Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 06	September 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 no consensus. The majority of this discussion surrounds the best way to organize all of this information (i.e. separate articles vs. including it all in one table). There was some minimal discussion about whether or not the individual subjects of each list are notable enough for a standalone list, but no strong agreement on that. Overall, there are slightly more delete votes than keep votes (10-8), but I don't think that there is strong enough agreement in the discussion to justify deleting four articles.

My personal opinion would be to discuss this further as part of a merge discussion rather than an AfD (where the stakes are higher), and perhaps investigate whether all of these various list articles about New Zealand PM birth/death statistics could be combined into a single List of prime ministers of New Zealand by birth/death statistics, or something along those lines. That might assuage the concerns about the main New Zealand PM list article becoming too bloated if this information were all included in it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth

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

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

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

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

Batch nomination: This is all information which could without difficulty be included in the List of prime ministers of New Zealand (via a sortable table or something); without the need for all of these single-issue content forks (for most of which the information is already included in the main list anyway; the rest might as well be trivia). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. All non-trivial content could be included on the List of prime ministers of New Zealand article. Ajf773 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding the information in these articles to List of prime ministers of New Zealand is possible, but the table in that article is already quite wide, and in particular the images of burial places would be unbalancing. I am no great expert on tables, but given that the table contains sections for Colonial Secretaries, Premiers and Prime Ministers, and the Government column in many cases spans more than one prime minister, I don't think adding the ability to sort by column is going to work. If my misgivings are justified, then this is effectively a proposal to delete this content rather than merge it.-gadfium 04:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm curious why these would be considered trivial while the same such articles about UK Prime Ministers are not. And US Presidents have a million different list articles about them, there's an article about their facial hair for goodness sake. --Pokelova (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is research about the connection between hirsuteness and electability. It's America! Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm with Pokelova on this one; it's hard to know what people consider trivial, or whether people may have a genuine interest in the burial places of former prime-ministers. gadfium is right that the existing table will get very wide with the extra information added. It's also clumsy inserting personal information about the prime ministers in that table, because it has multiple rows for the same people, when they formed multiple governments. We shouldn't be biased against New Zealand simply because it's a little island state on the far side of the universe; it's still a major English-speaking country and has the right to proper coverage in Wikipedia. For this reason, I'm leaning towards keep, or at least deal with this lot one by one rather than batch-delete, so only the truly pointless get deleted. Elemimele (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some, at least, of these are arguably trivial, but (as previous commenters suggest) if they are trivial for NZ then the same sort of articles for other countries are probably trivial too. Rather than this batch nomination by country, it would be better have batch nominations by type of list, such as burial places: List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers, List of burial places of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, List of burial places of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, List of burial places of presidents and vice presidents of the United States. Nurg (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nurg: The solution to the WP:ALLORNOTHING (which is not a convincing argument why this shouldn't be deleted) is maybe to do a batch nomination of these too; the problem is there are apparently so many of this kind of lists I'm not even aware of the existence of most of them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. It is stated below that List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers does not really meet WP:LISTN – this is part of Wikipedia:Notability, which takes no account of WP's systemic biases. Avoiding a lengthy explanation, I'll just say that I think there is country-based systemic bias that favours some large countries over small countries. (As is the case with systemic biases generally, this is no reflection on any individual.) Nurg (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not totally convinced that all of these articles can be merged into the List of prime ministers of New Zealand article without making it look like a complete mess. I certainly think that the List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age deserves to remain intact as it is, but I'm still on the fence about the other ones. Just simply merging all of them into one isn't the right solution here though, as I'm sure that's the reason why most of these articles were created in the first place, because it adds way too much clutter to just one article. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as no one has been able to reassure me that a merge into List of prime ministers of New Zealand would be possible without making that list a huge mess. The List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers in particular would unbalance the target. List of prime ministers of New Zealand by place of birth has a completely different structure to the target. List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age has already had List of prime ministers of New Zealand by time in office merged into it, and it would be possible to consider merging part of List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth into that. That should be a separate proposal as much of the content of the date of birth list would be lost.-gadfium 19:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- List_of_prime_ministers_of_New_Zealand#List_of_officeholders already includes birth and death year (this could be expanded to the full date if one so wishes); and "by age" is not a significant categorisation (it's statistical trivia; and it's easily deducible from the birth/death dates). That leaves "burial place", which is not really a subject meeting LISTN (there's no reliable sources which discuss former NZ PM's as a function of their burial place); nor is it something that is important to the notability of the lists figures. So basically you have three of these which could be merged, but which don't need to because there is not much content to merge (simply expanding the dates is not particularly difficult nor would it pose problems with history and attribution, since a date is simple data). So all titles really should be deleted, as I was saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons given by Nurg above. Fabio 7654 23:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)— Fabio 7654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - There's way too many of these types of list articles. There's truck loads of'em related to US presidents & US vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are arbitrary statistics and I have been unable to find enough reliable sources that focus on the burial places of NZ Prime ministers etc as per general notability. We do not need to keep all the info and I do not think the argument that a combined list will be large justifies overturning notability and other Wiki rules. As long as who was governor general when the PM was born makes the finial list I would have thought we would all be happy? Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. WP:LISTCRUFT. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These pages were created so that people can't flood the main articles of these politicians nor the List of prime ministers of New Zealand article by writing about each and all of these subjects. It is still just fine to keep them as they are. 2001:8003:24A4:4700:74DF:850F:FE8B:A6C3 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)— 2001:8003:24A4:4700:74DF:850F:FE8B:A6C3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relevant information can be moved elsewhere.2601:241:300:B610:9D6F:CC58:F488:4CEC (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failing WP:NLIST. None of these are lists in the real world. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. 2001:8003:24AF:6E00:242B:FC1:449A:FDFD (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)— 2001:8003:24AF:6E00:242B:FC1:449A:FDFD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck as duplicate vote by editor logging in with a different IP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Others have given strong reasons; the largest factor to me is the overall purpose of Wikipedia. I sought out this information specifically as I was curious if Ardern is the youngest ever PM to be in office. Without these pages, finding that information would have been a lot more difficult. The main purpose of Wikipedia is easily accessible information. It is clear that this information is sought out, that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines to remain, and is a generally useful page which should definitely not be removed and is best exhibited independently. Poida 0122 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)— Poida 0122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these highly overlapping articles would all be made redundant by a simple sortable table. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age, Delete others. Date of Birth is included in the Age article, which also contains various other statistics which are useful but which would clutter the primary List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand article. The remaining two articles are fairly small, with little benefit to having the information all on one page as opposed to the articles of the individual PMs, especially when compared to the Age article. Turnagra (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly agree with Nurg and feel these pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Kiwichris (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulagna Chatterjee

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

Fails WP:GNG. FII, Makers, Women'sRepublic etc are not reliable. Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews. There is not a single non-interview source meeting WP:SIGCOV. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wrote prominent part of a major series with global distribution, plenty of decent-quality sources. Not sure why this was nominated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starred? Decent quality sources like? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ET article is brand-promotion/advertisement. See Brand equity and WP:TOI. Ditto for the collaboration between Yahoo and Makers. Women's Republic has no editorial policy or mention of who's who, failing WP:NEWSORG. Filmibeat is typical entertainment promo-spam and community does not accept use in BLPs; see these two RSN threads: 1, 2. FII is a glorified community-blog.
This article shall be redirected to Feels Like Ishq. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you don't decide what "shall" happen here. A consensus of editors does, and you seem to be making a habit of mischaracterising sources to try to achieve your desired result. The Wikipedia article you cited is completely unrelated to whatever point you thought you were making. The marketing (industry, not advertising) section of the India Times is not an "advertisement". The Yahoo articles are perfectly valid content, and you've completely mischaracterised the organisation involved in the "collaboration". Feminism in India which seems to be a well-established digital media website on par with others we use all the time, and labelling it a "glorified community-blog" just seems to be a baseless attempt to dismiss it. It's also plainly evident that there is more material in WP:RS that is easily available for further expansion, including regarding aspects of her career not even mentioned here. There is some sort of weird attempt here to hold this woman to a higher standard than would generally be the case for any other screenwriter of a major Netflix series, and I can only speculate given the subject matter of said series. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FII is going to WP:RSN. As is the ET article. In case you have missed, it is advised in policy that particular sources are provided than generic search results. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, she wrote the screenplay of a part. segment which occupied a sixth of a Netflix series. She did NOT star in it. Maybe, I can get you a dictionary? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrangaBellam's endeavour to get FII declared as RS has been contested on the noticeboard. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep, bad AfD~~. This is a discussion about the validity of sources, but no discussion has occurred on the article's talk page, which would be the correct first step prior to nomination for deletion. A discussion has started regarding this on the reliable sources noticeboard, so two parallel discussions are occurring which are essentially the same. This would not prevent for any future deletion discussion resulting from a consensus that the sources were not reliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews.
  Also, WP:ARTIST: for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series.TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any policy that states interviews do not constitute significant coverage, might be wrong though. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue, check out this comment. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe let Tayi Arajakate know you are including their comment here, TrangaBellam? Boynamedsue, when WP:SECONDARY commentary/coverage is also available, an interview can support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given there isn't going to be a speedy keep, my view is keep, the sources questioned by TrangaBellam seem valid and provide enough coverage to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:BASIC, e.g. her role in the #MeToo movement: TV actor Sulagna Chatterjee speaks up against casting couch; posts chat with agent on social media (The Indian Express, 2017), This is what TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee did when she received a casting couch offer (India Today, 2017), A Bengali actor just proved casting couch is a reality (The Week/PTI, 2017), her writing on Twitter: This Viral Romantic Saga of Two Childhood Sweethearts Will Strengthen Your Belief in True Love (The Better India, 2017), multiple independent and reliable reviews of her work as a screenwriter: Review: Feels Like Ishq is Inconsistent but Pushes the Idea of Love Further (The Quint, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix Anthology Might Not Sweep You Off Your Feet But Is Easy To Love (NDTV, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix's Anthology Series is an Endearing Take on Love (News18, 2021), and a brief, but nontrivial overview of her career: Women Behind The Screen In The Upcoming Show Feels Like Ishq (SheThePeople, 2021). These sources provide ~~ample~~ information to further develop the article ~~and~~ but do not appear to sufficiently support notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Additional sources: ‘Feels Like Ishq’ review: All you need is (not too much) love (The Hindu, 2021), Feels Like Ishq review (Rediff, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES), Feels Like Ishq: A few shorts stand out in this Netflix anthology about love (Sify, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES) Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC) comment and !vote updated per DEFCON5 Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) update !vote and comment Beccaynr (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the multiple sources covering them (not sure about pronoun) in a significant fashion? WP:GNG
The India Today and Indian Express articles about casting couch? Or the one-paragraph reviews of the episode, she screen-wrote? Or the reproduction of IMDB summary by SheThePeople? The entire series already has a separate entry at our encyc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple independent and reliable sources indicate her pronoun is "she." All of the sources listed in my comment above support WP:BASIC notability, which states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability is the part that follows.
It is strange to argue that reviews of her episode adds to her notability; otherwise for every Netflix series, the entire cast will deserve articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more coverage of Chatterjee than the coverage of her work on the Netflix series, including several articles noted above that focus entirely on her; the reviews are also clearly nontrivial and add to her notability because they each provide WP:SECONDARY commentary that is specifically about her and her work. Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she has done notable directing and acting.--Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hippeus, she has acted in which movie? And directed which notable movie? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure she is being confused with an actress of the same name.defcon5 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be. Too far away from Indian entertainment scene to know all these details. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a significant writer. Yet. No significant coverage of the said person except about her being a writer of a Netflix show. Few brand-promo interview articles. Someone pointed out about her casting couch incident though no mention of it in her Wikipedia article. Someone credited her as an actor and director, though no mention of it in the Wikipedia article. It’s because they are confusing her with the TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee. Completely different person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEFCON5 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be an argument based on wikipedia's policies. A person can have done absolutely nothing of any value in their lives and satisfy wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Point 3 of WP:ARTIST. According to me her body of work is not very significant yet. Her only notable credit is being writer of one episode of a Netflix show.defcon5 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above the guidelines you cite it states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." She satisfies WP:GNG, and that's that. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DEFCON5. The subject is potentially notable, being a pioneering LGBT screenwriter of India. But I agree that the body of work is not substantial. Neither do I see significant coverage in mainstream news sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with others above that the significance threshold is not met. While I respect the Indian Films task force has their own opinions on sourcing... I just don't agree with them (and I note that the page itself admits their own valuation of sources is outside the mainstream WP:RSN-derived consensus.) It just can't be used as defense of sourcing without more rigorous consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete One episode of six short films, stated in an interview, one month ago. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Probably early days. scope_creep^Talk 09:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Draftify. There is some RS here, but not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. The nominator is correct that interviews are not counted towards RS as they are not independent. With the exclusion of the interviews, there really isn't enough to justify an article... at least not yet. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I think draftify may be the best option for now, as it's possible more quality RS will emerge later as she continues in her career which will allow the subject to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2021 (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Thayer (author)

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

self published author. 3 meaningless awards by a book distributor. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Midwest Book Awards, for which Thayer won first and second places in 2006 and 2010, is not a "meaningless" organization and only a "book distributor": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Independent_Publishers_Association. Further, the Independent Book Publisher's Association, who gives out the Benjamin Franklin Award, is also not a "book distributor": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Book_Publishers_Association.If these are "meaningless" awards, then why were they given by organizations for whom there are Wikipedia pages? Is DGG saying that Wikipedia is creating meaningless pages?Steven C. Price 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep "self-published" or not, this nomination implicitly assumes lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. There may not be enough material to write a John Muir length biography, but there appears to be enough coverage in reliable third-party sources to make a brief but complete and policy-compliant encyclopedic entry. Nationally broadcast NPR program Morning Edition calls Thayer "a leader in efforts to revive the ancient art of foraging"^[1] and Mountain Home magazine calls him "one of the nation's leading experts on foraging for wild edibles".^[2] Additional biographical coverage is found in outlets such as Duluth News Tribune,^[3] PBS Wisconsin,^[4] Isthmus alternative newspaper,^[5] Civil Eats,^[6] The Salt (NPR),^[7] Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine,^[8] and Wisconsin Life.^[9] Several other sources simply include Thayer's books as recommended resources, such as The Atlantic,^[10] The Austin Chronicle,^[11] and The Herald Journal,^[12]

Since there are multiple reliable sources, spanning well over a decade, that give non-trivial overage of Thayer's accomplishments and biography, invoking no original research, Thayer meets basic notability criteria for biographies as well as the general notability guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Schute, Nancy (April 18, 2011). "Foraging The Weeds For Wild, Healthy Greens". Morning Edition. National Public Radio.
^ O'Reilly, David (September 1, 2020). "Into the Woods". Mountain Home.
^ Renalls, Candace (January 24, 2007). "Wild diet". Duluth News Tribune.
^ "Living off the Land". In Wisconsin. PBS Wisconsin. February 17, 2011.
^ Hardee, Howard (20 September 2018). "More Than Weeds". Isthmus. Madison, Wisconsin.
^ Hay, Mark E. (July 9, 2020). "Interest in Foraging Is Booming. Here's How to Do it Right". Civil Eats.
^ Martell, Nevin (September 28, 2013). "Birch For Breakfast? Meet Maple Syrup's Long-Lost Cousins". NPR.org.
^ Sheridan, Megan (Spring 2001). "Find Your Food". Wisconsin Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
^ Schultz, Zac (November 26, 2015). "Professional Forager Teaches People To Find Nutrition In Nature". Wisconsin Life. Wisconsin Public Radio & PBS Wisconsin.
^ Shaw, Hank (28 June 2010). "A Wild Foods Library: 11 Books for Foragers". The Atlantic. June 28, 2010. A modern forager, Samuel Thayer, has done an excellent job with the images in his self-published Nature's Garden... an excellent book if you live east of the Great Plains
^ Cape, Jessi (April 4, 2014). "Take a Walk on the Wild Side". The Austin Chronicle.
^ DeMoss, Jeffrey (October 22, 2015). "Harvesting nature's bounty in Cache Valley". The Herald Journal.

8'd say out of aour 5 + million articles, ant least a few percent are meaningless, or have no sigificance except fo the subject.The MIPC is appropriate for an article, and has one. The article gives no indi=cation thqta its awards are 1notable or erecognized. It's awards , however, are paid promotionalism for mostly self-published authors. There's one evieww in a national souce, but its one of 1 in a group review..`.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable in his niche. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR per sources provided by Animalparty.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2021 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S8UL Esports

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

No indication of notability; they do not appear to have won any major tournaments. ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:A1:F08E:69AA:AD25:80F8:B9C5 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S8UL Esports is arguably India's biggest and most popular eSports organization. It was one of the first big Esports organization that got very popular. It's fanbase is the biggest in Indian eSports scenario.

