Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 28	April 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kelly Tshibaka

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

Per Talk:Kelly Tshibaka#Notability 2, I do not believe this unsuccessful political candidate is notable. Despite being well sourced at a casual glance, most of the 30+ references are related to the election, and in many cases focus on the eventual winner, with Tshibaka only mentioned as an opponent. Even if this was a particularly contentious or notable election, WP:ONEEVENT would dictate the content is better merged into the election article. Of the non-election references, only one is actually about the subject (appointment to Commissioner's office). The rest just have trivial mentions where the subject has been quoted as a government official in relation to the primary topic. We don't have articles for every local government commissioner just because they occasionally get quoted in Press (and indeed, neither her predecessors nor successors have articles). This article was created around the time of the election campaign and seems like it was probably created as part of the campaign. There is no suggestion of notability prior to subject's unsuccessful election campaign. Fails WP:Politician (not a politician), WP:Bio and WP:Sustained. Hemmers (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability. I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news. I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings. Literally hundreds of references. There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG. And that's the thing. There isn't that much there. It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions. Hemmers (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page. The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL: unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). No part of the guideline counts only non-election references; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician. I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article. This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG. Hemmers (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG. I just don't believe Tshibaka does! In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party. It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.

Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career. This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED. She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage. But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT.
Specifically:
- Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates." We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate. Should we? Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile. That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.
- The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election." Same issue. She ran, there was some local coverage. So what? This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.
- The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability. Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War". Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.
If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article. Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that, the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED. Hemmers (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices. Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021. Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4] She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6] Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead. The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles. Should they? If anything, that's an argument against her notability. Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career. Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector. Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?

As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes? That's not GNG.

As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race. I'm afraid this is plainly false. The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner. None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable. Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign. Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING, but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet. Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases. Still doesn't make them notable. Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad you’re on the fence now. Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka. Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough. See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia). If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles. It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ministry is the same thing as a department. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really on the fence. She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING). But I don't think she's there yet. This is not a high bar. I could also be notable in the future. So could you.

Her commisionership is absolutely not notable. AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time. So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?

All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable. But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help! What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?

Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants. As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative. That's why we're having this discussion. Hemmers (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia). NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed. Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen, Arsen Bauk, and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović. This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles, which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected. I hate to bring up WP:OSE, but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook. Your point about WP:SUSTAINED/WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual, which she is not. And as for the [New Yorker] article isn't about her, WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".

Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to. Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable. Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that. So this is not WP:OSE. This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule. The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability. Yes - WP:NPOL allows that. Why does Tshibaka qualify for that? What else has she got going for her? Hemmers (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election. But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines

It certainly is. Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc). Tshibaka is not notable. She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either. No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable. This is not WP:OSE. It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown. What makes her exceptional? I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign. Nobody is able to do so.

So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?

I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.

All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer:

What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?

She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office. And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.

Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line. That's all I want to know.

I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy (WP:NOTBURO) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith. I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive. Hemmers (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep. The USA Today and AP articles are about her. Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep

Is that notable though? Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable? It hasn't for other commissioners. Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception. Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event. The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such. They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka. Hemmers (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous arguments. Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions. No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is. The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances. There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough, and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still see a division here between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect. Based on past AFDs, I'm leaning Redirect but thought I'd relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does cover some info about Tshibaka outside the election, it's not that bad in terms of sourcing and per Hameltion. Just because she lost an election doesn't make her any less notable if the article is well sourced. Plus, she appears to be active post-election via activism against rank-choice voting and being chair of Trump's Alaska campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of J-pop concerts held outside Asia

