Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:27, 7 March 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 06	March 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete‎. per SNOW Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Parkin

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

Courtesy nomination on behalf of the presumed subject themselves on the article’s talk page. The deletion request follows:

I am the subject of this BLP article. I neither sought this article nor welcome it - and I do not consider everyone of my rank to automatically meet the “notable” criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (even if a handful of users comb through promotion announcements and create new pages). Even if admins disagree - I am Not a Public Figure (WP:NPF) and therefore believe I have a right to privacy under the considerations in Wiki policy WP:BLPPRIVACY. In particular, as a serving officer in a time of geopolitical tension, publishing details of my date of birth, exact educational establishments, and middle names leaves me open to phishing, identity theft, social engineering attacks, and possibly threats to my personal and family security. I have therefore reverted an edit that detailed my exact DOB (although I am content to list the year as per policy WP:DOB) and my middle names. I also request that details of my school and related categories is removed. Finally, as someone with no social media, minimal public profile or interest (all public articles are reports of PR quotations from my employer - hardly a sign of notability), I submit this does not meet the threshold for inclusion and request this article is nominated for deletion. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesparkin (talk • contribs) March 6, 2024 (UTC)
—Filed by ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I have sympathy for the subject's desire for privacy, my understanding is that they hold a very senior position in the Royal Navy. If we agreed to this there are plenty of other flag officers and general officers who would need to be deleted as well. As suggested by the subject, I am OK to exclude their exact date of birth, and instead to include just the year, suitably cited. Their middle names have already been disclosed in the London Gazette and are a matter of public record. Dormskirk (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Respectfully, I disagree with the logic behind your argument and the justification therein. You were the original author of this page, a role you fulfil diligently for a significant (but not the majority) proportion of officers of certain ranks in the British Armed forces. There are - at any one time - approx 130 people who are officers in the UK Armed Forces of 2-star rank and above (see para 4.21 of 2023 Report on Senior Salaries) - a group that increases by approximately 20-25 each year as others retire. It cannot be the case that every single one of those officers passes the Wikipedia test on notability. The relevant Wikipedia policy WP:BIO specifically defines notability of a person as:

"remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"

The basic criteria in the same policy WP:BASIC are expanded upon as:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

In no way does an article whose only links are London Gazette citations (which every single recipient of a state honour receives), press releases from employers (Royal Navy and US Navy) and notes accompanying a conference agenda meet these criteria. The other link is to an aggregated list of every junior admiral in Royal Navy history since 1865, which is merely an example of a manual collation of names by a single enthusiast of naval history, and effectively a primary source.

As such, there has been no significant coverage, hardly of these are secondary sources, and none have been multiple-published.

Of course, there may be some of the 130 serving Armed Forces officers who do meet the criteria for notability - my point is that this article (about me) achieves nowhere near this level. Policy WP:NPF is clear about the threshold of Not a Public Figure vs Notable and I cannot see how an obscure person in a job so little-known that the original author (you!) uses the incorrect job title (that was abolished 4 years ago and which I have never held) reaches the level.

The secondary argument you put forward is about my full name and date of birth being “a matter of public record”, citing the London Gazette. Policy WP:BLPPRIVACY says:

Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public

Neither my full name or Date of Birth have been widely published - every single officer in the UK Armed Forces has their full details published in the London Gazette every time they are promoted or decorated, as this is part of holding a Queen’s/King’s commission, and yet the links are so obscure and not indexed by search engines that inclusion on Wikipedia could be considered an invasion of privacy. In addition no document or press release that I have ever approved has included any of these items of information. So neither of these pieces of information have been “widely published” - relying on the London Gazette for which justification is against the spirit and the letter of that Wikipedia policy.

Finally, it is worth reflecting about Wikipedia policy on serving members of the Armed Forces having BLP. Who does this benefit? For public figures, widely quoted and seen, of very senior rank, the notability threshold is clearly met- but for others, of no interest to the public but useful to potential enemies, this sort of thing is gold dust. Well meaning but flawed logic trying to dig up obscure snippets of personal information and publishing it on the worlds biggest reference site causes significant security risks to those people in senior positions who would be - in a time of conflict - in severe personal danger. I note that hardly any equivalent rank officers from other Armed Forces from less open societies have their own Wiki pages - insisting on doing it to officers from open societies places families at risk and there should certainly be a Wikipedia policy on this. Jamesparkin (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Jamesparkin (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has made some very good points: I am withdrawing my objection to deletion. Dormskirk (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject removed his middle names, cited only to the London Gazette, arguably a WP:BLPPRIMARY source, but it was restored by the article creator. WP:BLPPRIVACY states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" Also per BLPPRIVACY: "The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified" AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To clarify, he only removed one of his middle names in his original edit removing personal information. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity - I did not edit any of the text of this page (I have always been told that as soon as you do that, you are endorsing its presence) to remove/add a middle name - I just "reverted" the whole edit which, for the first time, included my Date of Birth. You have noticed something I had not, which is that there was a difference in the two versions as to middle names. Jamesparkin (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I don't really have strong views about the middle names and am happy to see them go. Dormskirk (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking account of the apparent subject's points. Back to basics: per WP:PRIMARY: "5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources". I see only primary sources in this article. Essentially what the subject is complaining of is that, yes, the information is obtainable from the public record, but only in relatively obscure primary sources - we're propelling that information across the internet by publishing it on one its most prominent websites. As a headline, secondary sources are basically not interested in him and neither should we be. DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's reasonable request. More broadly, a person is only notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the person. Routine coverage in armed forces and government sources does not meet that threshold. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested by the subject, a right stated in policy. As said above, there's only routine coverage, not conferring notability, so there's no obstacle to the requested deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not like this man's rank is at the top of the military, not like he's done anything that makes his life and associates international headlines. And as far as I can tell, this man is unlikely to live on in his country's history books. Of all people, Wikipedia editors with assumed identities should appreciate this man's right to privacy. Wikipedians can use any identity they want when they join. Those same Wikipedians can maintain their alias until the day they die if they like. Their friends, families, and co-workers are automatically protected by that anonymity. We should extend that same courtesy here by honoring this individual's right to not have his article on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speeedy Delete at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Agreed, Delete, I see no need to keep this. ResonantDis_tortion 08:55, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khambana Kao Phaba (painting)