The combined subscribers count (on YouTube) of its content-creators is far more than any other eSports organization in the country, with several of them having a subscriber count of more than a million.

Team 8-Bit, of the two founding members of the S8UL, is the first Indian team to win a international tournament.

Team SouL too has competed in several international tournaments.

As for team S8UL, the game PUBG Mobile was banned for the period September 2020-July 2021 and then was relaunched back as a different game (Battlegrounds Mobile India), so there hasn't been any official tournament, not domestic neither international, for the game. Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has any real bearing on notability in the Wikipedia sense. You need to explain how they meet the WP:GNG - that's the general standard as to if something should have its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments supporting notability:

"Significant Coverage:" The page includes a wide range of information, such as hitsory as to formation, it's current eSports division, former Division, it's content creation information as this organisation is very prominent in content creation. The page also includes information for its management.

"Reliable Sources:" The sources provided on the page are reliable. All of the sources provided are reputed websites providing Esports and wide variety of general news.

"Independent of the subject:" Every piece of information seen on page are independent of the subject matter, i.e., S8UL Esports. No info on the page includes anything advertised by or affiliated to s8ul eSports.

"Presumed:" Everything provided here is information not presumed facts. Also, for each section of the page, there is not much detailed information available to have it's own separate page.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, the india professional eSports organization, Stalwart Esports, which is a much smaller and lesser-known, and also lesser successful than S8UL, still that organization has a notable page on Wikipedia.
S8UL is a very big thing in India. This organization is credited with practically making Esports popular in the country.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you'll have to be more specific than that with the sourcing. A five second glance is all it takes to counter the argument that all the sources are reliable. "Call of Duty Wiki" is absolutely not a reliable source per WP:USERG. I'm going to do my own research and wait for some more experienced editors to weigh in before I do. I'm not particularly convinced yet. I've never heard of any of these sources... Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, against Liqupedia wiki of the respective games, better - more reliable sources are needed? On it.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaditya.abh, Hey Aaditya, Wikipedia doesn't run on popularity. It required secondary reliable sources and, At this point all the references in the article aren't Reliable at all. I Don't think this page at this version is eligible for a wikipedia article. Moreover, you seem to have a COI with S8ul and need to disclose the COI with S8UL on your page, go through the relevant WP Policies. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 15:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was providing reliable citations/sources on the page as you sent this message.

2. I don't have any COI with S8UL. I was just scrolling through different eSports related pages on Wikipedia and then I discovered that there wasn't any Esports page of S8UL.

I have interests in Esports and tech, and that is probably the reason I may sound so passionate.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, i have removed the Call of Duty wiki sources and added more reliable sources. As to said, no sources are reliable, I believe a large proportion of sources link to Sportskeeda, a very reliable (that's for you to determine) source that provides news regarding a lot of sports, including Esports, news.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaditya.abh, Again aaditya, Sportskeeda isn;t considered as a reliable source here on wikipedia and that's the problem, i understand your situation. But you need to have Reliable & Independent Sources. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 19:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhayesports, first of all thank you sir for understanding my situation here. Secondly, reliable sources as in news by prominent news outlets? Please provide some information as to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaditya.abh (talk • contribs)

Until you understand how to identify reliable sources yourself, you can look at WP:VG/S for a large list of video game industry-related sources that are considered reliable or unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Sergecross73. I am sure going to look it up. Aaditya.abh (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to "Arguments supporting notability" above. "Significant coverage" is not about how well the Wikipedia article covers the subject. It is a requirement that the sources have provided significant coverage of the topic. Have another look at WP:GNG which explains "significant", as well as "presumed" which you also seem to have misunderstood. --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to go through it. Aaditya.abh (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion regarding having "AFK Gaming" as a reliable source for video games. I believe that website to be reliable.

You can check the discussion and my arguments on the talk page.

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources

Aaditya.abh (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a review of the sources make be believe that the sourcing is either unreliable, not significant coverage of the subject itself, or both. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article author is currently attempting canvassing and sneaking AFK Gaming into the list of reliable VG sources despite the discussion leaning unreliable. IceWelder [✉] 06:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. I've warned the editor that it was inappropriate for them to be doing that. They removed my comment without responding. I'm getting the vibe they're getting desperate and trying more underhanded methods since they seem to be failing to garner a legitimate consensus in their favor, both here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sergecross's comments. IceWelder [✉] 06:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG | No reliable seondary sources are found for now. All sources are closely connected either with the sujcet or the industry. May be, in future it will reach the mark like Team SoloMid--Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @IceWelder: AFK Gaming is a good and independent source in my point of view and it's already being used in multiple Wikipedia articles for stats counter,[1] fact checking, [2] date checking [3] etc purposes. Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:OSE. Just because it's used in other articles doesn't make it reliable. That's not a valid reason, nor is it even a plausible method even conceptually. If we allowed that sort of reasoning, people could rationalize using any source just by adding it in other article and then saying "look it's being used there, so we can use it here now too". Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Sergecross73: I totally got your point already. Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - @Sergecross73: Completely understood. Aaditya.abh (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the page to my 3rd Sandbox to finalize it with all correct sources and everything. Is there any problem with that?

No, that's fine, as long as you don't attempt to to publish it prematurely again. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sergecross73 Thank you. I have no further arguments. And I will only publish the page again if and when I have sufficient "reliable" sources to back the facts. Aaditya.abh (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't see a clear consensus on whether the sources are sufficiently independent and significant enough to meet WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Widom–Larsen theory

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

WP:FRINGE theory that has barely made a blip in low-quality journals and has not received the independent notice required to justify inclusion as a stand-alone article. Cold fusion true believers tend to think this is serious science but it has not received the marquee notice that we would expect for such an amazing breakthrough. WP:CBALL means that Wikipedia's promotion of this harebrained scheme is not warranted and it is exactly why we have WP:FRINGE in the first place. jps (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep for now. It's fringe yes, but the main paper has about 46 citations (EJPC site) to 109 (Google Scholar). This isn't nothing. Might revisit later. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to the full list from Web of Science that Springer uses, but the crossref citations are not particularly remarkable: [4]. Note that there is a lot of churn and self-citation within the walled garden of cold fusion believers. They still put on conferences and seem to write a review article about the amazing new opportunities in cold fusion about every five minutes or so. The key here is that essentially no independent notice (from those who aren't in the cold fusion orbit) is found. jps (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations don't count for notability. Citations that come from papers in Physica Scripta or unpublished count even less. This was a stupid idea when it was proposed, and now, 16 years later, it's clear it went nowhere. Tercer (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fringe or not, there is adequate coverage of the theory in multiple third-party sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE, and it is entirely okay to discuss fringe theories in articles exclusively about the fringe theory (whereas mention may be undue in other articles). Coverage includes: --Animalparty! (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koziol, Michael (28 November 2018). "Scientists in the U.S. and Japan Get Serious About Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions". IEEE Spectrum.
Krivit, Steven B.; Ravnitzky, Michael J. (December 7, 2016). "It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something". Scientific American Blog Network.
Ullrich, George; Toton, Edward (31 March 2010). "Applications of Quantum Mechanics: Black Light Power and the Widom-Larsen Theory of LENR". Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Advanced Systems and Concepts Office.
Koziarski, Ed M. (29 July 2010). "A Nuclear Reactor in Every Home?". Chicago Reader.
Silberg, Bob (February 19, 2013). "The nuclear reactor in your basement". phys.org.
Krivit, Steven B. (2008). "Low energy nuclear reaction research – Global scenario". Current Science. 94 (7): 854–857. JSTOR 24101730.
Brooks, Michael (September 2016). "In from the cold". New Scientist. 231 (3091): 34–37. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(16)31703-1.

These are sources written mostly by cold fusion advocates. This does not indicate broad coverage that we look for according to WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we prohibit articles on beetles written by beetle enthusiasts or entomology advocates? Nothing in WP:FRINGE nor Wikipedia:Independent sources prohibits content written by people with specialized knowledge on a fringe subject. Why are editors afraid of the bare existence fringe topics, even when they can be labeled as fringe? Describing a fringe theory or even a discredited theory is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory only when you have enough reliable sources that cover it critically to achieve a non-fringe article (it seems that here at least some people have discussed it). But notability is also another matter, independently (with the Beetles obviously universally notable)... —Paleo Neonate – 06:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I just added a New Scientist article that discusses it in context with other theories. Exactly how many of these sources will satisfy you? ::::::--Animalparty! (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And are you asserting that the goal is to "achieve a non-fringe article"? What does this mean? Per the holy writ of WP:FRINGE: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, doesn't mean that it should be removed, but means that it should be described as not accepted by most experts (sources are needed for this of course). I think this is achieved already with this article despite the few sources. The remaining issue and main argument here appears to be notability, an important criterion to determine if an article should be in the encyclopedia (quote: [...] has barely made a blip in low-quality journals and has not received the independent notice required [...]). —Paleo Neonate – 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the entirety of that disucssion:

Another idea was the work of Allan Widom, a theoretical physicist at Northeastern University in Boston, and Lewis Larsen, a theoretical physicist and now CEO of Lattice Energy, a company aiming to create a functioning LENR device. Widom-Larsen theory, as it is known, makes an interesting statement about cold fusion: it isn't fusion.
Instead, the anomalous heat generation comes about because, when infused with deuterium and possibly other contaminants, a palladium surface generates a varying electromagnetic field that shifts electrons about, in turn releasing neutrons. These are absorbed by other nearby atoms, transmuting them and causing them to release gamma-ray photons that are absorbed by other electrons, which radiate the extra energy as heat. Joseph Zawodny at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia thinks the theory is a "rich concept" that could prove extremely fruitful. "LENR is only one of its applications," he says. It doesn't rely on new physics, and makes some very specific predictions -- not that those predictions have been properly tested yet. Zawodny made his own attempts, but they were "brief and low budget", he admits. The ongoing controversy surrounding Rossi's E-Cat has made getting funding for further experiments difficult, he says.
Besides Zawodny's inconclusive results, Widom and Larsen have graphs that purport to show a match between their theoretical predictions and experimental observations of how quickly various transmutation products are created. But this isn't terribly convincing to critics, because it is "after-the-fact" fitting to data from controversial experiments carried out years ago.

I do not see this as indicating enough independent coverage of the theory to warrant a standalone article. This could easily be inclued at the main cold fusion page in a sentence or two. jps (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, most people with a passing familiarity in nuclear physics who bothered to read the theory article from 15 years ago would find some discussion points absent. Eq. 31 in their paper predicts beta radiation (and a LOT of it), but I see no one discussing that anywhere. Novel theories that gain interest have their entire idea considered by others rather than ignored outright. That's the essence of the problem here. No one thinks it noteworthy enough to even make a passing mention of its details. jps (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are we really taking New Scientist as a reliable source about anything on the fringes of physics? Really? XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not imply endorsement. Something can be complete bunk and yet notable for receiving coverage from reliable, independent sources. New Scientist has been deemed a reliable source as per WP:RSP, and per WP:NFRINGE the coverage there is independent, substantial and not of a "silly news" nature. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You consider that treatment above "substantial" coverage? I'm a little concerned about that judgement call. I know some writers who have published in New Scientist. If I call them up and tell them about my latest paper and they put three paragraphs about it in their next article, will that mean we should have an article about that paper in Wikipedia? Maybe you're referring to other coverage as well. I will admit that there are certain cold fusion acolytes who have been fawning over this theory for more than a decade (Krivit, in particular, comes to mind), but considering the moribund state of the topic and the lack of mainstream interest in it beyond noting various scams, I am worried that we are pandering to the grift here by pretending that this is an article on par with any number of other articles we have about ostensibly scientific hypotheses that have been essentially ignored by the relevant community. jps (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An entire article would be "substantial"; I find it hard to argue that three short paragraphs are so. As for WP:RSP, it says to use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims. The fringes of science are contentious by nature, so caution is amply warranted here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between verifying the truth of a contentious claim and verifying the existence and notability of one. The fact that you might not approve of a topic covered by a reliable source does not nullify its coverage; if New Scientist's editors found your latest paper newsworthy, then would that most likely qualify as coverage in a reliable source as well. There is deliberately no minimum word count on "substantial," but clearly these are more than offhand mentions.

Once again, coverage is not endorsement, nor is it "pandering to the grift." We have articles on anti-vaxers, racist conspiracy theories, famous hoaxes, newsworthy scammers, etc., not because we approve of them, but because they have been deemed notable through substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources -- whether we like it or not. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between having an article on a subject and mentioning a subject in related articles. I do not see that there is enough material to justify a standalone article and the reason we might not want such a thing is there simply are not enough critical sources that can provide context. This has nothing to do with liking or not liking a topic. This has to do with writing the actual article in a way that readers can get the full picture. The problem with three paragraphs in New Scientist is that while it hints at some of the issues with reception (or lack thereof) of this particular idea, it doesn't give us nearly enough information to write an entire article in proper context, and the remainder of the sources are rather too insulated within the walled garden to provide a means to write a neutral article on the subject. If you can see a way to write an article on this subject, it would be great if you would describe what it is including which sources should be used for which sections (or just work on the article yourself). As it is, I think you are arguing about a principle that cannot be backed up with actual practice and having spent a lot of time working on WP:FRINGE articles at this website, I see this as being a likely dead end. New sources are not forthcoming and by keeping problematic content like this at WP, we are acting more like an advertisement for what cold fusion WP:ADVOCATEs think the world should be paying attention to rather than what is actually being paid attention to in regards to the subject of cold fusion. jps (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. I've argued to keep articles on pseudo/fringe science when the documentation existed to show that the topic was significant and that we could write about it in a reasonable way. (I worked to save Pseudomathematics during its AfD, for example.) The trouble in this case is that the documentation is either superficial, published in a venue that encourages sensationalism, or outright advocacy. If New Scientist found any paper of mine newsworthy, I'd resign myself to a surge of crank email, and I'd probably urge Wikipedia editors not to use their story for anything significant. That's never happened to me, but it has happened to physicists I know, so I'm pretty sure of how it would all play out. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interest does not seem to have spread beyond the bubble of cold-fusion enthusiasts. Churnalism-level coverage in phys.org is what we expect for something unremarkable, not a sign of significance. XOR'easter (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources above are more than sufficient to pass the GNG. Many of the delete arguments strike me as lightly gussied-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the peer-reviewed journals with the subject or co-subject in the byline are self-published works. Other journal articles do not demonstrate significant coverage. Multi7001 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean the works that cite the paper? Of course, self-published works are not peer reviewed. jps (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am not convinced that the sources given above are good enough for a contentious topic, they are mostly journalistic takes and these tend to sensationalize minority viewpoints and often have insufficient expertise to properly weigh the reliability of contestable claims; ergo, they are not good sources for WP:NPOV-challenged topics. I would be wary of using the US government-linked report, as I have no idea how much vetting they make. Headbomb's Google Scholar link has a moderate amount of papers citing the original paper, but most if not all of them are about articles that have similar extraordinary claims of low-energy nuclear reactions - feels like we are falling for a "walled garden" of advocacy sources, there. If this was a viewpoint with any degree of acceptance, I'd expect some mentions in very mainstream publications. And I am not sure that the amount of sources is a lot, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per Animalparty. It's fringe but perfectly within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I second that the delete votes essentially boil down WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but ... how? I don't think anybody has argued that the page should be deleted just because "it's annoying" or "the 'theory' is so wrong that having an article is shameful". The problem is that the "scientific" citations are coming from a walled garden of fringe enthusiasts, and the "news" sources are press releases (phys.org), superficial mentions in sensationalist venues (New Scientist), and the like. That's not the kind of coverage we need if we want to write an article that's compliant with WP:FRINGE. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree that Animalparty has provided evidence of coverage to establish WP:GNG. However, to provide better context for the claims, it might be preferable to merge it into an article such as weak interaction or cold fusion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As there has been no assertation that the sources provided in this discussion (as opposed to those in the article) demonstrate reliable, independent, in-depth coverage, consensus is "keep" by strength of argument. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naum Koen

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

This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia, who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there, and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear". I therefore looked into it. The article was deleted at AfD over two years ago. It was restored and userfied at the request of an editor who siad that "it's a matter of time until someone like this person get more news coverage". That editor then returned the page to article space without, in my opinion, making substantial enough changes to justify recreating a deleted article. However, the following is what I found regarding the current version of the article.

