pages in Category:Lists of wars by country).

Some of the content here might be worth merging with List of wars involving the United States, but a lot of it gives WP:WIKIVOICE to specific historical viewpoints and would need to be revised heavily first. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The opening reads And lastly, as violence between the white people grew, so too did the revolutionary fervor of the African slaves in their quest for freedom through armed insurrection. What the hell? Not exactly how it happened. Anyway, 1776 was when the United States of American came into existence, so listing things all the way back to 1521 makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't even colonies in that part of the continent yet. Heck Cartier had barely sailed into the St. Lawrence by that point... Quebec City was founded in 1608. Just no, this is... just no. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides this article, there is a bit of redundant over-kill on the subject matter. I refer to the three navboxes at the bottom of the page. "American conflicts", "US military" and "Lists of wars involving North American countries". — Maile (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dazzling4 (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition the points brought up above, the purpose of this list appears to list pre-1776 defeats of European colonists for political purposes.
Delete: Subject appears to have severe POV issues and is a content fork as noted by other users. Let'srun (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There wasn't a Spanish conquistador from the United States of America in the 1500s. There wasn't even a United States until 200 yrs later. Some mishmash of OR and wishful thinking. Just wrong all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nom stated, some of its content on the article can be moved to the target article stated. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 18:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Brumby

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

My WP:BEFORE search found only routine coverage of results. There are quite a few matches in the British Newspaper Archive, but none of the ones I saw provided significant coverage. I also checked the issue of Snooker Scene that reported on Brumby turning professional, and that contains only a passing mention (and the results of his play-off match). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above Montgomery15 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma Junction, Colorado}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americus, Colorado}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raybak Melk Abdesselem}}