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

WP:TRIVIA ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia, per below. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Japan. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow... that's a huge body of work. The list feels strongly in WP:NOT territory. The lede is irrelevant to the topic of concerts, and the list thus lacks an explanation of why this is a relevant list. It's certainly not because such concerts are rare. The listed concerts are certainly vastly different in size too. Also, if the idea is to handle Japanese penetration of other music markets, why limit it to J-pop and exclude J-rock, metal etc.? Why even limit it to non-Asian countries, seeing as a concert in Lebanon would be just as "exotic" as one in Cyprus? Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys! Just to point out that, although the name of the list "List of J-pop concerts held outside Asia", it lists concerts by bands of any music style, such as j-rock and metal. As to why limit to non-Asian countries, I do not know why, but I did contribute substantially to the article and I feel it is important to have records of the outreach of these bands. Maybe it's just the fan in me and I'm overstepping WP boundaries. Macacaosapao (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm indifferent to whether the article should be kept or deleted (though the latter would save me a buttload of work), but I'd like to point out there is a similar article titled List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia, for which this discussion should also apply.DragonFury (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also generally unsure because essentially this is genuinely useful information somebody might choose to look up, and policy sometimes doesn't cover that. At the same time, while the older data is useful, the globalisation of music and the fact it's seemingly becoming a list of Babymetal dates makes it feel less important now. The information should at the very minimum be preserved. KaisaL (talk)
Delete - a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of WP:ROUTINE events. J-pop etc. is global enough that not every instance of it outside of Asia is notable. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jonathan Deamer too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary trivia. Plenty of bands perform outside of their home country. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far-fetched topic by my and others' reasoning above. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Shave and Brush-up

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

No evidence that this is a notable film. Can be redirected to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like agood idea. Carnival200 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a good* Carnival200 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography: As I mentioned ~~in my ES~~/ in the OLDPROD template on article TP/ when I Dpdd the article (and on creator's TP). Not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems that you didn't mention this in this case (you did mention a redirect target in some others though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check. Not in my ES, that's right. But please have a look at the OLPROD template on article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hadn't seen that. First time I see someone adding extra info there (not saying that's a bad thing, just something I didn't expect). Fram (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Wreck in a Gale

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

No evidence that this 43-second film is notable, hasn't received significant attention. No good redirect target found. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it. See the guideline. Shown at festival more than 5 years after production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear. It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale. What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years. You are free to call this "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. The Cinema Ritrovato program included 17 different works. The idea that coverage of it would trickle down to this 43-second actuality film is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In another ongoing discussion (4 1900 short films were AfDd at the same time) @Carnival200 and Hyperbolick: you mentioned "Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film?" as a good idea. I am wondering if you had this film in mind too. Although I stand by my K !vote, I am not opposed to the idea of a redirect; some of the refs can be added there and it seems like an acceptable ATD. 17:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found in a few catalogues and appears to have been shown in some minor festivals. Unless someone has shown the context of why this film is important in the history of British cinema, I don't see how it meets the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, name mentions are not WP:SIGCOV and nothing found that meets WP:SIRS. Ping me if sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 14:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joseph Rosenthal (camera operator). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scenes on Mr. Smit's Ostrich Farm

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

No evidence of notability for this 2 minute film, just included in some websites but without significant attention (e.g. this or this). No obvious redirect target found, if there is one then redirecting is of course acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joseph Rosenthal (camera operator): Which is an obvious R target, as I mentioned in my ES when DPD the page and on creator's TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joseph Rosenthal (camera operator): I am not seeing much coverage.Hkkingg (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to William Kennedy Dickson filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith

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

No indication that this is a notable film (well, a 31 second static shot). Apparently not only have we no idea who actually made it (just the producre), but we also don't know what is being shown according to this. Perhaps some list for this and many similar non-notable shorts may be feasible, but at the moment I don't see a good redirect target. Perhaps William Kennedy Dickson filmography, which gives an idea of the number of such ultrashort films that were made (and is clearly incomplete, as e.g. this very one isn't on that list). Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, Military, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Kennedy Dickson filmography: As I mentioned when I DPd the page (and on creator's TP) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) (Entry is now in the target; sources can be added if R is the path chosen)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalek Generation