There are 20 references, some of which are in Englsih, but many are in either Hebrew, which I don't know, or Russian, of which I have a rudimentary knowledge, but not enough to make a good assessment of the sources, so I was largely dependent on Google translation. Submitting substantial amounts of text to Google translate is slow and tedious, so I looked at only a sample of the cited references, but unless by very bad luck I chose a grossly unrepresentative sample, the results are clear enough. The article tells us that he is a businessman, and the founder of a Jewish community centre. There is precious little to be found about either of those aspects of his life in anything which could be regarded as a reliable independent source. Here is an indication of what is to be found in the cited sources.

There are references which don't give significant coverage of Koen, such as a page at The Times Of Israel, which only briefly mentions him, and one on the web site forward.com, which as far as I can see doesn't even mention him at all.
There are pages which are clearly not independent sources, such as belev-echad.org/en/about/, which is the "about us" page on the website of an organisation founded by Koen.
There are pages such as one at passportnews.co.il and one at bloomberg.com, which are both reports relating to a business deal which Koen was hoping to do. They consist largely of quotes from Koen about his intended deal. It isn't clear to me whether it's an interview, write up of a press release, or what, but it is clear that it is essentially material by Koen, not about him. It is therefore neither substantial coverage of him nor an independent source. (Incidentally, I found from other sources that the business deal never went through, and the news was all about him saying' that he was going to do the deal.)
There are references such as kp.ua/life/598561-v-sele-pod-kyevom-lva-derzhat-vmesto-sobaky, and ru.slovoidilo.ua/amp/2018/05/04/novost/obshhestvo/lev-simba-ostalsya-svoim-xozyainom-kozine-obeshhanie-nemirovskogo-zabrat-zhivotnoe, both of which refer to concerns expressed by various people about the conditions in which Koen keeps lions. They are mainly about the lions, and only briefly mention Koen, and by no stretch of the imagination is either of them substantial coverage of him.
I did find just one reference which is independent coverage substantially about Koen. It is 13news.co.il/item/news/domestic/articles/questions-around-the-mediator-1175538/. It tells us about a law suit brought against him by his parents, another brought by his uncle, police concerns about him, etc. It is, however, only substantial coverage of a small part of his life, and on its own comes nowhere near to showing notability. There must be vast numbers of people who have been sued on one or more occasions, but who come nowhere near Wikipedia's notability standards. JBW (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is lengthy but unconvincing. This is a well-known Israeli businessman with some affairs in his past. Easily meets the WP:GNG. Nominator provided one good source, here is another https://www.mako.co.il/tv-exposure/articles/Article-b030c49ce902771026.htm There is much more. gidonb (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the one good source which I mentioned? I thought I had provided reasons why none of them is a good source.
Did you read the page you linked to? Can you tell me which bit of the Wikipedia article it supports? It supports none. It is all about people who question whether Koen is a "legitimate businessman", who claim that he has abandonned his daughter and her mother, and so on. It is all "someone has claimed that..." from start to finish. It does not support any of the article's existing content, and it is questionable whether it could ever be a suitable source for supporting anything in a BLP.
Saying "There is much more" without telling us what and where is of no value at all, and the administrator who closes this discussion should give it no weight at all. Sources which are not verifiable are of no use; otherwise anyone could say "I've seen lots of good sources", and we would have no way of knowing whether that was true. This is essentially similar to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. JBW (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that holds any water. As I said before your intro is way too long and unconvincing. Now you're WP:BLUDGEONING under all the opinions that disagree with the nomination. That is thus far... EVERYONE! This is bad practice and behavior you will need to work on. My claim is NOT as you suggest but all and only WP:NEXIST, i.e. the essential and correct way to approach notability. Articles that establish the notability of this person include: [5][6][7][8][9]. Some of these articles also exist in English. You are mixing up the establishment of notability with referencing. Referencing is NOT the purpose of a notability discussion. It is an art that takes place in the article space and can be discussed on an article's talk page. References can and usually will include sources that do not count toward notability. Likewise it is irrelevant if every item in an article will be used in ours. These are just two VERY different processes! gidonb (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm assuming good faith but the opening line of this nomination makes me super-leery. Beyond that, 1. We have no idea what standards might have been applied elsewhere, including other-language Wikipedias, and they might well have set a higher bar for inclusion. 2. The quality of the article is rarely a justification for deletion; the notability of the subject is the issue, not the quality of the article about them. It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG. Any reason to think otherwise? I will say that the nominator's commitment to WP:BEFORE is commendable and their extensive nomination statement is commendable also, which is why I remain solidly in the AGF camp on this one. But I don't think it should be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: I am puzzled by your statement that you are assuming good faith. You wouldn't say that unless there were some reason why my good faith might be doubted. Can you please tell me what about what I have said causes the question of whether I am acting in good faith to arise?

Sorry, I evidently failed to make my meaning clear. Not for a moment did I intend my comments about what happened on Hebrew Wikipedia to be a reason for deletion here. Hebrew Wikipedia has very different standards from English Wikipedia, including the fact that their deletion discussions are not discussions at all, but just votes, and I wouldn't rely on them at all. I just thought that knowing that I had been led to investigate the article by an administrator from another Wikipedia who had concerns about the article might be of interest, but probably I was wrong and it would have been better to leave that out,

I don't understand your point number 2. My argument was entirely about the quality of the sources, not the "quality of the article"; the quality of sources is precisely what determines "the notability of the subject".

The reasons you give for keeping are "It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG" and "I don't think it should be deleted". You give no justification or evidence for those statements at all. Simply stating that a topic is notable, without providing sources to substantiate that claim, is of no value. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just notable/Just not notable. JBW (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia" ...who is unable to edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion? ...who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there ...which is irrelevant, as you acknowledge. ...and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear" ...which are very much fixable problems and is about the quality of the article, not the quality of the sources. I believe you should have left those bits out, but have no reason to think you weren't acting in good faith when you included them, and you acknowledge you should have left those bits out anyway. So let's leave that at that.

Expressing an opinion about whether or not we think an article should be deleted is exactly why we're here at AFD, so I'm not sure why my expressing an opinion is confusing. But to make it clearer; "being unconvinced by the nomination statement, and taking into account the sources included in the article and highlighted by other editors here, I have come to the conclusion that the subject meets our inclusion criteria and the article should not be deleted". If other editors disagree, they will express their opinion thusly and consensus will form contrary to my view (which is what is weighed up by the closer). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd made this clear, but evidently I failed to do so. The stuff about the Hebrew administrator is irrelevant. I regret having mentioned it. As for saying "And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion?", linking to "meatpuppetry", that is absurd. I never suggested that the nomination was anything other than my own decision, based on my own assessment of the article and its subject. I never dreamt that my casual mention of how I came to look into it would be made such a big deal, or that what I said would be so misinterpreted. JBW (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and it seemed strange. And the question I posed was rhetorical; it wasn't an accusation. I was trying to give an insight into my confusion at what was being presented. But you were equally as confused by my confusion. As I said, let's leave that at that. Just the fact that you're engaging in good faith discussion is more than enough to allay any initial concerns, and then you struck that bit anyway. No hard feelings, I hope. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we ignore the totally irrelevant stuff, such as complaints about the length of the nomination (which may be valid or not, but which have no bearing on whether the file should be deleted), ad hominem comments about the nominator (e.g. innuendo about lack of good faith without any explanation, and the ridiculous accusation of meatpuppetry) and "I just think it's notable" type comments, we are left with the aources in the article us the additional links given above. They aren't reliable independent sources giving substantial coverage of what the article is about. The king of the sun (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not an accusation; more an explanation of what made me leery. For the record, a lot of "what the article is about" should probably go, but that's a matter of editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked all the sources and found that 3 of them may qualify for notability: Bloomberg, KP.UA and zman. However, Bloomberg and KP are only talking about future plans. I don't think that people get notable for making plans. Assuming that zman is independent, there is only one good source left. Of course, all those articles about the subject's pet-lion are too local. The others are too short, too promo or not focused on the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I provided 5 long, independent, and in-depth sources in Hebrew, all signed by respectable journalists in important Israeli media. We do not have a rule against sources in Hebrew or other languages. NONE of these sources is promotional. On the contrary. They are critical and independent of the subject. I suggest that both users above take a deeper look at the sources and follow our policies. Per WP:NEXIST, this person easily passes the WP:GNG. Opinions solely based on references in the article, that dodge points made by others in this discussion, should be discounted for a lack of depth and inconsistency with policies and guidelines. There is no value to "I just think this is not notable" arguments in AfD discussions, after the references establing the notability of a subject were provided. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that your 5 sources are promotional? Did I say that sources in Hebrew are less valuable than sources in English? Actually I did mention that one of your source in Hebrew is good. It's good because it really covers the subject in depth. Sorry, but the other sources are too shallow, IMO. They are about the subject's business, friends, legal issues, pets and so on. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My writing was a comment, not a direct reaction, after several contributions beforehand and includes also other important points. Sure, if you strip in-depth, independent, and verifiable sources off their biographic content, you could be left with nothing. Depends only on how extreme you want to take such a cancel process. There is no clear basis in our policies and guidelines, however, for doing this. Opinions that mold a virtual reality into being, instead of following the facts and policies, should not be taken all that serious. These only confirm that one has placed a "I just think this is not notable" argument. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true. In fact, the notability criteria for living people are too extreme, IMO. Anyway, my vote is a weak keep. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per gidonb. I'm not seeing a well argued deletion rationale in this discussion from the nominator or the delete voters. In looking at the sources myself, many of them appear to be respected independent publications with named authors. While some of the articles are about future projects or are only tangentially connected to the subject and don't count as RS, others are about past achievements and Naum Koen is the primary subject (such as those highlighted by gidonb above). Ultimately the subject appears to meet WP:GNG with multiple independent sources containing in depth coverage. Unless the delete voters are able to provide a detailed source analysis as to why they think this isn't the case, I don't see a good policy based reason to delete.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zumwalt, Washington

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

Disputed PROD. Subject is an unpopulated place with few indirect mentions in local newspapers, let alone the rest of the web. Unclear if it even exists anymore. Sounder Bruce 22:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~This sounds like a ghost town.~~ Washington state has lots of ghost towns, and Wikipedia has lots of articles about individual ghost towns. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no evidence that this ghost town. Topographic maps go back to the 1930s and show a rail siding with some circles labeled "storage bins". Per some 1950s newspapers results, these storage bins are a grain elevator. Can find some passing mentions in 1920s sources to a warehouse being here. Appears in an 1896 gazetter with a population of "X" (and no, the other entries don't use Roman numerals, so this is a way of saying that the site did not have a population). A source from 1919 references shipping wheat and barley on the railroad at Zumwalt. Claim above that this is a ghost town does not seem to be supported by sources. Instead, I can find no evidence of a permanent population here; between the siding, warehouse, and grain elevator this is probably a point for onloading grain onto the railroad. As a rail feature instead of a present or former community, it fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 00:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see any houses either. Agreed that this is not a ghost town, but I think there are enough references to make Zumwalt notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was a rail station, according to the Washington (State) Division of Mines and Geology, and there's no evidence I can find that there was a community, here: not even four houses at a crossroads. Washington Public Documents (1921) also names this a rail location. Aside from the rail station ruins, Google Maps shows a grain elevator. There are a few farms to the north and west. Liss's Atlas shows no residents, indicating a rail station only. Cram's 1902 Atlas says the same thing: Population: X. PostalHistory.com shows no records for Zumwalt in Washington, but does list a Zumwalt, Oregon, and Zumwalt, Texas. NewspaperArchive shows Zumwalt was a surprisingly popular last name in Washington State (over 1,000 results), but filtering to Garfield County, I'm finding no mention of a community. A 1959 article calls Zumwalt a siding, and there are articles talking about repairing a bridge there. If someone finds something, feel free to ping me, but I'm finding no evidence of a community, no evidence of a ghost town, no evidence of a post office, school, businesses, a cemetery, a church, or houses. When it's possible to salvage an article, we should, for the sake of the reader. There's nothing to salvage, here. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever of a community here. After removing two references that don't mention Zumwalt at all, we're left with a map and two warehouse registration listings. This doesn't amount to significant coverage, and it should be noted that WP:NGEO specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration in establishing notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of all of the similar "town" articles Spokane Ball yt has created, this one appears to be a legitimate community, since there are residences and ranches visible in satellite imagery and streetview. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of residences doesn't mean that people there or in the past considered it a cohesive community by this name though. The buildings are scattered along the length of the highway, not in any way centralized. Without and sources of substance in corroboration, there's no basis to keep. Delete Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a map to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable railroad siding and grain elevator, and thanks to Hog Farm and Firsfron for their very thorough analyses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Spiders football, 1900–1909

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

Well-cited individual season articles, e.g. 1900 Richmond Spiders football team, have been created these ten seasons, rendering this article moot; see recent related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William & Mary Tribe football, 1910–1919 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1901–1909 Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Richmond Spiders football seasons: Suitable WP:ATD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems non-controversial to me and basic housekeeping. Good work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and prior AfD precedent. Agree that this article no longer serves any purpose. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We need to get rid of these decade football articles. A redirect would not serve a purpose. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Angerme. Relevant content can be merged from article history. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saki Ogawa

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

Part of a notable group, but not enough coverage to suggest she meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO as an individual. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to band. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article on her in Japanese Wikipedia seems to have a substantial amount of referencing, as seen here. It would be great if an editor fluent in Japanese could check the quality and depth of those sources. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That article, Netherzone, is a combination of mere lists and the inane. Sample: 食べることが大好きな食いしん坊[16][17]。好きな食べ物はメロン。特技はモノマネ、バトン、早食い。 I.e. "She loves eating [with two sources, one of which is her Twitter account]; the food she likes is melon. Her special skills are doing impersonations, baton-twirling, and eating quickly." (And, as is entirely normal in ja:WP, whose editors are seemingly keen to satisfy the credulous, we are twice told what her blood group is claimed to be; not even a tweet is cited for this.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for this Hoary. I get it. Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 21:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Angerme which is what became of the band she was in (which seems to have been notable in each of its forms). If there's nothing to merge, Redirect. I have no reason to question Hoary's translation / assessment above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Passing mentions in refs is sufficient for a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Angerme.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !voters do not provide a policy-based argument on why notability is met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talysh Public Council of Azerbaijan

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. There are no sources about their work/activities. (except its creation) NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Examination of references indicates (one of) the functions of the council is preservation of the Talysh language. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article reflects the intention of the organisation Talish Public Council of Azerbaijan. The concern was raised regarding the absence of sources of its activities, which is not correct. The author of the article includes the statement issued by the Talysh Public Council, which is an activity and the source of that activity is also provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renat717 (talk • contribs)

NMWO3, your comments and baseless accusation against the article in the Azerbaijani version of Wikipedia makes me believe that you represent the interest of the ruling regime in Azerbaijan. Repeating the same manner in the English version is very surprising and "impressive". 3 days ago, Wikipedia confirmed the connection of the page Talish Public Council of Azerbaijan to the Wikipedia item.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renat717 (talk • contribs)

Renat717, welcome to Wikipedia (you registered 2 hours ago). No, I'm not representative of anyone. I'm editing Wikipedia since 2017 and I'm volunteer just like everyone. There is no "confirmation" of anything in Wikipedia. You cannot present it as an argument. I doubt you are a sockpuppet of Cuxar (the user who said I am racist against Talysh people in azwiki). Please note that this is prohibited per WP:SOCK. If I created AfD discussion for articles you created, that doesn't mean I'm racist against you or article's topic. It means I doubt this article doesn't meet notability criteria(s). So please avoid saying such things. Regards. --NMW03 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, also I fail to see the notability of the subject. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any indication that this organization meets WP:NORG required notability standard for organizations. Sources don't appear to be high-quality / independent. (t · c) buidhe 11:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (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. Sandstein 12:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laserfiche