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

Little indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, India, and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate national press coverage. Evidently a source of pride in the very small state of Manipur - I expect this is the only Manipuri work of art with an article. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod, meets GNG and may be Wikipedia's sole example of Manipuri artwork with an article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the painting has encyclopedic value per comments above, and it satisfies the general notability guideline. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod, meets GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 13 March 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!} 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Help Achieving Self Empowerment

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

This article is based on a lot of primary sources. A search in google news and books yields very little, and not enough to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Nepal, and Austria. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The org has one (1) hit in the Austrian joint library system, a 2012 article in the British Journal of General Practice about improving primary care services in rural Nepal, doi:10.3399/bjgp12X656892, written by a PHASE employee. I don't think the Austrian connection is going to be able to contribute much in terms of establishing notability. GR Kraml (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 21 March 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) 04:12, 28 March 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 World Union for Progressive Judaism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netzer Olami

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to parent org World Union for Progressive Judaism. Fails WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Israel, Belarus, France, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (at best). Page does not contain a single WP:RS. A search via Newsbank database found 11 brief mentions, nothing that clearly meets WP:RS to establish notability to meet WP:NORG, but probably sufficient to justify a brief section in the main article as suggested by nom. Cabrils (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World Union for Progressive Judaism. The World Union for Progressive Judaism is weak on this important content and it would be disservice to WP if we do not set this straight in the procedure. Same applies to and attempting to broaden the discussion to:

Arzenu

Hopefully not to late to include this. Both mergers will ease the article fragementation that currently lead to a user experience from hell. gidonb (talk) 19:52, 2 March 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) 02:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GidonB Marokwitz (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra HyAlfa

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

As far as I can tell it never went on sale Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but consider a small merge to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as a possible search term Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully for more participation. But this article can't be Merged to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as that is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that the 2012 press release (which appeared in numerous Indian papers) was the only time that this vehicle has ever appeared. The use of the vehicles at Pragati Maidan did happen until at least 2015 but Mahindra never issued another press release on the subject. Its described as a concept vehicle on the Hydrogen vehicle page. MNewnham (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears that the prototype got some coverage but nothing more than that. I'm not opposed to a minor merge/redirect to Mahindra and Mahindra either but that doesn't seem to be necessary as most companies go through multiple prototypes before selecting a product. —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A prototype, promotional coverage in few blogs not news papers. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:40, 13 March 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. Merge /redirect as an ATD views did not seem to get much support here. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Anime and Manga Studies

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

Relatively new journal, not indexed in any selective database, does not meet WP:NJournals. The current version of the article has 11 references. However, almost all are not independent, but either published by the journal itself or its publisher. One independent source is an article in The Washington Post, which is stated to have used the journal to "source" an article. This is somewhat of an exaggeration: the TWP article cites Billy Tringali, mentioning that he's the editor of the Journal of Anime and Manga Studies, so in fact this is just an in passing mention. Taken together, this article also misses WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Anime and manga. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty This journal is indexed in Art and Architecture Source.