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

Fails WPNBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why not Sansbarry (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How bout the fact that almost everything is unsourced? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. So far I have seen only the one review by Starburst linked in the article, so I agree that this fails WP:NBOOK. No reason to loose the link to that one review, though, so this reference plus a brief plot summary should be merged to the parent topic as WP:Alternative to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Touched by an Angel (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs edits and citations, especially the release info Sansbarry (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find those sources and then vote keep. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures as WP:Alternative to deletion to preserve the content as history, until someone can show sources to establish notability. The target could benefit by preserving a condensed plot summary. Daranios (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. I wouldn't oppose a merge, but when I tried just now to add a few sentences on the plot to the target, I couldn't see a good place for it. There's a lot of great fan-wiki material here, but luckily, it is already preserved on the fan wiki. With no sources for NBOOK there is no need for this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: While there isn't a perfect place as the suggested target site is currently formatted, I'd say one can fit in a brief plot summary in the "Notes" column. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Shining

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

I am nominating this article for deletion due to significant concerns regarding its notability and the reliability of its sources. Despite attempts to engage the community for improvements, the article suffers from critical issues as outlined below:

Broken Links or Unavailable Sources: The article relies heavily on sources that are either broken or inaccessible, undermining the verification process. Key examples include:

Sports Illustrated cover, 2001 (link) - broken. "Phuket, Thailand, October 2000" by The Advocate, HighBeam Research, Inc., February 3, 2004 - inaccessible. "By Stewart Shining, for Time Out (February 1996)" from natalieportman.com - archived and unavailable. Other broken or archived sources include links from People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and celebrians.com covering various photo shoots and articles from 1996 through 2008.

Links That Do Not Verify Notability or Credibility: Several sources mention Shining's work but do not provide substantive discussion of his role or influence, failing to establish his notability. This includes articles like "Goddess of the Mediterranean" from CNN/Sports Illustrated and various brief mentions in Rolling Stone that do not analyze his impact in the field.

Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article predominantly uses primary sources, such as stewartshining.com and celebrians.com, which may introduce bias. These sources largely showcase the subject’s work without any critical analysis or third-party perspective, failing to meet the standards for reliable, independent verification of content. Misrepresentation of Roles or Inaccurate Information: The article includes claims not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as the subject's alleged significant roles with non-profits and major editorial contributions. For instance, a Wall Street Journal article titled "New Optimism for AIDS Activist" and information from Photo District News do not confirm his reported roles, creating potential misinformation.

Given the extensive reliance on problematic sources, combined with a significant lack of independent and reliable secondary coverage, the subject's notability cannot be adequately verified. Therefore, I recommend a discussion on whether this article should be retained, heavily edited, or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsoukorussie (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Offline sources are just as valid as online ones, and InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs · count) was able to find archived versions of many of the previous broken links. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1221337540 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a notable photographer and has contributed to multiple notable publications. We don't delete articles because of dead links or offline sources. The WSJ article and the Rapid City Journal articles provide significant coverage about him and provide biographical details about his life. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Photography, and New York. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The sources already in the article much, much more than satisfy the GNG. Extraordinarily misguided nomination. Central and Adams (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as pass notability and there's nothing wrong with offline sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

KYNM-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article needs reducing, not deleting. Searched the station, and was able to pick up a source from the LPTV Report, and even then, the article seems to have enough to justify saving it. --Danubeball (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG and I did not find any significant coverage on the article or online. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect This station started as a translator for, and is still related in ownership to, KCHF. The only independent SIGCOV, and probably the only time it aired any locally originating programming, come from the period in the early 2000s when it aired Christian music videos as YTV. I have two feature articles in the Albuquerque Journal from that period. I cannot shake the feeling that the YTV period alone is insufficient. This thing was mostly a translator and/or diginet coatrack. [1] and [2] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Sammi Brie makes a good case for redirecting as an AtD. // Timothy :: talk 12:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 11:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTVS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to New Mexico LPTVs. Logo kinda goes hard tho Danubeball (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KQDF-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This was actually one that I myself slid in some extra sources in back when the whole HC2 mass destruction thing was happening. Still think it deserves to stay kinda. Danubeball (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources are press releases and FCC reports, which are not secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Its road to becoming another run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate station seems to have only involved other full-time national services, most significantly being another run-of-the-mill Una Vez Más Azteca America station. That's nominally more history than many other DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations, but it doesn't generally lead to much more significant coverage or the need to maintain anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. A remnant of the looser standards of 2006, and another nominal survivor of the bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNMQ-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or throw into New Mexico LPTVS. Danubeball (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