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References 9 through 12 and the first three external links seem to be in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eastmain, "in-depth coverage from reliable sources" omits the ORGIND requirement for "Independent Content". Anyway, not sure if you're just pulling our legs but reference 9 has no information whatsoever about the company (has a little about the product but that's not the topic of this article) and relies entirely on an interview with Nien-Ling Wayman, president of Compulink Management Center Inc., who are resellers so not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. So, can you describe for me the content of any of the other two which isn't a quote (from either the company or from Compulink the reseller) or a standard boilerplate company description (which has no in-depth information)? Perhaps you can reconsider your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Can't access the books, but the Network Computing and GCN articles look like WP:SIGCOV. NemesisAT (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NemesisAT, the appropriate guideline is NCORP so both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND must be satisfied by each reference used to establish notability. Your first reference from Netword Computing doesn't say anything at all about the company as its a review of three products so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference, similarly, says nothing about the company at all as it is an article about a customer's experience with the product, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you reconsider your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having seen the "WP:NCORP is Alpha and Omega" argument elsewhere, I'm entirely unconvinced. We're talking about a company whose name is common parlance in particular industries because integration and alignment with their products is the standard for that industry. End users talk about "creating Laserfiche documents" and "converting from Laserfiche" in a manner that suggests that its not just notable among those industries, but well known. Comprehensive coverage of the subject's products, by way of reviews, is an obvious indication of notability and the shortsightedness of WP:NCORP, and the rigid application of that guideline (yes, guideline, not suicide pact), is disingenuous. Let the bludgeoning begin. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion about user conduct

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

Note to closer This user is making their !vote in bad faith and has only made this !vote because they disagree with the interpretation of NCORP and are trying to make a point. See the following debate. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was in the AFD log and I contribute to AFD all the time. Check the time-stamps; I made my comment here before that discussion started. You should probably address your disruptive behaviour before trying to bludgeon more discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was at the start of your campaign of personalised attacks. Your history of edits gives the game away. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a detailed discussion of sources (back in 2006) is available here. Consensus seemed to be that the company met notability guidelines even then but sock-puppetry from company-affiliated editors muddied the waters. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And did we have ORGIND and CORPDEPTH back in 2006? Yeah .. didn't think so. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find in-depth coverage of the company itself and [10], [11], [12] are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Even though LaserFiche software passes WP:PRODUCT with [13] and [14], that doesn't pertain to WP:NCORP for the company. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Clone Saga. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Traveller

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

Minor villain who only appeared in one (quite bad, so I'm told) story arc. No secondary coverage, article is an extensive plot summary. I propose a redirect to Clone Saga, where the character is a signficiant plot element. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Pure plot summary, no evidence of notability required to have stand-alone entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus; no real-world notability. – DarkGlow • 09:33, 8 September 2021 (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. BusterD (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postal village

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

I started a discussion on the article talk page concerning the veracity of its content, and after pinging it to a couple of projects, what little discussion there was echoed my concerns, to wit: I cannot source the definition given. The two citations given merely use the phrase, but neither defines it, nor did any other source I could find. There is is ample reason to doubt its claims, based upon what we've found in a lengthy review of American place name articles. Given the many errors in categorization we've come across, I personally wouldn't conclude that a place labelled a "postal village" was a village at all. There's also no reason to think that a post office contributes to a town's continued survival. Even if someone can come up with a citation for a definition, I just don't think there's going to be enough substance for an article. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could possibly be included as a section in Township (United States), however a standalone article results in WP:FORK issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's nothing in this bare WP:DICDEF to justify an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve so that it's clear what it means (or meant) in which national postal system. For example, it was clearly an official term in Australia at one stage - see here - as well as being common in the US, Britain and Ireland. The present wording is a little vague and poorly referenced. But a quick search has already revealed numerous other references - certainly enough to justify an article. It wouldn't make sense to include it as a section in Township (United States), since the term was clearly used elsewhere. Bermicourt (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - this feels like a subject about which I would think there would be stuff, but I performed in-depth searching for the accuracy concerns raised on the article talk page. I could find nothing significant, and I'm not convinced that this ever had a set or formal meaning. It's a term that appears a lot but is never discussed. Hog Farm _Talk 21:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to expand this article with references. I didn't experience problems finding a definition, as there are several sources for that (now cited in the article). I did see User:Hog Farm's comment on the article's talk page about the article being US-centric and including content which is unreferenced; the unreferenced material has now been culled and I've added some historic examples of the term's use in about a half a dozen English-speaking countries. More can certainly be added.

I don't see the benefit of deleting this article, as I found over 3,000 newspaper articles using the term "post village" or "postal village" between 1818 and 2020, and Webster's Dictionary, gazetteers, and other reference works have clearly been using the term since the 1800s. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be a gazetteer, there's no reason to delete an article on a term in common use in period gazetteers and other reference works, as long as there are citations backing up the content. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll just give a comment here, rather than a !vote. I don't really know what to do with this. I agree that this is a very heavily-used term, but I also am not sure that this actually has a set meaning. From the searching I've done, I really get the impression that this was a term thrown around a lot, but not used to have a specific meaning at any point, with each of those old gazetteers using it with their own meanings. The set meaning for India Firfson added is good, but at least from what I've seen, all that's really sayable about this is that specific places have been referred to as post villages. This looks like a term that is used a lot, but rarely discussed, and I'm not entirely sure how to handle it. This may be a wiktionary candidate, as all we can really provide is examples of use and a handful of brief definitions, unless there's stuff I missed when searching. Hog Farm _Talk 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. Article has been improved by Firsfon. Seems to be a common enough term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment What I'm seeing in the revamped article is a great deal of original research into usage of the phrase, along the lines of what one might find in the OED. That isn't within our scope, and if it were stripped from the article we would be back down to a definition again. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary - I'm still struggling with the fact that it's difficult to get more than definition and examples on this topic. Transwiking to Wiktionary preserves the content, but also allows it to remain in the definition and examples of usage state. A soft redirect should then be retained so that users searching for this term are then directed to the Wiktionary entry. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: postal_village is now an entry on wiktionary. Input from others who have not already participated, on whether the improvements to the article are sufficient for retention or constitute OS, and whether or not justify it's historical notability as a concept has been established or whether it remains simply being a dictionary definition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bermicourt and Firsfron.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. jp×g 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mém

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

The article does not show the notability of the subject. Épine (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Épine (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Asti Spumante Code

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

Can't find significant coverage that demonstrates notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. There's a brief article in USA Today (06/16/2005), though I don't think it really fits NBOOKS criterion 1, but I can't find any further significant reviews or signs of its performance or any plaudits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additional sources found in Scholar, such as this. Looks like enough coverage for a parody, but I would not be opposed to a merge (with others) to Parodies of The DaVinci Code or somesuch. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2021 (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. Feel free to create a redirect if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living life peers

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

Redundant with List of members of the House of Lords (since this is a subset of that). This information could all be nicely included there (if in the form of individual footnotes or something). Is thus a content-fork and also fails WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5 says explicitly that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I still believe this type of list is inappropriate in the spirit of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If life peerages were abolished the list would slowly evaporate away into nothing. pburka (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The worst case would be merger to List_of_members_of_the_House_of_Lords#Lords_Temporal per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Deletion is not appropriate per WP:PRESERVE as there may be good reasons to break this out and there's no reason to suppress it. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no good reasons to break out a subset of a list when that other list already includes all of the encyclopedically relevant information (there's nothing to merge to it; the 'Lords Temporal' section already identifies which members are life peers, which are hereditary peers, ...; and under which Act of Parliament they were created, while not particularly relevant, is obvious from that too, since the Life Peerages Act 1958 covers everything except the law life peers, which are identified as such). Since there's nothing to merge, "List of living life peers" becomes an unhelpful redirect (WP:PANDORA), misleading users into thinking there will be other lists of "living [x]"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of members of the House of Lords -GorgonaJS (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Living life peers are already listed on List of barons in the peerages of Britain and Ireland.67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of members of the House of Lords.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2021 (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 due to lack of in-depth sources about the company. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VotarePA

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG after going through WP:BEFORE to look for sources. No itwiki page to draw sources from, and no luck from journal sources in WP:TWL either. There may be more sources in Italian out there if anybody has luck finding them, but otherwise this does not appear to be notable. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found additional references and added translations for titles. One of them is tricky: The blog of Beppe Grillo, a politician, that seems to have reasonably high production values. Even without the politician's blog, I think notability has been demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional creation without enough sources to pass GNG. There are two reliable sources, but they are just passing mentions. MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability *of the company* which is the topic of this article. The Corrieri.it reference discusses eVoting and situations in which the topic company's product was used but there is no in-depth information about the company itself which is required as per WP:CORPDEPTH. The cronachemaceratesi.it reference is just a mention in passing. The blog of Beppe Grillo is not a reliable source and the reference itself is a mere mention in passing. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarioGom and HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Steel City Wrestling personnel

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel. No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and several of them have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Xtreme Pro Wrestling personnel

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel. No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and several of them have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the topic meets WP:GNG, if the standalone article proves unexpandable, it can still be later merged as proposed by two participants. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China Forestry Group Corporation

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

This was moved from drafts to main space with a comment "obviously notable", but I think it's far from it. The article contains no real encyclopaedic content (it was created by a paid editor, clearly at the behest of the company, probably their NZ arm specifically). Half the sources don't work, and the ones that do are primary. And a search finds nothing even approaching sigcov (there are some hits, but they are passing mentions). Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Not notable suggest merge with National Forestry and Grassland Administration. By that I mean add a sentence saying what it is. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the line between the two a little more blurry than that. But it is not my area. Have no thoughts either way on notability with new refs. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. National Forestry and Grassland Administration is a regulator and is not the same as China Forestry Group Corporation, an operating company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs a lot of work, but there is enough information on the internet to suggst that with some work it will easily meet the notability requirement. NealeWellington (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree the article still needs work, but the sources seem to be enough for this to meet our inclusion threshold fairly easily now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information about the NZ forests and the added references are all entirely based on this press release from the topic company. The rest of the references just report on basic company publically-available details. There's not a single reference here that meets NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough news to meet wp:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Keep !voters are being very vague in identifying the precise references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps can one of them post a link or two to which particular references they believe are doing that job? I'm puzzled as to which references because I can see the ones based on the company announcement and the ones which are Primary sources or business listings but I'm not seeing anything else. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge/redirect to National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Passes GNG if not NCORP based on sources in the article. The problem with applying NCORP so strictly to Chinese organizations like this is that NCORP was created to evaluate businesses in Western free markets where there are clear boundaries between corporate for-profit businesses and government institutions, and where there is freedom of the press that generates independent coverage of both businesses and government agencies. That doesn't happen in China where there is no real freedom of the press and the government and business are intimately merged. I would argue that the China Forestry Group Corporation should be treated more like a National government agency (which it essentially is as it manages all of China's forrests and is owned and operated by the government) as opposed to a corporate business (even though it does sell products). When we actually look at the scope of what this agency is responsible for and its impact on the environment across China (i.e. land management concerns, climate change, environmental initiatives, etc.); I can't see how the encyclopedia benefits from deleting the article. The content we have in the article is reasonably well sourced, and ultimately I don't see any benefit to deleting an article on an organization with that amount of responsibility/influence within the government structure of a major world power. 4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saty Narayan Ji Mandir, Nabha

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

Non-notable temple in Nabha. Could not find third party RS for wide coverage. The references in the article are about generic Hindu facts, not the temple. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many more references are listed in an earlier version of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saty_Narayan_Ji_Mandir,_Nabha&oldid=663778039 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, the earlier version of the article has WP:UNDUE unrelated text copy-pasted as a WP:CFORK of Jagannath Temple article. The many RS in the version are about the deity Jagannath temple of Puri, not the Nabha temple. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 21:39, 31 August 2021 (IST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination and their reply to Eastmain. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:as per nomination.defcon5 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2021 (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landenberg Junction, Delaware

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

This is a rail junction, and it was never anything but a rail junction. There are numerous references to it as such, and none whatsoever to it as a town/settlement/whatever. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect>Wilmington and Western Railroad, where the line begins or alternatively recast as Landenberg Junction, which could merit its own article. 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical settlements tend to have poor Google documentation and require an alternate source-type of digging. I was able to find nearly 50 mentions of "Landenberg Junction" in historical Delaware newspapers, just from a quick search on Newspapers.com. These range from the 1910s to the 2000s. It is my impression, from reading these newspaper reports, that the location does indeed exist and is typical of other historical communities that develop around rail road stations. Several houses or stores build up in proximity of the station and the area/community naturally becomes known by the name of the station. A community can be small and limited in size, it doesn't have to have 100,000 residents and skyscrapers to make it "exist". The old saying "one-horse-town" says it all. I vote to keep because historical communities like this deserve documentation and simply need better sourcing. There are plenty of mentions of it. Here are some of the newspaper mentions that helped me come to my vote.

"They turned to friends who owned an old farmhouse in Landenberg Junction for referrals."
"Company of 30 Clash with Officers at Landenberg Junction."
"It once extended from Wilmington through Greenbank, Yorklyn, Hockessin and up to Landenberg Junction, where it connected with the old Pennsylvania Railroad."
"Officer Wounded in Landenberg Junction."
"The extreme heat is said to have been responsible for spontaneous combustion of some paper in the shack of Albert Brown in Landenberg Junction."
"The Cranston Heights Fire Company was called upon last night to extinguish a fire in Landenberg Junction."

Pinging users @Dough4872: and @TheCatalyst31: who both supported to Keep article during first nomination in 2013. --Fallingintospring (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Fallingintospring. Pinging editors from only one side, and in particular the side you're on as well, is canvassing and it is forbidden. You should be pinging everyone involved in that discussion, or no one at all. This is a friendly and constructive, I hope, advice. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. Non-notable location with no legal recognition, so neither #2 nor #1 of WP:GNG are met. To be notable, it would need an article that is primarily about the topic, not a passing mention. Where is the WP:RS article that is primarily about the indicates the WP:GNG of the subject? I agree that there are a number of trivial, passing mentions in newspapers.com, but nothing has this location as its primary subject. Many of the articles are about the railroad station and yards: thirty men on a train at the yards at Landenberg Junction, Lineman killed by train. (BTW - Fallingintospring: I did not find the "Officer Wounded in Landenberg Junction", could you provide a link or year?) The article about spontaneous combustion is at best a trivial mention. Yes, people died there - there seem to be articles about accidents and at least one obit. Not all historical communities, suburbs, housing developments or trailer parks are notable. GBooks has Delaware Place Names from 1966 that refers to it as a "RR station," if there was a community in 1966, then the source would have indicated this. As this locale is primarily a railroad station, WP:STATION is applicable and there is nothing notable enough about this station to warrant a separate article. BTW - this is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landlith, Delaware. Cxbrx (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources above seem to demonstrate some notability of this as a real place name that's been used historically to refer to here. If @Fallingintospring: adds them to the article, I will !vote to keep; otherwise I'll !vote to redirect to the article on the railroad or on the city nearest it (Elsmere, Delaware). jp×g 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fallingintospring has discovered sources which indicate that this was an actual community, rather than simply a GNIS error. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1904 and 1904 topos show this as "West Junction". Newspaper searches for both West Junction and Landenberg Junction return numerous articles that refer to it as a railroad junction ("Landenberg Junction of the B&O Railroad") and a very few that use it as a landmark. At this point we have zero reliable sources that support "community", "populated place", "settlement", etc, and I would also say that these passing mentions (though numerous) don't meet GNG. At best it might warrant a mention in an article about the railroad. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which railroad? the B+O, or predecessors? Or railroad with which it junctioned? And do you mean redirect? Djflem (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Railroad companies built their stations where money could be made from a combination of freight, passenger, mail, and express traffic. Even where a community did not already exist (and I am thinking of transcontinental railroads in Canada and the United States) when the railroad company built a station, there soon would be, because new settlers would buy land from the government or the railroad. A community grown up around a station might consist only of a mine and housing for its workers, but that would still be a community driven by their needs and eventually with a general store and a post office. So this is why you don't need a city charter to show that a point on a railway line is a community: Settlements at the start of the railway era formed around stations, in the same way that they used to form around harbours. You don't need in-depth coverage of a community when you can demonstrate that something had to be there because a passenger train stopped there every day. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad stations did play a role in the development of communities (and vice versa), but in my experience there are just as many junctions, sidings, water stops, etc that found their way onto Wikipedia because they were miscategorized as "populated places" in GNIS. Many of these places didn't have communities because the employees, if there were any, commuted from an actual settlement. Mentions in news articles could indicate a community but just as often meant that it was simply the closest place marked on the map to whatever it was that happened. Do we have any evidence that Landenberg Junction had worker housing, a general store, post office or anything besides a junction where two railroads connected? Was there even a station here? The bar is low, but we do expect verification that the train stopped here before we assume that there must have been a post office, store, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the notion that stations inevitably led to settlements is completely untrue. Railroads had "stations" for a whole laundry list of reasons, and even when the reason was to generate traffic, often enough that traffic never came. Even now there are places called "West Plane" and "East Plane" on the Old Main Line, the ends of the siding for "Plane 4", but there was never a Plane 4 town: the name comes from the earliest days of the railroad there, and since there was an interlocking, it had to be called something. We have deleted numerous "stations" that were nothing more than passing sidings necessary to single track operation. We've also deleted a bunch of "Junctions" which were nothing more than places where two lines joined. Based on the testimony we have, the latter situation is what we have here: the various newspaper references (which BTW would never satisfy WP:GNG) are the typical sort of name-drops one sees about any sort of place name in local crime reporting and such. A spot on the rails is not proof of a settlement. Period. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is a gazetteer about settlements, and this is/was a real one, per above. --Doncram (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised by your suggestion as above, Doncram, seeing as you're an experienced editor. Wikipedia is most definitely not a "gazeteer." We have, inter alia, WP:NOTGAZETEER, and certainly WP:NOT (especially the part about Wikipedia not being any kind of guidebook). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. We're not the internet's end-all and be-all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know before of that essay, created in 2021. Of course essays do not govern. But there is also wp:Gazeteer, an older essay. And I do understand from many AFDs over the years (altho i have not been active recently) that the consensus is that established settlements are wikipedia-notable, and that we are deliberately a gazetteer about them. I believe the general usual reference to give is wp:GEOLAND (i think tho I am not sure). We simply are a gazetteer about settlements, that is just a fact, sorry if u do not believe that. --Doncram (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, for over a decade the WP:GEOLAND standard has been that "populated places without legal recognition" are considered on a case-by-case basis, so simply confirming that a place existed is not sufficient. My experience has been that we've been trending toward a stricter reading of this guideline but a significant minority of editors feel that our gazetteer function takes precedence. A compromise that's been suggested for this article is that the rail junction be covered in the article about the railroad, which might also be how a gazetteer would handle it.