[1]https://www.ebsco.com/m/ee/Marketing/titleLists/asu-coverage.htm 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, EBSCO databases are not very selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Selective" feels arbitrary. The "selective" journal listings recommended are social science and science indexes. This is an interdisciplinary journal focused on anime and manga, an art medium, that is indexed in an art database, meaning it meets Criteria 1:B. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A selective database in the sense of NJournals would be the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. I'm sorry, but 1b is not met. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on the NJournals that notes that. You are making an arbitrary choice on what does and does not meet 1b. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing arbitrary about that, but a long-standing consensus in this project. See our journal AfD archive. --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very upsetting, but good to know. What warrants a ""selective"" index should be more accurately described in NJournals. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON I think. Even in ResearchGate, it barely cracks the triple digit views [2], hovering around the 1000 view mark. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with a !Merge to the publisher, which I think is the University of Illinois? Could always fork it after, if it gets more notice.Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a merge would be undue. In the framework of the whole university, this journal is really not important. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm new to AFD discussions. And I created this entry, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to participate in this AFD. I trust that more experienced editors will make the right call on this one, but here's why I thought the journal was notable. Criteria 3 of WP:JOURNALCRIT states that a journal should be historically important. And Criteria 1 that it should be considered influential in its subject area. JAMS, according to an academic conference on the subject of anime studies, is one of only two journals in the field. The conference even named a session after the journal, "MechaJAMS Symposium"--see the 2023 program.[3] I'll take whatever decision this process lands on in the spirit of WP:AGF. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hello, Jaireeodell. As Tony Wilson (played by Steve Coogan) remarked in 24 Hour Party People - it's good that you're here. It's always good if a significant contributor to (or author of) an article participates in the process. AfD isn't so much about deletion as about where an article might get improved to the point it may warrant inclusion. Can You provide some more references as to the significance of the journal as being one of few to handle anime and manga? Conference programme, sure, but maybe more written material? Perhaps you have access to offline sources? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites major players in the Anime, including the Anime News Network, Crunchyroll News, and Anime Expo, on top of an announcement by the National Diet Library, all discussing JAMS. If more detailed coverage is needed, this might be a TOOSOON. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaireeodell, I would suggest looking for GNG coverage, as NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline, and so is irrelevant to determining notability of this subject. JoelleJay (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to read all of the nom , you'll see that it also states that GNG is not met. There's no argument to keep this based on NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep there is a decent bit of coverage, probably under the GNG bar. Sees broader coverage than most journals including at a non-academic conference. This is more of an IAR thing probably, but... I've gone back-and-forth on this a bit... Hobit (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Sourcing is very weak on this one, right at the borderline. I'd like to see this sent to draft to allow more time for the Journal to mature and get more coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 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) 02:34, 7 March 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) 05:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any GNG-qualifying sources in a search, which is the only relevant actual notability guideline. I find IAR arguments entirely unconvinving; we are effectively promoting this journal by having an article on it (indeed, the journal's about page mentions that it is "indedexed" by Wikipedia, and the article has essentialy no expansion prospects as is. Besides, it's unfair to strictly enforce notability guidelines on, say, very popular we series but use an essay that has not and will not ever get widespread consensus to justify keeping article's considered more "encyclopedic" to a loud minority of the editor base Mach61 20:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read the nom again, there is no argument made to keep this journal article based on WP:NJournals. In fact, it is clearly stated that this does not meet NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty, I was referring to other participants, not you Mach61 23:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Local university project. The article only aims to promote it. Svartner (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge or weak delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG or such. Not indexed in selective databases, not noticed and discussed anywhere. Would prefer redirecting it to a publisher, if one is notable and can be identified - I looked at the journal about page and couldn't find anything. The article claims this is the founder, so it is plausible IUPUI University Library is the publisher? Redirect and merge would be preferable to deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, although the editor works at IUPUI, the journal is published by IOPN ... a unit of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign University Library. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Water 1st International

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

Created by a single purpose editor. I could not find significant coverage like in google news. Many of the external links provided are now dead links. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Washington. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 7 March 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. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line

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

I decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can add it by adding inline citations and original source from the NGCP Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx NGCP is not an independent source, right? We need more sources that are unrelated to the subject. NGCP is the operator of the transmission line itself, and its website is already non-independent of the subject itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'am not owned this article, @Ervin111899 currently owned this article and I also add some of the missing information, adding some correct citations etc. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx note I mentioned you since you responded here and I need to get your attention in my response. Also, take note that no user can own a Wikipedia article, per WP:OWN, as Wikipedia articles are collaborative works.

Any way, the pre-COVID pandemic era article of the same transmission line – that got deleted – was also created by Ervin111899. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened about the article was created in 2019 before pandemic Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @JWilz12345, what happened to the same article "Hermosa–Balintawak Transmission Line" since pre-COVID-19 pandemic. Is something wrong about the citations or lacking information. Since @Ervin111899 was after indefinitly blocked, due to abusing multiple accounts, he/him/their/they created the second article named Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line but ended up as another deletion that mentions the article has lack of citations, external links or it can be lack of information in power transmission operators NAPOCOR, Transco, and NGCP. Their documents is privately secured and the inaacurate infos is in the said article. So thats why you have to nominate in the said article and possible deletion of @Ervin111899 as the articles not to be supposed by the viewers and even breaking the NGCP's property. Thanks a lot! -- Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 10:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx read this. You seem to haven't visited the link I inserted at "was deleted" at the nomination paragraph above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I visited twice. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @User:Liz I'm responding to Your call for participation and FWIW I'll try to find time over the weekend to take a look at this article. Pieces of infrastructure may be notable but don't necessarily need to be. For the moment I assume good faith in terms of the article. Hope to get back to You in a couple of days with some information. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must this page is to keep it because some viewers curious in NLEX. Keep this page for all curious viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 08:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx unfortunately, much of the sources are not independent of the subject. NGCP and DOE are not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject, thus the sources are non-independent and do not give weight to the notability of this article.