To the IP editor, for a BLP (biography of a living person), we need more significant coverage than IMDb listings which are not considered a reliable source. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Jay Glen

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

No sources at all, lacks notability, extreme amounts of fluff - looks very much like just a self-promo page. Hornpipe2 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) having some doubts over whether the IPv6 editor, and also the user "rickory", have a conflict of interest going on with this Hornpipe2 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the user Rickory and Rick Jay Glen himself. I don't actually care if the article gets deleted. I'm happy to provide whatever resources might be needed, but this article was created several years ago when we (at Fantawild) created the "Boonie Bears" and "Fantawild Animation" Wiki articles and I've only edited a few times that I can recall. I'm not here to debate whether or not my life and career are accurate or worthy of a Wikipedia article. It's irrelevant to me. Leave it up or don't. I'm indifferent. I don't care.

It's not something I keep up with anyway. But if it looks like a self-promo page, just know that actors use IMDb to network and display verified credits, not an "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Rickory (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added. Content has been edited and cut down to remove fluff. 2601:644:9280:7C80:B58D:218D:9C58:17C8 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks WP:REFBOMB - User talk:2601:644:9280:7C80:B58D:218D:9C58:17C8 what is your connection to the subject of this article? Hornpipe2 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the sources that aren't IMDB only one actually mentions the subject in passing. Others don't mention the subject at all, leaving all of the biographical parts of the article unverified. Agree lacks notability. Orange sticker (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wilson, Indiana

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

Here we have a puzzle. There are two data implying that this a rail point. First, the label starts out right next to the tracks before drifting south on more recent maps, towards a string of houses on Rt. 60. Second, GMaps informs us that the name of the road that crosses the tracks at this point is named "Wilson Switch Rd." Against this I have, well, nothing, because searching is pretty much hopeless. The question is whether that string of houses is now known as Wilson or not, and here I draw a blank. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting one, partly because there seem to be multiple names associated with the same location. A 1908 map identifies the settlement as "Dallas", while others like this plat map show it as "Wilson". (An 1875 map gives it as "Wilson Station" and notes an accompanying mill.) When time permits I'll aim to check the local histories in more detail, but the fact that it's been consistently present on area maps for the last 150 years suggests it was at one point an actual settlement, so for now I think it's best to keep it. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for just Wilson got me nowhere, so I tried Wilson Switch, and I got some interesting results. A 1973 story about sales tax called Wilson Switch a community of 300, but this 1991 story about the local landfill just refers to the locals as "Wilson Switch Road residents", as do later stories about landfill projects. Earlier mentions of Wilson Switch were mostly about car accidents or railway incidents in the area, which doesn't clarify much. Wilson is still on the latest Indiana state highway map, though I don't know how thorough Indiana is about vetting small communities. Not sure which way I lean on this one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can still sleep at night if this is deleted. It's Rail station on the C., I. & L. (Monon) Railway [3], this same source explains that the post office was called Dallas. Lest we not forgot that old post offices were one word names, and were not required to share a name with their location. Huwmanbeing's observation that it is variously known as Dallas, Wilson's switch, and Wilson suggests it doesn't have a strong identity and that people were just referring to the landmarks as a way of being clear about locations. That book I cite above would use the place as a reference if it actually existed. Google snippets from this source [4] states the area around the switch was known as Dallas, and later Wilson, and is an "Unplatted village". I believe that source is just assuming that the place was called Dallas because of the post office at or near the train station. The name Wilson is almost certainly taken from the station, and post office was probably just that. The local paper only has mentions of for about 20 or so years starting 1942. Just life activities of people living near it. The satellite imagery would be very different if some sort population center had existed there in the twentieth century. Be careful researching it, it's not the only rail infrastructure with this name.James.folsom (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in the Moon (album)