One issue that's come up recently is the realization that many thousands of articles were mass-created from incorrect GNIS database entries. WP:GNIS goes into detail, but the gist is that the database lists many natural features, rail junctions/sidings and other miscellaneous places as "populated places", and these were mislabeled as "unincorporated communities" by the article creators. This means that places sourced solely to GNIS always require a third-party fact-check. Landenberg Junction one isn't quite as blatant at the infamous Susie, but this might give you an idea of why it's under a bit of scrutiny. –dlthewave ☎ 22:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Recently I've seen some new-to-AfD editors who seem to be on the keep side. I welcome having more eyes on these AfDs and in general I agree that if an article is borderline, we should keep it or merge it. However, it seems like some editors might not have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and WP:STATION. In addition, taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography to see other, similar discussions could be helpful. The GNIS database is down, but reviewing WP:GNIS could also help. I'm trying to reach consensus here and am hoping that editors will review the resources I've mentioned.

In the case of this location, it is railroad junction. There is no legal recognition of a community at this location. I agree that people probably lived near this location, but there is no WP:RS article that is solely about this location. Fallingintospring listed a number of references, which I also looked at. As I wrote above, most of these seem to be about a railroad station or yard at this location. The other references are trivial. The article still has just one reference, no one has taken the time to add these other references (I realize that the lack of refs is not a reason for deletion, my point is that we have far more words here in the deletion discussion than we do in the article.) One thing to consider is that if the subject was a person or a company, would it meet WP:GNG? This location does not meet WP:GNG. Not all geographic locations are notable and as this is clearly a station, it should be redirected. Djflem suggests redirecting to Wilmington and Western Railroad, which would be fine with me. Cxbrx (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning I gave in commentary, above. We're not here to post up indiscriminate information. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fallingintospring, and Eastmain, and Doncram. @The Gnome WP:5P1 supports that wikipedia is in part a gazeteer. As such the non-policy essay WP:NOTGAZETEER has contradictions with a fundamental core pillar and is a badly realized idea. Further WP:NOTGUIDE was never intended to undermine wikipedia's role in essentially fulfilling it's core mission which is and I quote "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning, 4meter4, is wrong on a fundamental basis: Having some attributes of something does not make you that something. And this is applicable in every field and every discipline. A gazeteer is an unfailingly complete record, or, at the very least, this is its purpose: To contain all known information about its subject, be it a geographical location, the laws, addresses, etc. The emphasis in WP:5P1 is on "combines many features"; were Wikipedia a gazeteer, WP:5P1 would phrase its self-definition differently and quite explicitly. On the contrary, Wikipedia not only clarifies that it is not a directory (there is no contradiction whatsoever) but states flat out that it cannot be trusted, unlike publications of record such as gazeteers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome is right except for where they are wrong. Wikipedia is a gazeteer about settlements. --Doncram (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, then, please, Doncram, provide links to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or "multiple" AfD/RfC pages where it is stated, or even indicated, that "Wikipedia is a gazeteer about settlements"? -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I said that I would !vote "keep" 23 days ago if somebody managed to add the above-mentioned newspaper references. They do not seem to be in the article. jp×g 19:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brad Anderson (cartoonist). If anyone wants to merge any content (most of it seemed rather trivial), it's in the page history of the redirect. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anderson (cartoonist)

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

I think the article should be merged with Marmaduke with a redirect - all the refs presented at the moment are not enough to show the notability. Moreover, I have found this, this (and many other obituaries), this, this, and this but I believe it's still not enough for a standalone article. Tell me what you think. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find SIGCOV in the form of article-length by-lined obituaries (not paid death announcements) in the New York Times, Time Magazine, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times -- all major newspapers. That is enough to convince me he meets notability criteria and presents enough information on his life to improve the article. Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Netherzone, hang on, aren't those obituaries of the subject's father, Brad Anderson (cartoonist)? As far as I can tell Paul Anderson is still alive. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811 you are right! Thank you for pointing that out, I've struck my !vote above. Netherzone (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - this one is just on the threshold for me. Paul Anderson has been mentioned plenty in reliable sources, usually in conjunction with his father, but there is little significant coverage. The "America Comes Alive" source is best, but its reliability is questionable. From what I can see, the subject is not notable, but if better sources can be located, a re-creation would be welcome. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Brad Anderson (cartoonist) per WP:CHEAP. Given that the work was done in conjunction with his father, this would seem to be something we could highlight in the article on his dad without being off-topic. Alternatively, the article could be merged and redirected to Marmaduke, but I prefer the latter choice. Netherzone, Ganesha811, Brayan ocaner what do you all think about this option? 4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 I'm fine with merge/redirect. to Brad Anderson. Netherzone (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Parker

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

The council member of a municipality of ~10,000-15,000 is not inherently notable. Neither is a congressional candidate. I believe this article fails to meet the notability guidelines for politicians. There does not appear to be enough GNG for his legal or business career to meet notability for those professions either. Mpen320 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arizona.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and not independently notable from his congressional campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2021 (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcat Bite

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this restaurant meets notability for Wikipedia. I'm just not seeing a lot of coverage out there and restaurants, even "award-winning" ones, aren't necessarily notable. It appears that editors are not disclosing COI, either, though I can't be sure. But with sentences such as: "The Panzers snuck behind the Eckre family's back and copyrighted the Bobcat Bite name", it's hard to see how the article is neutral or notable. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't yet analyzed the article sufficiently to offer a !vote here, but I have reverted copyvio/promo content introduced in July and requested a revdel thereof. --Finngall ^talk 18:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Motz, George (2011). Hamburger America: Completely Revised and Updated Edition: A State-by-State Guide to 150 Great Burger Joints. Philadelphia: Running Press. pp. 193–194. ISBN 978-0-7624-4070-2. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book has an eight-paragraph entry for Bobcat Bite. The book notes: "A visit to the Bobcat Bite for a green chile cheeseburger results in what I like to call the 'Whole Burger Experience.' The restaurant, the people who work there, the relaxed environment, and a stellar burger all coalesce into a perfect hamburger moment. ... The Bobcast Bite is way out of town, southeast on the long, lonely Old Las Vegas Highway. The low adobe structure sits on a rocky washboard incline at the foot of what once was a large quarterhourse ranch. The interior is cozy New Mexican with a low viga ceiling and a large picture window that looks out toward the old ranch and a hummingbird feeder. Seating is limited—there are only eight stools at the counter, five tables, and just recently added, three tables on the front porch (weather permitting). The restaurant got its name from the bobcats that used to come down from the surrounding mountains to eat scraps that had been tossed out the back door. ... In 1953, Rene Clayton, owner of the Bobcat Ranch, turned a gun shop into a restaurant. Today, Bonnie and her husband, John, keep tradition alive by serving a green chile cheeseburger that has been on the menu since the place opened. Fresh chuck steaks are ground and pattied by Bonnie's brother nearby. In 2006, John decided to switch over to naturally raised antibiotic- and hormone-free beef. He made one of the best burgers in America even better."
2. Motz, George (2018). Hamburger America: A State-By-State Guide to 200 Great Burger Joints. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-9222-0. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book notes: "The Bobcat Bite is no longer, another sad victim of selfishness and greed, but I'm happy to report that the spirit of the Bobcat has been salvaged thanks, of course, to New Mexico's first couple of the Green Chile Cheeseburger, John and Bonnie Eckre. ... But as we know, all good things must come to an end. For most of us this one ended far too soon. A rent hike and an ownership disagreement forced John and Bonnie into a very tough decision, and in 2013 they shut down the sixty-year-old Bobcat and reopened a few months later as the Santa Fe Bite."
3. McGraw, Kate (2004-11-14). "Documentary brings Bobcat Bite to silver screen". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "More than three years ago, award-winning cinematographer George Motz and a camera crew turned up at Bobcat Bite, the venerable roadhouse just south of Santa Fe on the Old Las Vegas Highway."
4. Ryan, Ann L. (1996-11-01). "Nothing Scruffy About Small Bobcat Bite's Grub". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The review notes: "Bobcat Bite is legendary in Santa Fe as a carnivore's heaven. Want a big burger, a big steak, or some pork chops? This is the place ... The burger was big, about the size of a dessert plate and more than an inch thick, covered with melted white cheese and chopped green chile. It took a lot of smashing to get it down to mouth size. It was a darned good burger, but a little too dry, and a little too close to well-done. The cheese was gooey, the chile not too hot, and the home fries were little potato nuggets, charred a bit here and there. Yum."
5. Hillerman, Anne (2013-05-24). "Goodbye to Bobcat Bite". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "Bobcat Bite has been a family-owned restaurant for more than 50 years. Originally a trading post and then a gun shop, the building became a restaurant in 1953 under the ownership of Rene Clayton and management of her daughter, Mizi Panzer. Subsequent operators continue using some of the same recipes Bobcat Bite has served for decades."
6. DeWalt, Robert (2002-08-16). "Dinner Reviews: Bobcat Bite". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The restaurant review notes: "With nearly 50 years of family-owned restaurant experience under its belt, the Bobcat Bite delivers straightforward food with reasonable prices. Although I’m an advocate of highway safety, I suggest you get there as fast as you can (within the law, of course) and as hungry as you wanna be."
7. Crawford, Emily (2004-12-04). "Spectacular sandwiches". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "A documentary in the Santa Fe Film Festival spotlights local favorite Bobcat Bite. Cinematographer George Motz gladly returned to Bobcat Bite on Friday, where he made short work of a hefty green chile cheeseburger."
8. Haywood, Phaedra (2013-05-09). "Bobcat Bite managers to leave over dispute with property owner". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
9. Haywood, Phaedra (2013-06-08). "Bobcat Bite customers savor their last burgers before eatery's closure". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
10. Vitu, Teya (2021-03-29). "Bobcat Bite returns to Old Las Vegas Highway in May". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
11. Ragan, Thomas (2015-11-10). "Bobcat Bites It. Sale would end seven decades of tradition along old Las Vegas Highway". Santa Fe Reporter. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bobcat Bite to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have decent coverage.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 04:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Peart-Harris

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

The player has yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league, in a cup match between two fully professional clubs or at full international level. Beatpoet (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and SNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some media coverage for this 18-year old. £1.5 million transfer fee from Chelsea. Was been on the bench for a fully professional Brentford match two weeks ago. Is it really worth deleting this at this time? Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace as an alternative to deletion. It's likely he'll be notable enough soon (as he was on the bench 2 weeks ago), at which point it can be moved back. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Agree that moving to draft space is a viable option for the article rather than straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - while not guaranteed, it's certainly plausible that he will meet notability criteria soon Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - agree that he is likely to make the grade soon JW 1961^Talk 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely meets GNG with the transfer alone. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Night (2006 film)

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

Non-notable film, showing at a few minor film festivals does not meet WP:NF, it does not have significant coverage by independent sources per WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 17:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find much out there about the film and not enough to establish notability. There are primary sources like this and a brief mention here, but that's about it. That's kind of par for the course for first films, as most tend to get little to no coverage until later in the director's career, assuming that they manage to get that breakthrough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former United States governors

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

Trivial cross-categorisation which fails WP:LISTN and is just the same as usual WP:NOTDATABASE-listcruft. See also recent AfD logs for similar lists of living former government officials from plenty of other nations... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HTRIVIA -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are similar articles for senators and representatives which should probably be evaluated as well.2601:241:300:B610:D14F:D58D:3EC0:80E7 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Goes against WP:NOTDIR and as there are no sources at all, let alone sources that specifically cover this listing as a group or set, fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimism

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

After considerable searching, I can't find a single use of this term anywhere outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors. I tried searching:

The web, via DuckDuckGo and Google
Google Scholar
*The Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries
*JSTOR's full-text
Gale's e-book collection
EBSCO's Academic Source
My university library's database
The Internet Archive's full-text book collection
HathiTrust's full-text book collection

and couldn't find any normal uses of "nimism" (though they did turn up plenty of bad OCRs of "animism" and more rarely "optimism"). I checked the search results prefixed with an asterisk exhaustively; for everything else I went through the first couple pages.

There are two links here in Wikipedia: Index of aesthetics articles, which was probably autogenerated, and Macbeth. The second was added by the same user who wrote nimism. It uses the term in the context of Caroline Spurgeon's work, though I could not find the term used in any of her books on Shakespeare (I performed a full-text search of Leading motives in the imagery of Shakespeare's tragedies and Shakespeare's imagery and what it tells us on the Internet Archive and looked through references to Macbeth in paper copies of Keat's Shakespeare and Shakespeare's iterative imagery)

I asked the creator about this back at the end of July, with no response; while they haven't edited English Wikipedia since 2016, they have contributed on German Wikipedia, so they likely saw the message.

I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if I can find any uses of "nimism" that predate or don't trace back to this article, but I haven't been able to do so. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure whether it can be called a neologism if it has been lurking around since 2009 but there is nothing to corroborate it as a genuine term. It is not in Wiktionary in any language. As far as I can tell it is not in Google Scholar except as a mistake in the OCR. Fails verification hard and, even if it exists at all, it would be very far from being a notable enough term for an article. Quite possibly it is the author's own coinage. After 12 years fetch has not happened and it is time to give it up as a bad job. We should delete this and also clean up the stuff in Macbeth, which is astonishingly poorly referenced for an article about a topic which has been a subject of detailed scholarship for centuries. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to either be a WP:HOAX or WP:MADEUP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recommend that closing admin send it to WP:HOAXLIST. wizzito | say hello! 05:25, 9 September 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuria Santiago

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

Semi-pro footballer with no apparent in-depth coverage available anywhere. Even coverage on Levante's own website is quite weak, not that it would count towards WP:GNG anyway. I have searched Google News, ProQuest, DDG and Google Images using her name alone and in conjunction with the clubs that she has played for and not managed to uncover any significant coverage. Some coverage about "Nuria Santiago Rodríguez" (one from Mexico, one from Spain) was found but nothing about Nuria Santiago Hernández, the subject of this article.

Best sources I can find are a match report in Futbol Balear and a list of transfers in Marca, none of which mention Santiago more than once and none of which would enable us to build a biography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living United States governors

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

15-year old WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails WP:NOR, WP:LISTCRIT and WP:NOSTATS.

The first section of the list is a very confusing table of historical holders of the record for "longest-lived former governor," a title that appears to have been invented by some Wikipedia editors. The start and end dates list the time period during which the person was the record holder. (Strangely, the table doesn't tell us how old they were.) This topic appears to be a completely original invention and doesn't match the title of the page, as only the current record holder is living.