Also, too many original researches, which are discouraged, read WP:OR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC) and National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), although both were also involved in the transmission line and its associated projects when they operated and maintained the Philippine power grid (NAPOCOR/NPC from June 1994 to March 1, 2003 and TransCo from March 1, 2003 to January 15, 2009), are also not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject thus the sources coming from them (or company name shown (none at all for the case of lands and rights-of-way (ROWs) or portions acquired and designated by NAPOCOR/NPC where it simply says "Danger: High Voltage Keep Away") on high voltage signs because that company was the one designated and acquired the lands where the structures/facilities are located and portions of a power line when the line and their structures are seen physically or on Google Maps) are non-independent. Ervin111899 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the original sources Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive use of the original sources can be discourage to viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx we need more secondary sources, like SunStar source used in the controversy section. Significant coverage of the transmission line in reliable, independent secondary sources will give more weight than non-independent sources (like DOE etc.) or primary sources (like NGCP, TransCo etc.). This ensures the article is neutral and not providing facts that unreasonably favor the people or organizations heavily connected to the subject, like NGCP and DOE. Secondary sources may include reputable news outlets or agencies, like Philippine News Agency, Rappler, GMA News, ABS-CBN News, or Manila Bulletin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Surgery (album)

AfDs for this article:

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

The band has just been nominated (by me) for deletion. The band was already twice deleted from Hewiki. The band's other album has just been redirected, as the band article was still there. This album has been deleted in a previous AfD and was recreated. Any and all are non-notable. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Israel. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can hopefully be speeded by G4! gidonb (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page already has two reviews from reliable sources per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources. Here is a third mention on Impact Press and a fourth one on AMP (magazine). Broc (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM from sources presented here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 7 March 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet spot (sports)

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

~~Unsourced since 2009, mostly a dictionary definition DrowssapSMM 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Withdraw: article has been significantly improved. DrowssapSMM 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DrowssapSMM 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is a well-defined and widely-covered concept in both baseball and cricket, with extensive sourcing to prove it. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, the references shared above, and the depth of the concept in general. I am surprised the article has zero references. It really needs to be filled out. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy, and 15 years is long enough. The Heymann criterion should be to add two reliable sources within the next seven days after this second relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDICT. Already covered at Glossary of baseball terms#S and could readily be added to similar articles for other sports. Nigej (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Let'srun (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems more in place in a dictionary. AA (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems rather interesting and odd that none of the delete !voters above have addressed (or even mentioned) the sourcing provided in this discussion long before they arrived, so I don't see how they could carry much, if any, weight. They look like drive-by editors casting personal opinions who didn't bother to read this discussion, review the sources, or consider important matters like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Meanwhile, in addition to the sources previously presented, I also found these two books which offer extensive in-depth secondary analysis of the sweet spot concept, further strengthening the case to keep the article. Left guide (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with the multiple sources of significant coverage (for multiple sports even) identified by user Left guide above. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (but adding sources to the article can only mitigate false impressions).—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What do those editors arguing Delete think about the sources brought up in this discussion? Could any of those advocating Keep add them to the article? If this subject is mentioned elsewhere, then why isn't anyone arguing for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD? This is a juggling act.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above sourcing covers just baseball and cricket. For tennis, there's this article from a university engineering department magazine which offers a rather large section dedicated to the sweet spot concept; at the very bottom it also cites as one of its references H. Brody, ”The Physics of Tennis II: The ‘sweet spot’.” American Journal of Physics, vol. 49, pp. 816, 1981., which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal offering dedicated coverage of this concept. Then there's this book published by a university press; chaper 2 is titled The Sweet Spots of a Tennis Racket and spans 16 pages (23-38). Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is adequate. This is more than dictionary definition and I see lots of room for expansion. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We've been given lots of sources about the baseball sweet spot, the cricket sweet spot, the tennis sweet spot, etc. What we're lacking are sources about the sweet spot in sports generally. Are there good sources discussing the concept as it applies to all sports. So while the concept relates to many sports, I'm still not convinced that we need an article on it. As I noted above the concept can be covered for specific sports, either within an existing article or even as separate article if there's enough content to justify it. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a WP:BROADCONCEPT page:
Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics.
—Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some very good points to consider. I'd argue there's enough sourcing to justify separate articles on the sweet spots for baseball, cricket, and tennis if a split is a palpable resolution. However, there is also plenty of generalized interconnected coverage of this concept across all sports, tying them together; some examples:

On page 719 of this book, it says: If we compare baseball and tennis with cricket, baseball bats are made up of solid wood or hollow aluminum barrels and tennis rackets are made up of composites. All the batsmen know that there is a special spot on a cricket bat where the shots feel very smooth. It sometimes feels so good that there is almost no sensation at all that the bat hit the ball. It is the same with a tennis racquet or a baseball bat. These areas have been given various names such as sweet zone, sweet spot, etc. A sweet spot is a position that is identified by the batsmen at the best location of the bat with which the ball comes in contact and gives the maximum exit velocity.

There's also page 202 of this book which demonstrates and explains a mathematical physics equation needed to find the sweet spot; included in its commentary is This is the ideal point at which to hit a ball with a bat (sometimes called a 'sweet spot' in sporting applications — cricket, tennis, baseball, etc.)