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. Complete absence of in-depth discussion of the album in reliable sources. Brett Milano of New Country magazine is cited, but that was a short-lived marketing effort for the purpose of promoting new country music. In no way would that magazine be considered independent. Note that AllMusic does not have a prose review by a named author. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep after recent expansion with multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is consensus to not delete, but a split between keep and merge. This should be hashed out in a talk page merger discussion, not another AfD. Sandstein 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA

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

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the keep editors give WP:THREE for those of us who don't want to slog through 77 (!) references? -- asilvering (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Thetechie: @Why? I Ask:. I mentioned relevant Game Informer article above, so maybe two? IgelRM (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, article passes WP:GNG smoothly. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~to Atlus~~. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on List of Atlus games. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me! Woodroar (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are free to merge whatever content they want to other articles but XFDcloser can only handle one Merge target article in closing a discussion. Would that be Atlus? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, yes; although merging most into Atlus doesn't appear feasible to me, so perhaps redirect to Atlus would be a more accurate AFD close while still preserving for future editors. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Functionally, a merge or redirect is the same result for the topic article. Just a matter of "review for mergeable content first" really. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this? Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this. CurlyWi (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems quite notable per WP:NORG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind identifying the three best sources demonstrating notability for Atlus USA? Woodroar (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really really want to change my position, but no one has provided a single source other than Game Informer that shows in-depth independnent sigcov. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It currently fails WP:NCORP. I looked at the first block of references in detail and quickly looked at the second block. The first block is mostly made up of profiles with no byline, routine business news, PR and interviews with leading folk in the company, none of which passes WP:SIRS or WP:ORGIND. The second block is just equally as bad. It is completely non-notable. Possible small merge to main article, a sentence or two at most as they're is nothing to support anything bigger. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems notable, per WP:GNG, but not per WP:NCORP. I searched through articles about the company for about 30 minutes, I found a lot of articles about Sega's acquisition of the company, the parent company's bankruptcy, the CEO retiring, but nothing 'about' the company. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry but, as has been repeatedly requested... can you provide at least three such sources that show independent in-depth coverage of Atlus USA? Your !vote seems to indicate you found information on the parent company but couldn't find any further sources about this company? -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A content fork, the refs are all trivial mentions. Desertarun (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as G5. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Lil' Cory

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

Non-notable rapper / actor. All the sourcing is from unreliable sources, or simply not usable for establishing notability. This has been insistently placed in mainspace after previously being draftified so taking this to AFD. Whpq (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Subject has collaborated with other notable persons such as Lil Wayne, Rick Ross, Gucci Mane, Rittz, Blueface as well as an actor on Star Trek: Picard and Reservation Dogs. Subject was also nominated for a Native American Music Award Wolfvillage (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Subject has also played on television shows such as Reservation Dogs and Star Trek: Picard.Collider - (Award Winning News Company Collider) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfvillage (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

DELETE as was stated in my decline notices none of the sources provide any sort of significant coverage or any indication of notability either in WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited through others. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collider.com Wolfvillage (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were merely mentioned as a cast member absolutely no detail was given in that source, therefore it does nothing towards notability. It only confirms they made an appearance at some point on the show which does not indicate any sort of notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some links supplied by sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Native American Music Awards Wolfvillage (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo.com Wolfvillage (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Cory On "All Night Nippon Japanese Show Wolfvillage (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic "Echota Yoda" (Featuring Lil Wayne

TVGuide

Lil Cory Featuring Blueface

I found these sources which speak on the subjects major collaborative projects with notable persons such as Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, 2 Chainz and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfvillage (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and article created by a blocked sock. Non-notable rapper with no chart activity, and filmography is mainly uncredited bit parts. Sources are awful (Bsapr, IMDb and a bio on Amazon) while Collider mention is a blip at the very bottom. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Corporate Rumble

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

Primarily worked on by a single purpose editor. Only 1 article links to this. Full of non notable participants and just a results listing. Only coverage seems to be in Perthnow. but fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article on a non-notable event sourced with only local coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability for this event and I don't believe the coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Pizza#Dessert pizza. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dessert pizza