The second section of the list ranks former governors who actually are living by their age. This is just a content fork of List of living former United States governors, and there's no evidence that this ranking is notable. It's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of office holders and longevity. pburka (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all the precedent of similar trivial list/statscruft deleted recently, and because this is obvious WP:OR which fails WP:LISTN (independently of it also being a content fork of a page which likely also fails the same criteria). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are similar articles for senators and representatives which should be evaluated as well.2601:241:300:B610:D14F:D58D:3EC0:80E7 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and WP:LISTN Edge3 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above. A unsourced list that goes against WP:NOTDIR and fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: See similar pages for US senators and US Representatives

Merge to where? 2601:241:300:B610:EC54:56D:1E0F:B3A8 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following note was left on my talk page. I'm copying it here. pburka (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not delete this page. Before you delete it, please look at similar pages for US Senators, US Representatives, US Presidents, Oldest Senator, NBA players, sports figures and people. Pay special attention to the bottom purple box of List of the oldest living people (Lists of the oldest people by specific groups). See also: Category:Lists of oldest people. This page helps people interested in longevity and in superlatives. In fact, the NBA page gives some examples of other superlatives (e.g. tallest, shortest) people are interested in (see the bottom purple box of the aforementioned page labeled National Basketball Association statistical leaders). These pages provide helpful information that cannot be found easily elsewhere online. Overall, the list of oldest living US governors may need to be modified or merged with other pages, but the information it contains is genuinely insightful and useful to Wikipedia users and information like it is included throughout Wikipedia. Thank you! 2601:484:C580:3420:F8B5:CA1:4E9E:5410 (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NBA list is ages of players during their careers, which is actually relevant since age can affect a player's performance. I am not going to vote on the deletion, but the oldest governors page does seem to lean toward trivia. If the governors page is deleted, the Congress pages should probably be deleted (or merged) as well. Kstern (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems irrelevant; I mean, age can affect a governor's performance. Longevity records, as well as superlatives, are common throughout Wikipedia. I don't see why people here are so eager to delete a useful resource that cannot be found easily elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not considered a valid argument. As for the the statement about governor's performance, most of the governors listed on the list are retired. 2601:241:300:B610:EC54:56D:1E0F:B3A8 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and WP:LISTN.4meter4 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any group of people can theoretically be listed by any number of parameters. However, most of those combinations of groups and parameters constitute WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. In order for such a list to make for a valid stand-alone article, there needs to be a good reason why that particular group should be listed by that particular parameter. Otherwise, WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that there is a good reason to list this group by this parameter. TompaDompa (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Gautham Machaiah

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

It's someone who has done lot of work in media. But how his work would make him notable, it is not clear. Doesn't qualify WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Maher

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

I don't find it notable because he has a lot of job positions like any professional would do. But, there is no coverage that would qualify WP:GNG. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 7 September 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Dora Mavor Moore Awards

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

Full disclosure: I was the original creator of this back in 2018, but put it on hold due to some difficulty in finding enough comprehensive sources to fully complete it at the time — and then I forgot about it and never came back to it afterward, and nobody else ever stepped in to help out either, so it's still incomplete today. And not only am I still having trouble finding adequate sources to fill in the categories I left unfinished at the time, even the Doras' own self-published website doesn't currently include historical information about past ceremonies anymore — since its most recent redesign, it currently lists only the winners and nominees for 2020, with all past years (even those that were listed as of 2018) now covered only by an "Additional past award ceremony information prior to 2020 will be listed here soon. Stay tuned!" footnote, so I can't even use that to fix this anymore.
While in theory the Doras are a notable enough award that we could potentially have a standalone article about each year's ceremony to list the winners and nominees, in practice nobody's actually doing that (even category articles only exist for a few topline categories, and not for all categories). Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody is actually willing to take on the job of getting all of the other 40+ Dora ceremonies written up, but if nobody's even trying to flesh out the series then there's no value to an incomplete and single-sourced article about just one year's ceremony existing in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation. We certainly can't suggest the nominator didn't undertake WP:BEFORE here! St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2021 (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. Keep base votes and keep comments. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: The above non-administrator close was vacated by me in my individual capacity, supported by the snowball consensus forming at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 21. This discussion should be considered as closed as no consensus to delete, with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination, due to the procedural irregularities within the original AfD (as described at the DRV). While I would normally consider relisting in this situation, to try and form a consensus either way, the nature of this debate means that allowing any interested editor to re-nominate as soon as they desire, may be more conducive to achieving a consensus either to 'keep' or 'delete'. If this article is re-nominated, I strongly encourage that neutral notices be placed in high-visibility areas to attract participation from Wikipedians who were not involved in the original discussion, to further the likelihood of a consensus forming. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pedimental sculptures in Canada

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

The topic of this list doesn't seem to have been the topic of attention in reliable sources as a group. If no one outside Wikipedia has been interested enough in pedimental sculptures in Canada to write at some length about it, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Many of these aren't individually notable either (e.g. this or this or many others), making this a novel grouping of non notable features of notable buildings. We wouldn't (I hope) make similar list for e.g. "Buildings using the Corinthian order in Canada" or "Domed buildings of Canada", there is no reason to treat these differently. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure this is notable, it reads more like a list than an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moderately sloped roof allows for "Equal justice under law", on US Supreme Court building: Lady Liberty, enthroned

Keep. This is a well constructed article ("list" if you prefer) with a lot of detailed information in it that some folks have spent a lot of time and effort on. Architectural sculpture is a niche study with quite a few adherents and we are frequently looking for this sort of list. Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page. Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page." That's news to me. There is a massive link at the article page, there is no need to add another link at the talk page (where your comments are borderline canvassing though). None of your keep arguments are really relevant, articles are not kept or deleted because they are well organised or not, or because they are the work of one person or of a group of people. Fram (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I missed you link on the article page. The other part has to do with respect for the effort that other serious, long time editors have put into this article. That might not be covered in any policy but should (opinion) always be taken into account by fellow editors. Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument falls into WP:HARDWORK. We should really be addressing the relevant guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hello @Fram: -- could you please link the policy behind your main argument, that the scope of any wikipedia article must reflect the scope of an article found in a reliable source? I've looked and cannot find. thank you --Lockley (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The very start of WP:GNG? "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when [...] significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Because no sources address the article topic directly, the writers need to make a WP:SYNTH creation. Fram (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In good faith I'm trying to see your reasoning. Coupla issues with my article, sure, but specifically about your challenge of the scope of the article because there is no precedent for it. I understand how the very start of GNG relates to articles about simple nouns, people places & things. I do not understand how it relates to articles with a wider scope than that -- summaries and lists such as this one. For instance let's take Inauguration of the Dutch monarch. Is that article toast if we can't point to a reliable outside source with that same exact scope? If that source is silent on the medals involved, would we have to delete the medals section? That article links to a historical summary article called Coronations in antiquity, whose scope doesn't seem to be reflected in any outside source that I could spot. By your logic, would we properly delete that one too? --Lockley (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Lockley - the guidelines we need to look at are WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Unless there are sources discussing this topic as a group (as oppose to the individual items within the list) then I don't believe it meets the guidelines and falls into WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A pedimental sculpture is a thing, and Wikipedia can have an article on the topic. Which can include a worldwide list of notable examples, or the worldwide list can be split out into one or more list-articles, e.g. one for US, one for Canada, etc. But there does not have to be a separate article on the topic, and the worldwide list can be titled "Pedimental sculptures" or "List of pedimental sculptures" and focus more on the list of examples than upon narrow definition of the topic and narrow coverage from, say, some textbook or manual on how to design an impressive building such as a courthouse. Note: Not every pedimental sculpture in Canada would be listed; list-item-notability standards are up to the editors at an article. But editors of Pedimental sculptures in the United States (including me) worked out a standard that includes the nationally significant figurative sculptures in pediments of the U.S. Supreme Court building, etc., and that excludes local, residential or commercial ones which are simply laurels and flowers and scrolls and appear to be non-original.--Doncram (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the sculptures in the list under discussion is "nationally significant" (the sculpture, not the building!). Fram (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW User:Lockley's very first version of this list-article was already impressive (thank you, Lockley!), and BoringHistoryGuy has further developed it. --Doncram (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a new and already fine page, and objections have been explained well by the editors working on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A domed building is a thing, too, and there certainly can be a list-article of notable examples world-wide. Should it be List of domes or List of domed buildings? --Doncram (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. Oh, there is a worldwide list already, with France and some other areas broken out. Domes in Canada (currently a redlink), could be redirected to a Canada section in worldwide List of domes, or created as a separate article. --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet GNG - though could do with some more, independent, references. Nfitz (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this meet GNG? I don't see any sources in the article about "Pedimental sculptures in Canada", and most of the sources are extremely passing mentions of the pediment (often not even mentioning the sculpture) or don't mention the pediment at all. Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most, sure - not surprising out there. But there are some more detailed GNG sources out there like this. Nfitz (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article fails WP:LISTN and seems to be the result of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources used in the article discuss pedimental sculptures in Canada as a group and a quick WP:BEFORE does not reveal any sources. While the sourcing is ok for the most part for the sculptures in the list, WP:LISTN is clear that these should be discussed as a group otherwise this is just WP:OR. I would urge the above editors to review the list notability guidelines and revise their votes - arguments above seem to just be WP:WHATABOUT rather than providing sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just wrong. Pedimental sculptures (not specific to Canada I think) are discussed in sources such as Webb and Matlack (cited in both U.S. and Canada list-articles):

Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," The Architectural Forum, July 1925, Volume XLIII, Number 1, pp. 1.
Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1996 pp.23-25

So a list of notable examples is acceptable. And it is fine to split Canada out of a world-wide list, or for it to exist in advance of a truly comprehensive worldwide list being created. We don't need separate sources reviewing pedimental sculptures of Canada alone. Just like there are 1,000 or so list-articles of places listed on the U.S. National Register, broken out mostly by county; we don't need or want separate sources discussing each subcollection. --Doncram (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source give any reference to pedimental sculptures in Canada and it is wrong to use them to justify this article's notability. See below:

Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," - This makes no mention at all of Canadian architecture/sculpture or Canada more widely. Some American examples are given in this (obscure) article though. It's open access so editors can check for themselves.
Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands - Unless I am mistaken, Western Anatolia and the Argean Islands are not part of Canada. I cannot find any references to Canada or Canadian architecture/sculpture in the book with a search (see here). So I think looking at the topic of the book and the search results I can safely say that this source in no way talks about pedimental sculptures in Canada.

Of course these sources are fine to give background in the context of an already notable subject. But no sources that I can find talk about this as a group and without this it is just not notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that not one of the examples so far is actually notable of course. The buildings are, but the pedimental sculptures get at best a passing mention, that's it. You'll probably be able to find one or two which have received attention. Wikipedia isn't the place to create a "truly comprehensive worldwide list" of non notable individual features of buildings. Comprehensive lists are good for topics where most entries are individually notable, or where the group (not the concept, the group) is notable. A chonological list of people who held a certain notable function will often include both notable and non-notable people, fine. But a list of non-notable examples (the article here) of a group which hasn't received attention as a group subject (pedimental sculptures in Canada) either, on the basis that an even less restrictive topic (pedimental sculptures) is notable, is stretching the limits of spinoff far beyond what WP:NOTINHERITED allows. Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note some recent activity ([15] [16] [17] [18]) by Doncram come very close to inappropriate canvassing in my opinion. In the interests of transparency and for noting by the closer I have included this message here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprised by this from Doncram, I have to say. This is blatant canvassing (and at a project which is hardly relevant here). Of course, Doncram was first canvassed (together with some others like Randy Kryn) by BoringHistoryGuy[19], so this AfD is rather lopsided now. Fram (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Fram and others, there isn't sufficient evidence that pedimental sculpture is a notable grouping at all (pedimental sculpture is a redlink), let alone within Canada specifically. I'm far from an expert in this topic but I was not able to locate a single example of an individually specifically notable pedimental sculpture in Canada (meaning that the sculpture itself is notable, not just that it's on a notable building). The closest I came was this writeup on architectural features of the Manitoba Legislative Building, but the writeup (and our article) treat these appropriately as elements of the notable building, not notable artistic elements in and of themselves. Rather than being a selective list of notable topics, this is an indiscriminate list of features selected by its curator, very few of which have any information about them on Wikipedia at all - only five of the 26 entries in the list even have the artist noted. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly per Vladimir.copic who quite rightly points out that WP:LISTN is the appropriate standard here: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". I can't find anything approaching a reliable source that gives significant coverage to this grouping of things, as a grouping, as defined by the article. I could accept an argument that a comprehensive article at Pedimental sculpture would be justification for splitting "examples" out into lists, and that "examples by country" would be a logical grouping thereafter. And on that basis, I'd be fine with an effort to rename this list to that title (combined with Pedimental sculptures in the United States) so that an article can be developed there. Even a combined Pedimental sculpture in North America, if this concept has strong cultural ties to the continent generally (again, in reliable sources). Otherwise, these seem like lists looking for an parent article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose the next thing to do is to start a Pediment sculpture or Pedimental sculpture]] article so that Canada can be a spinoff from that. Carptrash (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom has invented a policy to argue for deletion. Specifically it's an argument that goes "Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to make a certain grouping of subjects" and demands a source for the scope of the article as a whole, to prove its overall notability with outside coverage. That language appears nowhere in WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. In fact the latter directly contradicts that: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." The nom's AfD argument is not supported by policy.

I get it, there's a big valid issue about how to make sure the scope of list articles and summary articles is appropriate for wikipedia. But this pretended policy that demands a cited precedent for any grouping is a terrible idea for wikipedia for 4 or 5 practical & philosophical reasons. I'm happy it's not real.

The nom has asserted this non-existent policy before, in this similar AfD about a year ago, giving this reason for deletion: "the [subject] has not been a separate subject of reliable sources, and is as such a random choice (a random intersection of characteristics) for an article." That caused a long tangled discussion. The AfD nomination is itself illogical -- "unverifiable" is way different than "random". The closest actual policy the deletion advocates could site was WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which does not apply to that article or this article. Finally the nom couldn't the position and the AfD was eventually withdrawn. This one should be too.