Then page 365 of this book is unfortunately sandwiched between two pages not visible to me on preview mode, but from that page alone it says Considerable work has been done on the physical interpretation of the 'sweet spot' and its location on the cricket bat using the research on baseball bats as the basis. It is possible to establish such correlations as the mechanics of swinging the bat is similar for both games. The length and weight of the cricket bat and baseball bat are also similar…Based primarily on extensive research on tennis racquets and baseball bats, today it is widely accepted that there are other impact locations on the bat that are capable of producing the greatest post impact ball velocity. That page alone also cites about ten other sources inline which can be referred to.

In this book, Chapter 4.5 titled "Angular impulse and the centre of percussion" begins with Have you ever wondered why a cricket bat, a baseball bat or a tennis racquet has a sweet spot? This is the point on the bat where the ball seems to be hit most cleanly, without producing much vibration in the handle followed by a demonstration and explanation of the mathematical physics equations required to calculate the position of the sweet spot.

These sources show a great deal of analysis on the sweet spot concept in a manner that cohesively ties all the sports together. These are mere snippets (as in there is a lot more about sweet spots than just what is quoted) so as not to needlessly overwhelm this discussion, but please read and go the sources to see the full depth and breadth of coverage for yourself if you still have any doubts or questions. Left guide (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has been improved dramatically since its nomination and Left guide's research clearly shows there is extensive sourcing on the concept which can be used to improve the article further. Hatman31 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sourcing and I can see future improvements in place. Can't see this being merged to something. 🍪 CookieMonster 04:41, 21 March 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 whether to keep or redirect. This discussion can continue on the Talk if desired. Star Mississippi 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Alive (band)

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

Non-notable band. No coverage in RS, also by NEXIST. Promotional writeup. Circular sourcing, for example here: On June 11, 2012, it was announced on the band's Facebook page that the band has decided to record a new album., i.e. the band member(s) make "announcements" on FB then quote themselves on WP. Has already twice been deleted at Hewiki. No updates since 2013. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Israel. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to their only notable album Open Surgery (album). Broc (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reverse of the usual procedure, because there would then be an orphaned album article with no connection to a band. The fact that the one album got some reliable reviews might actually enhance the band's article, but not by much. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 while it is true that the usual case is a notable band and a non-notable album, here we likely have a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The album contributes to the band's notability but not enough to fulfill any WP:BAND criteria. Broc (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions on this discussion. Doomsdayer520 is correct, we typically turn non-notable albums and songs articles as redirects to a musical group's page. I have even seen articles deleted because there was an album article but no article on the band.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Liz I'm honestly not sure about standard for albums, but for books I have at least an example (because I was involved in the AfD) where we redirected the author to the book: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Houston (mathematician). Broc (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need more opinions. The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album), that is also at AFD. Two or three more points of view would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album (if the album survives the AfD). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Normally I would be indifferent about an AfD for a mid-level band like this, but talking about redirecting the band's article to one of their albums, just because that album got a whopping two reviews that anyone can find, is downright absurd to put it lightly. The album reviews have some basic band history that can be used to support the band's article: [4], [5]. Also they have a reasonably robust AllMusic biography: [6]. Here's a little more news from one of the magazines that reviewed the album: [7]. That's enough for a stub article for the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are niche sources, not RS. Then again, the album has been kept under the same. AllMusic rewrites what artists send them. gidonb (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments are divided between Delete, Redirect and Keep. By the way, right now, it looks like AFD discussion on the album will close as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to kept album. There's a boatload of uncited assertions on this article, but no claim of notability. I disagree with User:doomsdayer520 there's enough upon which to base an article on the group. What we're missing is actual reliable sources directly detailing, and I'm not seeing anything approaching that standard so far on the page or in a reasonable BEFORE. There's nothing to keep here, no sources with which to describe the band. The album was a bare pass; based on sourcing, the album is sufficient coverage. BusterD (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not supposed to contribute to this discussion as a prior band member, but interesting to hear the process here. The album was notable to me, lol. 135.23.150.249 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe merge the album to the band article. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What about notability? gidonb (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The album should have been deleted and should still be deleted. Yet, for as long as it is kept, there is of course no problem with a redirect with prejudice against the notability of the band. This is written in response to Liz's relisting comment way back: The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album), that is also at AFD. gidonb (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the album article has been kept, the only viable options are "redirect/merge" or "keep". Mach61 19:31, 18 March 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. Rather than a third relist, I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Ruddock