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

Not a common misnomer for either of the pages it links to. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get over a million ghits for "dessert pizza", [5] (your results may vary) so it's a common name for something. There's room for expansion but this is at least a start, and will get readers to what little information we do have. Help expanding to an article, or adding articles perhaps on choc chip pizza, apple dessert pizza or raspberry dessert pizza welcome. Alternatively I can reformat it as a stub, but a DAB seemed more appropriate at this stage as we do have information which might otherwise be missed. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pizza after creating a section there for sweet pizzas. There is no mention on that page of "chocolate" or "fruit", as yet, not even a "See also". There should be a section on sweet/dessert pizzas (however sacrilegious they may be considered) in that main Pizza article. PamD 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pizza per PamD. "Dessert pizza" is a wildly diverse concept where you can get creative with your favorite dessert and favorite pizza style, not something you can really have a cohesive article on – the links above are just food bloggers' recipes, not reliable sources that discuss the topic as a whole and could be used here. I like how there's a whole section at Fruit_pizza#Controversy saying that the only resemblance it has to pizza is the round shape (recipes there being more of a topped Cookie cake). Alternatively, Chocolate pizza could be moved and formatted to cover multiple dessert-type toppings, but I don't think there should be a third article in this space just because you can make an apple pie or raspberry pie on a pizza crust instead of a pie crust (the recipes above would fit into these extant pages anyway!). Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I'm hesitant to say the article could be kept as it is simply a navigational page for two types of dessert pizza. Instead, the section in Pizza I think satisfies this quite well. Conyo14 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pizza. I would make a joke about how every pizza can be a dessert pizza, but I'm above that. With that said, there is an obvious future target in the main article about such a thing, and this title should lead there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pizza, Dessert Pizzas are a notable phenomenon, however they are a topic that is so vague as to mean almost anything, thus a redirect to a section on the pizza article would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... is Pizza#Dessert pizza (a new section stub) a suitable destination for the redirect? Discuss at Talk:Pizza#Dessert_pizza. Andrewa (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded that section a bit, with a few sources, and links to the two existing articles. PamD 07:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of movie theaters

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Lists of cinemas: LISTCRUFT with an impossibly broad scope but if renamed it could be a set index for Category:Lists of cinemas. // Timothy :: talk 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No prejudice against merging, moving, or anything else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beast poetry

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

Completely unsourced barring quotes. No indication of importance. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Europe. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in one form or another. It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term "beast poetry" specifically. However, he seems to be influential in the field. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic, so if nothing else we could merge there. But I'm inclined to keep given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify, convinced by Jfire. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is fo-shizzle notable. It's a matter of reframing the article and creating possible alternate titles. I don't think draftify is warranted here. It can be fixed being on the main space. X (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slatecut, Indiana

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

Another post office back entered to GNIS from the 1876 state atlas: at least that's what Baird says, and given that it seems to be a nondescript rail point, I can believe that. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The second source (published in 1995) on this article states that it was simply a post office. this source on places in Indiana, lists it as a postoffice only. [12]. Let's delete this post office.James.folsom (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Fixed-wing aircraft 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash

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

Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects. No recent news on the topic so fails both CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.

Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED.

The event fails WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):
Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area.^[1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure.^[2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit.^[3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers.^[3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members.^[1]
82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already there and it needs to be kept simple. I do agree with replacing the typo. I'm suggesting the following:

Registration RF-36074 crashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Preliminary reports indicate a technical malfunction.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
^ "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
^ ^a ^b "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.

Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao (talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per nom, this fails WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole keep !vote was blocked as a sock, leaving us with the nom as an implied delete and one merge !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. I see nothing in applied or found sources which makes this aircraft incident more notable than any other crash on the list. BusterD (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Republican movement (Ireland). Discussion on a better redirect target may proceed on the target's Talk page, and/or on Talk:Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group). Owen× ☎ 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) per above reasoning. // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ahmed Yousef. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance

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

Delete or merge into Ahmed Yousef. Fails WP:NORG. Only fleeting mentions of this organization in RS, and an official testifying before the UK Parliament does not establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ahmed Yousef as an alternate to deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Infrastructure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public infrastructure