As to my article, I'd prefer to keep it. Notability is only valid issue I see. I believe it passes WP:LISTN in letter and spirit, because that bit of shiny doctrine reads "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". These pediment carvings are a subset of public art, which is widely covered & recognized as a valid encyclopedia topic. Is it true that pedimental sculpture doesn't exist? Could we do a better job explaining why pedimental sculptures are significant, expensive, complicated, worth attention as public art and fine art? Does public art have patchy coverage overall in wikipedia? Is wikipedia incomplete? Yes to all those questions. Those are arguments to keep. --Lockley (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite inaccurate and inappropriate to say the nom invented a policy. In your !vote you have quoted the aspect of the guidelines that we cannot get around: " only that the grouping or set in general has been". Until keep voters provide some sources that treat this topic as a group, it just patently fails on this count. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather invite all voters to look at the two paragraphs in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists to decide for themselves. It's eight sentences. It says stand-alone list articles must be notable. Sure. And one way to prove notability is to point to an independent reliable source for such a grouping. The second para begins, "There is no present consensus for.. what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." This AfD is fundamentally out of whack with that wording because it INSISTS on a citation as the only thing that can establish notability. --Lockley (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sentence in that guideline paragraph states: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." That recognized exception should be the gold standard to save this well-written, inclusive, and informative page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly obvious that this list does not fulfil any of these purposes - especially given the number of "unknown" "tbd" and red-linked entries and the single similarly-tiled article (see Stalwart111's comments). Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fulfills all of them. So we can maybe agree to good faith disagree. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The existence of parallel articles, such as Pedimental sculptures in the United States shows that the article's scope is routinely acceptable, and the article itself is not flawed in any policy-related way which justifies deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument comes down to WP:WHATABOUT. The relevant policy is WP:LISTN or at least WP:GNG which no keep voters seem to address. We could justify a "Pedimental sculptures in..." article for every country using this logic. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, I found that article too (and referenced it above). The issue is that it is the only other such article. Routinely acceptable? I'm not sure one single example establishes a routine. In fact, it's not even accurate to pluralise "parallel articles" as there is only one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But I don't think we should follow @Vlad's argument for every country, as I dare say there might well be some countries that do not have any pedimental sculptures to speak of. The article reflects the strong contribution made by Canada, which was accomplished without looting other countries, as happened with the Elgin Marbles! Leutha (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leutha - can you point to any sources discussing the strong contribution made by Canada to pedimental sculpture? I can't seem to find any. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence in searching for such references. However contributions to a discussion like this do not require the provision of references as this not a wikipedia article, so you will no doubt understand if I do not join you in your endeavours.Leutha (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "strong contribution" I suspect that Leutha means the number of these pediments found, though once we get going on Australia we will know for sure. France & Great Britain might even outscore the US, much less Canada. Carptrash (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number of these pediments maybe impressive, but the strength of the contribution is also shown by the nature of the associated buildings. It may well turn out that Paris alone outstrips the Anglophone contributions. I look forward to seeing these pages.Leutha (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leutha: Well I'm pretty sure you are not going to see Paris or London, at least from me, until this mess is decided. Carptrash (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the "keep" votes (some reasonably formulated, some needlessly confrontational, some canvassed), we still have the same situation:
- This is a non-notable grouping of non-notable sculptures
- WP:GNG makes it clear that list topics need to have the same notability as other articles
- WP:LISTN is slightly more "yes but no but yes", but starts with the same notability requirement and ends with "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." No arguments have been proposed why this list would be an exception to that rule
- All keep arguments seem to boil down to "I like it", "otherstuffexists", and "it isn't 100% explicitly prohibited completely at every junction".
- It would be a lot better if an article was created about an actually notable topic, Neoclassical architecture in Canada, where many of these buildings would make fine examples, and where different aspects of neoclassical architecture, like pediments and their sculptures, can briefly be discussed. That would be a notable, helpful, acceptable article. This list though belongs on Fandom or similar sites. Fram (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article fulfills all three of WP:LISTPURP, which is linked in WP:LISTN's criteria "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". The page fits the Information criteria: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists", the Navigation criteria: "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia", and the Development criteria: "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written." These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question (which has been undergoing improvement since this AfD started and has taken its place, for readers interested in art and sculpture, as one of the major Canadian art pages), shows that Keep points of reasoning go far beyond "I like it". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this is "one of the major Canadian art pages", then that's a very bleak picture of the other articles on Canadian art. This list doesn't serve a navigational purpose, i doesn't link different articles on pedimental sculptures, it links articles on buildings based on a non-notable element in them. Navigation based on non-defining elements is not what navigational lists should be used for. I have no idea what "development purpose" the list serves either, a list of non-notable elements will not lead to articles. Which leaves you only with "informational", which is a truism. A list which isn't informational is just gibberish. Furthermore, WP:LISTPURP is part of the manual of style, not a policy or guideline on notability and what is or isn't acceptable as an article topic on enwiki. Fram (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since I say it fits all three of the asked for criteria and you say it doesn't fit any we obviously have different points of view. Would like to point out that some of the most renowned pediments in North America don't have separate pages (pediments on the U.S. Supreme Court Building, the U.S. Capitol Building, and on the Jefferson Memorial come to mind), so the future is bright for editors who want to work on Wikipedia pediment pages, and both the U.S. and Canadian pediment lists provide plenty of opportunities and ideas to work on - a purpose which fulfills the criteria described above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Without evidence that some of these pediments are in itself notable, no, nothing in this list provides any opportunity. That entries on a different list which isn't up for deletion here may or may not be notable in themselves is of no interest here. As there is no actual evidence for your many claims, they should be dismissed out of hand. Fram (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        While you say my accurately-quoting-from-guidelines claims "should be dismissed out of hand" I say they should be given a hand, maybe by this guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid, notable subject for a WP article.14GTR (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Apart from the fact that you quote from a manual of style, not a notability guideline: it isn't enough to quote them, what you need to show is how they apply to the article at AfD. Something like "These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question" may sound clever, but is in fact empty (how does an article "enhance" these criteria?), and doesn't address any of the objections. Fram (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list/article. That individual items may or may not be notable is not an argument for deletion; most of the buildings will be, and many of their articles will cover this sculpture. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the arguments above by Randy Kryn, Johnbod and others. This list is a useful addition for the encyclopedia's readership. If this article is not kept, Fram has made a very good suggestion to create an article on Neoclassical architecture in Canada and this list can be a subsection of that. Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an even better alternative: Leutha has created a Pedimental sculpture. Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The buildings of which the sculptures are a part are notable, most of them anyway, but the sculptures in their pediments are not notable by themselves. This list is too "niche". I can't even find a list of sculptures in Canada (although we do have Category:Sculptures in Canada) so why should the subset of Pedimental sculptures be listed in this way? PK T(alk) 16:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Stalwart111 said, "these seem like lists looking for a parent article." I can imagine breaking these out of an article on Pedimental sculpture once it became unwieldy, but that article doesn't exist, and there's no evidence that Canada has a unique or notable tradition of pedimental sculpture. pburka (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to see the body of the article expanded with more detail about sculptures that are of special cultural or artistic importance. The list section works well. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for all of the keep !votes here, we really haven't seen any policy-based reasoning and most of them boil down to "it's nice", "it's useful", or "it's interesting". Those things can all absolutely be true but they don't help this list meet our inclusion criteria. And a closing admin could justifiably dismiss those arguments and delete this list anyway. But there is a solution being suggested - an alternative to deletion - which is that a parent article be created to maintain the content (the hard work of editors). By way of an analogy, this is like creating a log-book for a car's service history before buying the car. It's like defining the nutritional qualities of a cake you haven't baked. It's like listing your favourite characters for a show you haven't watched. There's so much passion and interest here. Can I please urge those passionate about this topic: buy the car; bake the cake; watch the show. Accept this was created in the wrong format and write the article. I hate seeing work deleted because the editors involved couldn't see the wood for the trees. *frustrated editor noises* St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good analogy would be creating an article for Bhutanese Jazz before having an article for Jazz. The clearly notable topic is Pedimental sculptures. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article, User:Vladimir.copic is Pediment, which was created in 2003. I'll add an obvious redirect. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target of that redirect (pediment) offers no information on pedimental sculpture, only on the notable architectural element, the pediment itself. Perhaps this list should be refocused into a List of pediments in Canada? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The 2nd sentence is "The tympanum, the triangular area within the pediment, is often decorated with relief sculpture", and several styles of sculpture are shown and captioned in the pictures. It's the correct redirect, and any expansion on the subject should start there. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the first image illustrating this article show something completely different (i.e. sculptures above a pediment)? Is the term pedimental sculpture well-understood in the field of art history, and does it include both reliefs and over-pediment sculptures? pburka (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not ideal as a lead pic, though striking. The caption does say "Over-pedimental figure with horses...". Pedimental sculpture is a well-understood term in art history, though the more precise "tympanum relief" or "tympanum sculptures" are probably more common. Not all are reliefs - the most famous of all, the Parthenon Marbles are mostly free-standing, I think with some relief work behind. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I am going to have to disagree with you on this score, @Vladimir.copic. A better analogy would be Canadian jazz, which does have an article, which can be accessed from the "Infobox music genre" located on the Jazz page you link to. As regards "Pedimental sculptures in Bhutan", I am not sure you'll find a single one! However, we know from this excellent article that there are a significant number of such pedimental sculptures and we can find out more about them.Leutha (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate your point, @Johnbod, I've been bold and started Pedimental sculpture, including material about the development of interest in precisely the Parthenon Marbles which developed in the nineteenth century.Leutha (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding work Leutha! That being the case, Merge to Pedimental sculpture until such time as separate national lists can be justified by the length of that article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the Pedimental sculptures in Canada page lately? It has been worked on continuously since this discussion started and is now a full, on-topic, quality page. "Until such time" has long passed, both the Canada and United States pediment pages certainly pass muster as Wikipedia worthy first-class articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Have you looked at that new article? The article that should have been created in the first place and into which a lot of that content should be merged? The issue remains that lists (of this form) are the solution to a problem; a problem that in this case simply doesn't exist. In fact, until the creation of that article, there wasn't even a place for that problem to have existed, such that it could have existed and required a solution. As I said earlier, the format choice here was unfortunate, but I'm genuinely keen for the content to be retained. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The opening line is instructive: "Pedimental sculptures in Canada are sculptures within the frame of a pediment on the exterior of a building." but just in Canada? There is nothing, other that the title, to suggest they are treated any differently in Canada, or that a specific list of Canadian examples needs to be separated from any general list of examples (should we require a list at all). And, and I can't stress this enough, this is a subject you'll only find here on Wikipedia because it is a synthesis of ideas that hasn't been the focus of significant study elsewhere. Pedimental sculpture exists, and there are some examples in Canada. It is original research to suggest than some commonality or uniqueness sets Canadian examples apart in a manner that requires specific coverage. Why not Pedimental sculptures in Canada in marble, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada in the context of court houses, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada created during the multiple Prime Ministerial terms of John A. Macdonald...? There is as much information available for me to sythesize a list together for each of those titles... St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've looked at it, a good worldwide scope page which will get much better. That nice and fully worked-up separate list pages on Canada's pediment sculpture and United States pediment sculptures exist augments it and the topic. It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia, so let's not go backwards and remove one of the good ones. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to interpret the very novel, "It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia" beyond stating the obvious; that we don't owe coverage to any subject, especially one that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. I've actively suggested and supported an alternative to deletion for an article that in no way meets our inclusion criteria, but supporters seem keen to chant WP:ILIKEIT instead. *shrugs*. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this falls well within WP:LISTPURP, and is capable of satisfying WP:CSC. There may be a better way to organise the content of this topic and group these as sections on pages with a broader scope, but that's a matter for a merge discussion or rfc. Doesn't look like there's a WP:SALAT issue to me. For the record, yes I was brought here by one of those non-neutral notices, I'm not a fan of those, but I stand by my !vote nonetheless and don't believe the wording of the notice affected my decision making here. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already !voted above) - I applaud the work done on pedimental sculpture which did not exist at the start of this discussion, and the material added to the article under discussion which handily demonstrates that there is one notable pedimental sculpture that is located in Canada. However, that addition illustrates the delete argument: that one sculpture is notable in isolation because of the folklore associated with it; its notability does not in any way derive from being in Canada. Many of the keep voters have described good general reasons why such a list would be kept, such as that pedimental sculptures in Canada are an important topic in art history or art criticism or architectural heritage, that there are many examples of specifically notable pedimental sculptures located in Canada, and/or that there are widespread sources discussing the topic of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically, and yes those are all very good guidelines, however no sources have been provided demonstrating that any of these arguments are true. Pedimental sculpture is notable, and Canada is notable, but "pedimental sculptures in Canada" is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Why is it non-notable? Because no evidence has been provided that it is notable, other than Wikipedians insisting that it is, and that is not how WP:GNG works. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @PEIsquirrel: Thanks for your thoughtful comment, I can't speak for everyone, but in my case I think this is much like the Listed buildings in Rivington example in WP:CSC, where WP:LISTPURP is satisfied even though we have neither WP:SIGCOV on the topic itself, nor or most entries blue-linked. I only see a potential problem if it later turns out to be difficult to adjudicate inclusion criteria, or if the list grows beyond the stipulated 32k of text. While you reference cross-categorizations, WP:LISTN specifically states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists so that's hardly a strong deletion arguement. It continues Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability (emphasis mine). Even if those issues I mentioned do arise that is still not a reason for deletion since there is content suitable for merging elsewhere (WP:ATD) in which case WP:NNC will apply and any concerns over issues finding SIGCOV of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically would be purely academic. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Listed buildings in Rivington is not an apt comparison. As that featured article describes, Rivington is a nationally recognized heritage conservation area, and the buildings described therein are also individually listed on a national historic register; several have standalone articles and there are very likely to be academic sources for the ones that don't. This list of pedimental sculptures in Canada is just some art, with no indication that any of it is notable on its own. The buildings may be but as the linked CRHP pages describe, they are notable for heritage value in urban development and preservation, and examples of specific architectural styles, not for their artwork (or not significantly versus other factors). "There is no present consensus" does not mean we ignore the WP:GNG, and if this list fulfills some "recognized informational, navigation, or development purpose" then please provide any evidence at all that it is recognized, beyond your insistence that it is. Wikipedia is not a guidebook for art tourism and not a directory of indiscriminate information. As for WP:ATD, some (not very much) of the information here could be reorganized into lists of heritage architecture based on the CRHP's listings (e.g. the Ancienne-Douane could be included in a list of buildings by notable architect John Ostell, or a list of notable examples of Palladian architecture, if those existed, as those are the notable elements described on its CRHP page, not its pediment artwork). But "some of it could be reused" is not an argument for keeping the non-notable list. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @PEIsquirrel: Thanks for your continued engagement. no indication that any of it is notable on its own well you yourself have conceded at least one is, as to whether others are notable, probably some are, is that unsupported assertion, well so is your assertion that everything in Rivngton is notable, but it's unlikely that there are no others. But actually I think that's all academic/irrelevant, since GNG must be read in concert with LISTN as both are part of the same guideline. You assert that it is not recognised except WP:LISTN does not leave that term out there, hanging undefined. Instead it links directly to WP:LISTPURP, and this certainly falls within the ambit of informational purpose. You assert indiscriminate, predicated on your own analysis, but that's not how that works or else many afds would just have a chorus of people saying, I think it's indiscriminate and others saying I think it isn't with no standard by which to judge, but in fact we have guidelines that reify that policy in practice and in this case that guideline is WP:CSC. As of right now this passes the 3rd criterion Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group so it is not indiscriminate under our own guidelines (there is less than 32k of text). Finally you've conceded that there is useful information that could be organized and reused. If that is the case deletion is already off the table per policy, that may mean merging, but that can be dealt without outside of afd. Which is to say presumably you would be ok with a result of Keep with no prejudice against a speedy merge discussion, and I'd be fine with that as well, so our positions aren't too far apart, and I'd have to do some more research and think that one over. Of course that's just my opinion and I know your speaking to the group as a whole, likely Doncram will have a differrent perspective along with many others. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Needs work I think the topic is within the notable topic of architecture in Canada. The article should focus on notable examples as sections, and keep a pruned list of examples of type. As it is, it is mostly just a long list of examples without notable characteristics fully documented. There is no way a list like this could be comprehensive, so it should focus on notable examples. For example, I would think all of the buildings on the registry of historic places should be kept. Sure, it is a niche work, but that should not matter. Alaney2k (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Without knowing anything about Canadian heritage listings, I'd be rather surprised if any of the buildings on the list are not listed. For example neither the list nor the article say that the Alberta Legislature Building (top of the list) is listed, but I bet it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And here it is on the Alberta list. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The listing mentions the building's pediment several times but doesn't say anything about a sculpture within that pediment. The building is certainly notable, but is the pedimental sculpture? pburka (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I take "monumental pediment" to mean a pediment with monumental sculpture in it. There are several references to the level of ornamental sculpture on and in thebuilding. It isn't a very precise architectural description - it doesn't even say how many bays the facades have, normally the first thing any such description says. In any case it isn't necessary to demonstate the items in the list are individually notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of pedimental sculpture itself is widely written on going back to Ancient Greece and Rome. As a broader art subject its of interest to writers on art and architecture. Likewise Canadian art is also a topic of interest within sources and research. In this case we are overlapping/intersecting two broader notable areas of art in what is a reasonable intersection. Likewise much of the architecture within the list is notable with its own stand alone articles, so this is a reasonable navigation list. Any unsourced content can be challenged and removed, but given that many of these are notable buildings there is likely to be RS to verify this article (much of it offline in books and other publications on the art and architecture of these buildings).4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The only claimed policy based reason to delete I see above is WP:NLIST which says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." Nope - the guideline just doesn't agree with the claim. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:29, 16 September 2021 (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. Withdrawn by Nominator. no opinions to the contrary. Self close (non-admin closure) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Vietnam

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

Undersourced and underformatted list, this has been returned to draft once before by Discospinster eleven months ago. Since then it has languished with small enhancements only, prior to being moved from draft by one of its editors. My instinct was to draftily it, but doing that a second time without an AfD discussion is move warring. The elapsed time after the prior draftificaton does not, in my view, affect the move warring issue

My recommended outcome is to draftify after discussion. I do not see the need (so far) to delete this material. Worthy similar lists exist, but with sourcing and with excellence of formatting. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor who moved it to maim space moved it back to draft. While this is a likely outcome of the discussion here it is not necessarily the outcome which will be determined at close time.. They removed the AfD notice. I have reinstated that notice, and moved it back to main space. While this may seem pedantic since the editor obviously wishes to edit it further, it may be edited as an article, and should be so edited.