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:BEFORE does not call up any RS for this artist. I am not finding any sources for claims of being in collections. The article, as currently written, has 4 dead links. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NARTIST. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, dead links not necessarily a problem, but all refs seem to be local news/gallery. No evidence of widespread/national level exhibition or recognition. Hemmers (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, if not the artist-specific criteria. Have added multiple sources to the article, including this review in a local Ontario newspaper. Her reputation really is as one of the top artists from Guelph, but at least her work is also acknowledged in publications in other parts of Ontario. If this article is not kept, I would suggest a merge and redirect with her husband Nicholas Ruddock's bio, even though their careers are in completely different spheres of work; they have been married for nearly 50 years and there is a lot of coverage about that as well since he likes to talk about it. (It would seem like a more natural fit to combine their bios, if they were both artists or both novelists. For this reason as well, I think it makes more sense to keep her article separate.) Regarding the collections holding her work, there is plenty of secondary coverage accessible via ProQuest that verifies this one by one; it would just take some time to add it back to the article. I came across many snippets of critics assessing/commenting on her work as well in newspapers from the mid-1980s through to her more recent exhibitions, which could be added to the section on "Reception". Cielquiparle (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful at this point to get some feedback about article improvements that have been made since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are too local, I don't think she's at notability for artists. She doesn't seem to have gathered much attention from the national press in Canada. Guelph is a lower mid sized city in Ontario, so she has some local notability, but it's not Ottawa or Toronto. I don't see her works having been displayed at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the McMaster in Hamilton or any of the national Galleries in Ottawa. I suspect she might not be notable (for our purposes) until after she passes away and the wider art community takes notice. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She's in the permanent collection of the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery [8], a regional museum. Does that add to notability? I'm somewhat out of my wheelhouse on this one. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that meets presumed criteria under WP:NARTIST. Criterion 4d would suggest it is necessary to be part of the permanent collection of several notable galleries. Is Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery notable? It has no page and is regional, but even if we grant that it is, this is just one collection. We need several. I think we should be looking at BASIC and ANYBIO. Cielquiparle asserts they meet BASIC, citing one review. The review is occasioned by an exhibition at Glenhyrst Art Gallery. I do not see how that rises above a primary source, tbh. She is an artist, she has an exhibition, and someone writes about the exhibition - which is reporting. Any artist with an exhibition will get that much.

Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on?

I haven't entered a !vote here because I have not satisfied myself that no secondary sources can be found, but I don't see any that have been presented to date. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A review is not a primary source. A gallery announcing an exhibit is a primary source, but a review is secondary by definition, if it is in fact independent. Anyway there are more sources in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The art is the primary source and the review of the art is indeed secondary by definition. But as with all sources, whether a source is primary or secondary often depends on the question being asked. It is secondary for the art, but reporting of an artist's exhibition is primary for the artist. If it goes beyond reporting then it may be secondary for the artist too. But as I said, Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on? That is the real question. I'll take a look at the other sources in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being represented in the Canada Council Art Bank (confirmed) has some heft, and along with the other collections, I believe she passes WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I said I would look at the other references in the article. Quite a lot of them are dead. There are a few that contain information that could be used to write about her, such as [9], but these write ups used in exhibitions tend to be written by the artist themself. As such they are inot independent. I looked at her CV [10] and this largely confirms Oaktree b's comments. However, per Curiocurio, the public collections at the end does mention Canada Council Art Bank among others. I am leaning delete, but would sway to keep if I believed NARTIST criterion 4 was met:
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I think the Canada Council Art Bank is definitely one, but we need several. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is in several. I don't see what the problem is with the Art Gallery of Hamilton, as Hamilton is not a small city. I also confirmed the Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery and Glenhyrst in Brant. The University of Guelph site is under construction so couldn't be confirmed. Curiocurio (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also she has her own entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Artists which could technically be interpreted as satisfying WP:ANYBIO #3 (broadly construed). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of it, I believe the Canadian equivalent would be Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Nothing lesser if the source is to be used to establish presumptive notability. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It is borderline, but I am out of my expertise here, and so I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to keeping the article. There does, on the face of it, appear to be reason to believe she is more than just regionally notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 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 Regions of Slovakia. as an ATD suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional regions of Slovakia

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

This article consists entirely of a short yet confusing list with very little context. It's not clear what a "traditional region" is. It has no references. If anything, it should be merged into Regions of Slovakia. Also, while there are a lot of pages that say they link here, I think most if not all of the links are just the Slovakia infobox. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "traditional region" is very easy to understand, comparing with Districts of Norway and Provinces of Sweden. They are districts/regions that are not regions in a formal sense (anymore). With that being said, the List of traditional regions of Slovakia looks like it used to be an addendum to another list (and checking the history, indeed it was). It also seems too light for its own list though, and the contents should therefore be mentioned at Regions of Slovakia. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about, since the article is dreadfully short (compare e. g. similar one on Polish historical regions), unless expanded this could serve as a separate section at Regions of Slovakia? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Regions of Slovakia. Difficult to source, unlike, e.g., Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure by the comments here about a "mention" whether or not editors are advocating a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I would not want to merge this list, because it is unsourced. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same can be said about just any other region. Lorstaking (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Regions of Slovakia. These traditional regions are clearly real; all four of them have full Wikipedia articles, three of them in English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to pull sources from those articles or research further if sourcing is unsatisfactory. All of them and many more listed on List of tourism regions of Slovakia, so it shouldn't be hard to find official information about them from the tourism board. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 8 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General order