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

Merge to Infrastructure.Most infrastructure around the world is public.There is no need to create additional article just for public infrastructure. Moreover, the article is not long and the content can be completely covered by Infrastructure.日期20220626 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom although I believe this should have been discussed as a merger rather than brought to AfD. Mooonswimmer 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I proposed merging on the talk page, probably fewer people would participate in the discussion. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." I also vote merge and think you could have done this on your own if if people didn't see the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Israel National Convention

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

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unable to find other sources for this party. Looking at the article, stating that EINC would have contested 1999 Lok Sabha election as Independent, this ought to be Rualpawla (see https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/jews-want-a-room-to-worship/cid/519407 ), who finished in fourth place with 4,508 votes (1.5%), which isn't too bad and there could presumably be more 1999 print material in local press that never made online. As of 1993 Rualpawla was the BJP state secretary [13]. In 2009 another name of party of Rualpawla appears, Israel National Front, [14], [15], [16]. Presumably this is either the same party or 2 different outfits organized by the same guy. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States. 162 etc. (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [17], [18], and [19], which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of St Andrews Athletic Union. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Typhoons

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

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Seen at NPP, moved to draftspace to allow for improvement but reverted by creator. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I reverted an initial draftspace sending, I was just editing over time. What sort of sources should I add to make more credibility? There's only a few sources (university, BUIHA and the team's website) I found out to use. Should I improve in the drafter before releasing or try to expand on the existing page? Fastfads (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to Redirect to the University of St Andrews article if no such sources are proffered. Ravenswing 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added quite a few sources to the new page (and a few new sections with the source expansions!) - direct resources which tell plenty of stories from plenty of reputable outlets (at least in my opinion). Would appreciate your opinion at this point in article growth. Fastfads (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastfads, firstly can I say this nomination is not a reflection on your work. Wikipedia does however have requirements articles must meet to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, most importantly the general notability guideline. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the motives for high quality articles and I understand the initial deletion nomination with what I originally published but I've put a significant amount work into making this article better. And once again, thank you for linking me to the many rules of Wikipedia article writing. It's been an learning experience and I feel my standards have had a lot of growth with recent edits - I think my extremely long "Keep" defense below gives evidence for that growth (and why this article should stay up). Yet I continue to have my work under a microscope - and the sources I have found criticized on the slightest details of independence. No matter what I do, it just doesn't seem like it is enough! At the same time when doing research I see one source articles for other teams in the same league remain with not a single complaint (not to say their existence is wrong - sometimes important histories don't have a lot of sources!). Even if I am told it isn't personal and not a reflection on my work, this perceived difference in standards undeniably makes it feel personal. It is extremely discouraging to me that this topic (on a website that is the de facto answer to any question that needs explanation - even something as niche as a UK university ice hockey team) gets me put under what I believe to be an excessive amount of scrutiny compared to similar articles.

Once again, I don't blame you for simply enforcing the rules of Wikipedia as you saw broken in my initial article. And I still believe in the mission of a global encyclopedia - I'll keep improving this page (to be done as explained in my "Keep" defense below) and pages around Wikipedia. However, regardless of outcome of this AfD (but especially if this fails; I can't spend hours finding sources, formatting and writing just to keep an article I wrote from being immediately sent to the morgue - with a chance that it could be sent back regardless) it will likely be some time before I attempt to create another article. I guess my final question is: What can I do to avoid an AfD on a new article in the future? And is this article still worthy of an AfD in your mind (and if so, why?) Fastfads (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @AusLondonder and @Ravenswing for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way.

Point #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the BUIHA and the team's page at phoons.net - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there.

Point #2: Relative to other team pages in the BUIHA (and to applications of the guidelines in general), the Typhoons are a strong pick to have their own page. Take, for example, the London Dragons which was originally my template for the start of this article. The entire page is summary, roster, awards, retired numbers and what universities are involved. The sources are all the University page, the website and the BUIHA website. Yet, I agree with Wikipedia's editors that as it remains up, it's a worthy article to keep in place in the history of British ice hockey even if it may need more sources as the note shows. While other pages like Oxford University Ice Hockey Club carries far more history and therefore sources, I find it exceptional to compare a team founded in 2011 to the team page of the most historic ice hockey club in Europe. Despite being founded so recently, they still have a shockingly deep history to the team, which brings me to the next point.