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

This might be notable, but we have unreferenced stub, with a req for references since 2013. Unless someone can improve this, perhaps a redirect will suffice for now? To Operations order, perhaps? Or better, to Military order (instruction), which seems to be the parent topic? (Btw, if anyone cares for those topics both operations and the military order are very poor, barely referenced, and all fail to show WP:GNG, although common sense suggests that at least the general concept of a military order is notable, and I'd not be surprised to find out that general and operations have stand-alone notability as well - but until that is shown with sources, some redirecting may be in order (pun not intended), also given that 99% of the content is unreferenced and possibly WP:ORish in all of these articles :( ) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Given your comment that you think [t]his might be notable, I presume you did not follow WP:BEFORE and conduct a search, so I !vote to procedurally keep this article without prejudice to opening another AfD if this topic proves to be not notable. If my assumption is wrong, please correct me. As an independent reason for my procedural keep, deletion is not for cleanup and since the proposal here is to redirect, the proper course would have been to boldly blank and redirect, rather than open a deletion discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC); striking per TompaDompa 23:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rationale in the nomination is not a lack of notability, a search for sources to ascertain notability is not required per WP:BEFORE (the specific instructions are If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. and Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability). Likewise, using WP:AfD to discuss potential merges and redirects is encouraged in some cases per WP:CONRED: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Favor keep: It is a terminology in actual use, but the desired acceptable proof may lie elsewhere. I may have contributed to that article in the course of dumping general knowledge. knoodelhed (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find myself somewhat one the border between a keep and a merge. Fundamentally, I think there's a broad-concept article to be written here. For one, searching google scholar for ""general order" military" gives quite a lot of results. While most are about specific general orders, there are also some about the limitations of such order. See e.g. Hiromoto, Lee (2021). "No, Sir: Can a Military Doctor Be Prosecuted for Refusing an Order from the President?" (PDF). Penn State Law Review. 125 (2). ISSN 1545-7877.. It also appears to be discussed in the abstract in some textbook-style texts, such as Tutherly, Herbert Everett (1898). Elementary Treatise on Military Science and the Art of War.. That said, broad-concept articles are notoriously difficult to write and I can't help but wonder whether at the present a merger into Military order (instruction) would result in a stronger, more coherent article. Even if merged, I naturally would not oppose separating the relevant content into a dedicated article down the line when the amount of content so dictates. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As in many other AFDs, the choice seems between relisting and closing as No consensus. I'll try one relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Special:Allpages/General_Order for a list of articles about individual general orders, both real and fictitious. References from these other articles which might improve this article. The term "general order" is also used by regulatory agencies. See General Order 32 for an order from the Federal Communications Commission, and Potato General Order, Man Reg 123/2000 for Manitoba's Potato General Order. See this Supreme Court of Canada case for a discussion of General Order 162 of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and General Order T-40 of Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per my comment above, I think there's an article to be written here, and my uncertainty is more about whether at the present a merger would result in a stronger article. That discussion, however, can be held at the article talk page down the line if someone feels strong enough to start it. Thus, in the absence of any good reason to !vote anything else, I'll mark myself down as a weak keep. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep without prejudice to a merge down the road (in either direction) per Ljleppan. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 15 March 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. Another AFD closed as No consensus due to low participation. My suggestion to the nominator is to try again in six months. Maybe by then we'll have more editors participating in AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election

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

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It does not satisfy any of the subsections of WP:COVERAGE, nor WP:GEOSCOPE, and is very borderline on WP:LASTING.

In addition, the citations used or otherwise available are exclusively WP:PRIMARY; this contravenes the WP:NOR policy, which prohibits “bas[ing] an entire article on primary sources". Newspaper sources published the same day of the events described are indisputably primary—see WP:RSBREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS for the reasoning.

In conclusion, the article is in contravention of an editing policy and a notability guideline, so any keep votes will need to address that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Philippines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An WP:ATD should be considered, outright deletion would be inappropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why Curbon7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATDs should always be sought out if one is available. For instance, election results for national offices is something that is always going to meet the criteria for inclusion, whether as a standalone article or in a collection list (see WP:NOPAGE). In this case, I see this election is listed at List of special elections in the Philippines#Philippine Legislature (without numerical results), so that can be a valid target for redirection if this article is deemed not sufficiently notable as a standalone page. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In that case, I support redirecting to that section too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as redirect but have reopened and relisted for further input following a request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request. I'm the creator of the article, and I've purposely declined myself from commenting. WP:AFD and Wikipedia itself seems to have ever-so declining numbers of volunteers as evidenced by this discussion. As no one cares to comment about this, and I don't think relisting this would work, if ever WP:CONSENSUS is to remove this from mainspace, I'd request for it to be draftified, then delete the link as if it shows up as a redlink. Ergo, no redirects, but the content is saved somewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have some opinions for Redirection and an editor advocating Draftification. No consensus has been reached yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 7 March 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!} 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo)

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

I don't want to individually nominate every page in [[Category:Presbyterian denominations in South Korea]], even though none of them seem individually notable. It would flood the AfD log, so consider this a stand-in nomination since there's not really a way to nominate multiple articles at once with Twinkle. DrowssapSMM 01:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and South Korea. DrowssapSMM 01:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete for this specific article, but skeptical of the other deletions. There's not much online that I can find about this branch; here's an article in a major South Korean Christian newspaper that I think is about it: [11]. However, I think it's likely this and other branches are covered in detail in Korean-language academic sources that are behind paywalls or are in print. The Presbyterian Church in South Korea is infamously fractured and is well studied.

The larger branches especially should not be deleted. Here's an article in The Chosun Ilbo about the Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDong) and Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap): [12]. Another in Kukmin Ilbo about TongHap: [13].

Tl;dr the deletion proposals I think need to be individually made, with searches in the Korean language. toobigtokale (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the source identified above is about it and the size of the membership suggests there should be more coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 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, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Malnati

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

Not seeing genuine notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The sources which exist are either non-independent, unreliable, or passing mentions. Much PR, but no in-depth coverage. Notability is not inherited from either the magicians' podcast or the company. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReLiva Physiotherapy and Rehab

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

spam from blocked paid editor refbombed to primary sources, routine announcements, pr and copyright violations on udrop duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advert for a non-notable enterprise. KJP1 (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy Wellness Foundation

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

spam from blocked paid editor. non notable business. bombarded with press releases and public relations announcements. some sources used dishonesty, not verifying the pages content. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a recent new PR agency, supported by PR sources. Discounting the announcement-based coverage of awards given by the company, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam from blocked sock. Quasi-independent looking sources originate via WP:RSPANI, which could be legit, but in combination with bad-faith user... probably unmarked paid content.

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 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 attack on Dallas police

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT, only 1 death (the perpetrator) and all coverage seems to be from June 2015 so no WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Death toll really doesn't mean anything for notability except it is likely there will be more coverage. Some incidents that killed 20+ people aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, some incidents where no one died are well referenced and comprehensive and had an effect. The context matters more, and the context of the motive and police here makes me lean keep given the sourcing

Anyway, IMO it is on the edge of NEVENT, since there is later sourcing:

2016 One year later: Dallas police headquarters shooting
2016 Texas’ Gun Culture and Politics Made Dallas Shooting Inevitable (about the later attack, but opens with several paragraphs discussing this one)
Lead to upgrades in their security, discussed in 2018 [14] [15] [16]
2016 Cop Killers: Fatal Shootings of Police Are Rising

As an ATD merge a small portion to the background section of the 2016 attack on the same police department the next year and redirect, since it seems like relevant context that someone else had tried and failed to do that just the year before, and several reliable sources connect them (and a lot of the same officers were involved). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, changing vote to merge relevant content to the background section of 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. This is probably best served in the context of that, and the comparisons that several sources draw can go in the reactions section. The background section of that article is lacking anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers per PARAKANYAA. The article is a good example of WP:RECENTISM, with one of the remedies listed in that essay being a merge. While the event does not fall under the criteria of WP:NOTNEWS due to the unusual circumstances of the attack (an assault on police HQ using a "Zombie Apocalypse Assault Vehicle and Troop Transport" is not WP:MILL) and should be retained, it should not remain a standalone article. Rather than being considered as follow-up reporting, the sourcing provided above could be seen more as retrospective analysis only, especially with the death of the perpetrator and no other casualties sustained. However, the sources do seem to tie the two events together. The proposed target is a similar event with a similar name in the same city, carried out only one year later by a similarly deranged perpetrator, so bundling these together makes perfect sense. StonyBrook _babble 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noel McCullagh

AfDs for this article:

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

This article seems to have had quite a history, including as past AfD, but in its current state, it simply does not assert notability, pass GNG, or even meet VER for its full light content (and for any noting that it was once x10+ the size, at least some of the deleted content was definitely not appropriate). A regular journalist and failed electoral candidate is simply not qualified. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about a journalist or political candidate. What's given now isn't sufficient as sourcing. No sourcing at all in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Ireland, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This version of the article makes it clear was that his notability was as a patient who had been prescribed cannabis-based medicine that the Irish government wouldn't allow into that country. The article might be moved to something like Irish government prohibition and recognition of cannabis-based medicines. His health status is relevant because it is why he was prescribed the medicine and why the Irish government (I think) eventually changed its mind and allowed access to the medicine. His candidacy in the election is relevant because it was a way to get attention to the campaign to allow access to the medicine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging, and exploring the history; I also did give these points thought, but (i) they're not in the article now, and most related content was removed for good reasons, and (ii) I'm not sure that the subject was instrumental or driving in the debates around those topics, rather they were an object in them. I really do not see notability for them as a biographical subject. SeoR (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even looking at the old version of the article, this feels like WP:NOTNEWS. He wasn't elected and was only really notable for the WP:BLP1E of not being able to enter Ireland. I don't know how you rehabilitate the article through editing, either, considering how much was correctly removed over a decade ago now. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The old version of the article relies on a Sunday Tribune whose link is dead and which I can't find archived, and a second one which is available, but only has a single mention of McCullagh in the lead. That is not sufficient to establish independent notability. Cortador (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only going on its current content not its history, a failed election candidate is not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could perhaps get a line or two on cannabis policy in Ireland; even with the explanations above, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Parkin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khambana Kao Phaba (painting)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Practical Help Achieving Self Empowerment}}