Point #3: The Typhoons are an notable and important subject in British university ice hockey as well as in the University of St Andrews culture and history. When I started this, I figured I'd make another team page to fill one of the missing spots on the BUIHA teams list. Yet thanks to the pressure for secondary sources, I found this team is extremely notable in university life in St Andrews - and has an extremely interesting (albeit tragic history). According to University of St Andrews, there are 11,280 students at the school right now, so there is on record just under 15% of the entire school (1500 people) attending Jonny Wookey Memorial Game. While it may not have the historical importance of something like Ice Hockey Varsity Match, attendance that high shows it is a huge event for the students of St Andrews and Scotland as a whole. The only one that seems to even come close in St Andrews would be The Scottish Varsity. Considering the difference in popularity between ice hockey and rugby in Scotland, the fact that the number of people interested is this close is an interesting fact in itself. The game is worth archiving on its own but is especially worth inclusion within the context of a team page that is so important in university ice hockey as they won the championship just 2 years ago.

Point #4: There is still significantly more content to go through. All of the sources I have posted have been from "official" newspapers and sources online, but I have not gone through the years of articles on the experience and history written by the St Andrews student newspaper "The Saint". Even right now on their front page is a new article about the experience at Jonny Wookey this year where they lost. I'm pretty busy right now (I fit in the edits and this piece in a bit of free time) but by Friday I should have a complete page with all secondary sources out there - and a pretty perfect page for Wikipedia if you allow it to stay up.

With all of this, I feel there is plenty of evidence that this article is suitable for conclusion and meets the general notability guideline. Please check out the original article with the new additions. I hope these changes (and new sources) will convince you that this article is worth inclusion. As for me, I'm going to keep working on this page when I have time and I'll be voting Keep for this page. Fastfads (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Sources are exclusively non-independent (websites of BUIHA, Phoons, St Andrews, and St Andrews student newspapers) or fail NOTNEWS (news reports on a missing student). JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would disagree with point #1 lightly with emphasis on the student newspaper - while there is a reliance on sources that are related (and this is considered acceptable in the case of London Dragons, Sheffield Bears, Cardiff Redhawks etc.), there still are independent sources from that student documentary video, The Tab, and most importantly the student newspaper (given it is not funded by the university - it is independent, just adjacent to the community the same way that we consider The Student independent in Edinburgh) - are all independent and direct evidence of the history of the team. If you want to quote the scores or stats, you can find all of these people exist simply through looking at Elite Prospects - but that seems like I'm source dumping just to prove a point that the first Wookey game was won 6-3. It's not like I made this team up. So I both lightly disagree with this point, but also don't see how this mixes with the general notability guideline from which this AfD is built.

In point #2, the NOTNEWS criticism, I do not understand in any way how this fits the criteria for this one. The news articles made in the name of Jonny Wookey are an integral part of the story of this hockey team's biggest event of the year and one of the primary notability reasons about them. NOTNEWS seems to be if I was using breaking news to make this entire article up - but it's an added piece to the stories of Kieran McCann and especially Jonny Wookey who both had an impact on the team - and therefore are viable sources. I would really need an explanation on the not news criticism to consider it.

Lastly, I'm going to take a piece from my looking at the many pages of AfD guidelines and precedents: AFDISNOTCLEANUP and DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP - if the style of sourcing is the problem but this is still notable and passes the guidelines, it isn't worth deleting or redirecting. Fastfads (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of St Andrews Athletic Union - there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so notability has not been establish when judged against the criteria set out in WP:SIRS. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of St Andrews Athletic Union. I opened the refs, they're all primary or tangential. Desertarun (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit

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

Article describes abandonware, all links now lead to a content farm. ojdo (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am the major contributor to this page. I agree this is abandonware and the page should be deleted. 2620:10D:C091:500:0:0:4:4ABF (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[kommer-1] "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

[2] "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

[VRN-3] "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]