At present there is a worrying trend of articles sent to AfD being moved swiftly (back?) to draft space, which feels to me to be seeking to game the system Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an interesting counterpoint to the frequent comment of “take it to AfD” when you draftify something, to have something draftified to avoid AfD.Mccapra (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few weeks, I've seen this "moving article in AFD discussion to Draft space" occur at least 5 or 6 times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any reason to delete this. While this article currently still working and updating, this article could be another contribute to the "Sports broadcasting contracts by country" list in Wikipedia. Comics Rovio (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR: Sufficient references have been added to make deletion now not relevant. I will close this myself since no-one has offered a delete opini0n Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:03, 11 September 2021 (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 13:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Man

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

Article is a stub and, from what I can establish, it is not clear that there is significant coverage in the sources provided. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, former product. No reliable sources found; pictures and old ads and such. Could redirect to Jovan, the company that made it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom non notable product.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is sufficient for a stand-alone list, but discussion to merge may continue on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the United States by time in office

AfDs for this article:

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

Trivial cross-categorisations. The only novel information that this includes that isn't in the respective plain lists (List of presidents of the United States, ...) is the exact mathematical count of days. That could relatively trivially be included in those if it was truly important information; but looks more like WP:NOTSTATS trivia anyways. Therefore delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: the same purpose could be achieved by adding a duration column to the main list and making that column sortable. It doesn't deserve an article all to itself. Richard75 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and valid WP:SPLITLISTs. The parent List of presidents of the United States and List of vice presidents of the United States are not sortable, so ranking by time in office is not possible. Given the particularly large amount of scholarly attention in WP:RS to these subjects, this is not mere trivia and having numerous sub-list articles is appropriate and strengthens our coverage of the subject. Nothing is to be gained here from deletion, and deletion would be removing access to historically significant information. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the particularly large amount of scholarly attention in WP:RS to these subjects" would ideally require that you provide actual sources to demonstrate this statement. Unless and until you do, and that's dubious, since academics usually aren't bothered with such things as counting the exact number of days a president was in office, then there's no reason to think this is anything but statistical trivia, which is why I also oppose a merge. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The above mentioned issue can be solved by making the other pages sortable.2601:241:300:B610:7919:2709:2F93:275 (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the points made by Mdewman6. This page is consistent with other Wikipedia articles devoted to world leaders' time in office/length of tenure such as Prime Ministers and Premiers of Canada, Prime Ministers of United Kingdom, etc. There are also numerous other individual articles relating to United States Presidents' age/lifespan, education, net worth, etc. Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the good old "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" argument? None of that addresses how there are no sources to back up that this is actually a notable list topic and not just statistical trivia. As for the similar pages, that's about to be dealt with, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into President of the United States, where the Incumbency section can be expanded to accommodate this content with the appropriate context. I agree with nom that this article fails WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and WP:NOSTATS. Edge3 (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments submitted by Mdewman6 and Wiki O'Ryan. Both this entry and the other similar entries, concurrently nominated for deletion, provide detailed comparison of each current president's time in office in relation to his predecessors — data which is not available anywhere else on Wikipedia. It may be useful to visit Talk:List of presidents of the United States by time in office to peruse various postings regarding this subject and, even more importantly, to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of the United States by time in office, from four-and-a-half years ago (February 2017), to read both "Keep" and "Delete" arguments, especially "Keep" points made by Postdlf (17:59, 5 February 2017). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So "Keep per already debated arguments"? The data not available anywhere else might as well simply not belong at all, which explains why it isn't anywhere else and shouldn't be. As for the previous AfD, it closed as no consensus, so, unless you can quote a particularly interesting and convincing argument from there, doesn't change anything as far as WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY are concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the info can be added as a column similar to the one on List of governors of New York.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love seeing how leaders' time in office compares with others over time. Axedel (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INTERESTING is not considered a valid argument.2601:241:300:B610:EC54:56D:1E0F:B3A8 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into President of the United States. After some further consideration, I feel that the information may not warrant a page of its own, but is significant enough to be included in a sortable column. Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mdewman6 and Wiki O'Ryan.4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and valid WP:SPLITLISTs. Notwisconsin (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a good article with useful information, especially when explaining the lengths of certain terms (how some were cut short, or why others were longer than expected). PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not completely opposed to merging, but I think because of issues with target articles (length, not sortable tables), it's valid for this to remain separate. Rhino131 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2021 (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 13:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elections lost by presidents of the United States

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

I can't find anything suggesting this is more than a trivial cross-categorisation; but even worse, I can't find any source at all to support the statements made in the lead, making me think the subject itself is actually WP:OR, in addition to the blatant WP:LISTN fail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NLIST as I cannot find any sources discussing this as a group. While the information in the article is reasonably well sourced ultimately this is WP:OR as this does not seem to be a category discussed by sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to find a few things that talked around the idea of former presidents having lost incidental or unrelated elections for other things and it seems to be a something that the presidential trivia-mongers are interested in. That said, we require significant coverage, or at least enough coverage that we can be certain this isn't the original research of Wikipedians. The fact that the lede is a mess, and contradicts the content included therein, just adds to the issues. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems unnecessary for a wiki Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2021 (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. czar 03:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxagile

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

FailsWP:NCORP-- no reliable sources or notability . The Russian source is about their participation in a trade exhibit. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable sources, reads more like a press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete since the company seems to have been mentioned recently for its video recognition (spyware). However, I see single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Forevertim keeps adding promotional content. W Nowicki (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2021 (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) Peter303x (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association of British Counties

AfDs for this article:

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

This was AfD'd in 2006 and kept, but the discussion's was not great IMO, at least by today's standards.

This advocacy group does not appear notable, which is apparent by the state of and citations in the article which are mostly to its own website, or PDF reports, or quotations of its members from debates, etc. The entire article is written based on primary sources, for which it has had a maintenance tag since 2009. Of the decent secondary sources, there are two BBC links which only contain passing mentions. [20] (3 sentences!) [21]

Doing a WP:BEFORE search has the same issue (Google News) -- some aside coverage in a paragraph of the source of quotes from a member, but nothing substantial. This does not meet GNG much less WP:NORG; an article based on reliable secondary sources cannot be written. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's references mix together references to its own website and references from reliable sources, including The Times and less exciting but still reliable ones like the Northern Echo. The online archives of The Times are behind a paywall. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checked on gale.com; the first The Times cite is a diary entry saying "The Association of British Counties will be toasting Ridley at its inaugural conference next Saturday." which is the only mention of the organisation. The other The Times Diary entry does not mention the org at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also The Times article "Battle to revive Rutland joined by lobbyist" from 20 July 1991 which mentions the organisation's formation, membership and campaigning Piecesofuk (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What page? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
page 6 Piecesofuk (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, search on this archive browser is a bit lousy. That's one source with decent coverage, although minus the quotes there is hardly enough for a whole article, but more like a paragraph in the historic countries article in a section about campaign groups. Are there other significant independent secondary sources? (WP:MULTSOURCES says A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. and WP:ORGDEPTH says the trivial sources with insignificant coverage don't count.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's 30+ hits on the British Newspaper Archive (although the BNA doesn't have many recent newspapers) https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1950-01-01/1999-12-31?basicsearch=%22association%20of%20british%20counties%22&exactsearch=false&retrievecountrycounts=false&page=1 There's about twice that number on ProQuest which you can access via the Wikipedia Library. There's a similar number of hits if you search the gov.uk domain. I don't see how deleting this page improves Wikipedia. Piecesofuk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those hits are the same thing (eg Association of British Counties who care about the problem nationally), or completely passing mentions (Mr Butcher, Conservative member for Coventry south-west, is president of the Association of British Counties), and of the selection I checked none are substantial coverage on the advocacy organisation itself. They're mentions, and likewise a mention may be appropriate at Historic counties of England. It improves the encyclopaedia: a) because WP:NORG is not met, which means that b) an article based on independent reliable secondary sources cannot be written, as required by policy and as evidenced here, with a primary sources maintenance tag for over a decade. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to pass WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I shall refrain from voting but will just comment. The people behind this seem to want to go back to the borders that existed before 1965, but there is nothing particularly historic about the pre-1965 borders. It would make more sense to return to the pre-1844 borders, but although the authors of the page seem to know that there was a revision in 1844 they don't seem to take it very seriously. I noticed that because their map clearly shows the Rame peninsula in Cornwall (as it is now), not in Devon (as it was then). Athel cb (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with irredentism everywhere - the question of how far we go back. The answer is usually that we go back to whenever the entity on behalf of which the claim is being made was at its largest extent, but when a claim is being made on behalf of multiple entities claiming the same territory it simply leads to it disappearing up its own backside. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite their edit war on place articles to insert Historic Counties in the open sentence of each lead. This article is important to identify who the key ABC editors are that are engaged in this disruptive partisan activity Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except, it's written based on primary sources, so it's arguably not even true content, and is probably self-serving. It can always redirect to a more relevant section somewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've read the comments by Jonnyspeed20 on relevant talk pages, and looked at specific articles (such as Kingston upon Thames) I thoroughly agree with Jonnyspeed20 that the activities of some editors are disruptive. An admin needs to look into the matter. Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first two sections of the article, Definitions... and Aims... amount to nothing more than free publicity for the group. The Activities section explains what the group's position was during a November 2007 campaign. Addresses and signage is a list of trivia 'successes' that are not even attributed to the group, but to the wider "traditional counties movement". Party political support: none; no party is claimed to support the group, not even UKIP and the English Democrats (the best that can be said is that their thinking appears similar). Parliamentary support: almost none; a random collection of issues that may be of interest to the group, but with which they were mostly not involved. Commentary: ditto - simply a list of quotes that they approve of. Affiliates: most appear to have been short-lived groups that no longer exist and are sourced to dead links; several never had any connection and are mentioned for their 'similar aims'; those that do exist don't seem to mention the group. Publications: entirely self-serving promotion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that and now favour deletion. I have done some edits to the page to remove the worst points, but probably deletion is the only answer. Athel cb (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Mainly because of the two BBC articles, I find that this association barely has enough coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage actually needs to be substantial, see WP:ORGDEPTH. Two passing mentions in BBC in quotes don’t confer organisational notability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 08:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scrapes over the line. RomanSpa (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear from the BNA search above and a PROQUEST search that WP:SIGCOV is met. Either a proper WP:BEFORE wasn't done, or the nomination was made with a questionable motive as indicated by others above.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2021 (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. Establishment of notability seems borderline right now, recommend waiting a short while to see if it becomes less borderline as time goes on. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Denzongpa

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

Not enough references to prove notability. Most probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it is the case of WP:TOOSOON. And weak references. GermanKity (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON with no real availability of coverage. TheChronium 15:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The serial is getting lot of attention in mainstream media. It focuses on the struggles of a Northeastern girl in Mumbai . I have added new reliable sources to the article.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/exclusive-nima-denzongpas-lead-actress-surabhi-das-when-people-from-northeast-win-medals-we-are-india-ki-beti-but-otherwise-we-are-chinkis/photostory/85457106.cms
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15175236/
--Curvasingh (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references and the current version of the subject is meeting wikipedia's criteria WP:TVSHOW. Bapinghosh (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A case of WP:TOOSOON. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' as an alternative to deletion; while this might be TOOSOON to have gotten anything but routine coverage, given the show is apparently currently airing, it seems rather likely we'll get an idea whether this will attract enough attention to develop into a more fully fledged article (or not) within a reasonable timeframe. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is getting 571 pageviews a day, which shows it is, and will, "attract enough attention". Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason to keep (nor would arguing that it gets few pageviews be a reason to delete). 500-odd pageviews is also not very much. What matters is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's what I was speaking of when I said "attract enough attention". So far, that doesn't appear to be the case, but given that it's a TV show in a populous country and that it's barely begun airing, that justifies draftifying as an alternative to deletion at this time (if, say, in 6 months, once the show has aired, there still isn't any significant coverage, that will likely justify this being deleted, since there's no reasonable expectation at that point that this would get further coverage). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's plenty of coverage. My point on pageviews was that removing this article for six months based on some misguided notion about "too soon" will deprive 92,000 readers the chance to read about a topic that is important to them. Abductive (reasoning) 17:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 08:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed with the "too soon", could perhaps draftify for now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: agreed with the nomination but as it is a TV show, it may gain coverage in near future to establish notability. defcon5 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP: GNG with Times of India, Zee News and India Today coverage. All sources appear to be reuptable. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2021 (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. References have been added to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Nature at Reads Creek

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

not notable. a nursery selling plants. only ref is a link to the nursery's web site. web search only finds listings for the nursery, no notable references. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all - I believe I was the original creator of this article, which focused on the public arboretum. I have no interest in the commercial enterprise, but if the public aboretum still exists, I hope that entry will be maintained. Here is my original article:

Jones Arboretum and Botanical Gardens, also known as Jones Arboretum and Natural Gardens, and now called Read's Creek Nursery, is an arboretum and for-profit plant nursery located on Route 14 in Readstown, Wisconsin.

The community arboretum was established in 1973 by Royce Jones, a nuclear engineer, in conjunction with a tree nursery and his own gardens. After his retirement, it now features more than 100 kinds of trees, as well as some 700 non-woody plants, including 400 perennials. The plants are available for sale, or purely for learning and enjoyment.

It seems a shame to me if information about a public arboretum is deleted - but I have no particular interest in a commercial undertaking.

All best wishes, Daderot (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on the Second Nature site or reviews about it that talk about the arboretum as being anything other than an area to review plants that you can buy. Can anyone find anything that shows that the arboretum still exists as an attraction for visitors? rsjaffe talk 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable commercial venture. I visited their website and it appears to be a very nice place, but I was unable to find any coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the article is unreferenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've found a reference after scrolling past some Facebook pages. There might be more out there, but I can't find any at the moment. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I have performed a cleanup as well as added the reference to give the article less of a promotional tone. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved since nomination. I've found additional sources such as News8000, WNA, and another snippet from the La Crosse Tribune.
Comment It appears the owners of this business also own a company called Second Nature By Hand (source), I'm not sure if it is linked to this business other than being owned by the same people. NemesisAT (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added sources show significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2021 (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. There seems to be sufficient consensus that the thorough analysis of available sources is not quite enough to satisfy GNG at this time. The article can always be restored later if the subject receives significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources; as required by GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Bogart

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

Claim to notability seems to all be based no one role. Successful actress, but I couldn't see the coverage or significance to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now make a decision. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My guess is that this subject is borderline on notability. Primary notability probably comes from the General Hospital role (which was actually significant), and from her more recent Lifetime movie work (the article is out-of-date, and doesn't look to have any roles Bogart has done since 2017). But my guess is that this is the kind of career that is not going to generate much in the way of independent coverage... So likely borderline on WP:NACTOR, but I'm guessing the subject will be a "miss" in terms of WP:BASIC... I will try to remember to monitor this discussion, but I'm not ready to !vote at this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no coverage on her. One ref is dead, the other is woeful. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be known for other things, like yoga instructor, "influencer" with over 10,000 twitter and instagram followers. Not convincing enough on way or another for me to !vote. may need more research on the topic before deleting. Gaff (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Took a look online to check for significant coverage, found numerous articles and interviews. Perviously failed WP:SIGCOV, but I think with the added references now meets notability guidelines. Weber1982 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't think the WP:INTERVIEWS that were added count as secondary reliable sources. They offer very little WP:INDEPENDENT commentary on the subject. Overall, subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her roles have mostly been one-offs/bit parts. Not notable -Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Bit-part actor. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not accurate – she's not a "bit-part actor": those don't headline Lifetime TV movies. More accurately, she's a character actor who has been working for two decades: those generally don't merit Wikipedia articles, but they aren't "bit-part actors". That's insulting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "those generally don't merit Wikipedia articles" - they sometimes do, sometimes do not, but many character actors are well-known. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Double voting, this vote should not be counted. And "bit-part" part is not factually correct. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As this vote was not crossed, I fixed this myself per Wikipedia:Be bold. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant role in major soap opera, several recurring roles on TV and main roles in Lifetime channel films. She also had film roles, including lead role in The Last Run opposite Amy Adams and Fred Savage. So she meets WP:NACTRESS. Sources were added, there is enough coverage. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There really isn't – 3 of the 4 sources you added are mere passing mentions. Nothing that has happened in this discussion moves me off what would likely be a "weak delete" vote. This subject is just not going to clear WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, she satisfies WP:NACTRESS and is certainly not a bit-part actress as was stated above. [22], and here is not a passing mention [23]. Here is another source - I think the fact that such reliable website writes about her is the indication that she is notable [24]. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, had a role in a major soap opera and has received significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She may be borderline at WP:ENT but, when you look at the interviews with her, she would meet WP:GNG.
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. All of the sources in the article or mentioned above are either trivial mentions of the subject which are not in-depth and are brief mentions; are unreliable self-published websites; or they are interviews which do not count towards notability because they lack independence and are too closely connected to the subject. There are zero sources in the article which are both independent and in-depth which is what is required to meet GNG. Likewise, contrary to what others are claiming, she also fails WP:NACTRESS as we have no proof that any of the other roles beyond General Hospital are notable. This is evidenced by the lack of independent sources saying so. Promotional publications and press releases are not independent RS. We need independent critical reviews of her performances to prove criteria 1 of NACTRESS; otherwise it's just personal opinion not backed by evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that such websites as Deadline write about actors' new roles if they are notable, and the proof that her roles are significant is that it is mentioned that the actress got role (and there was written more than here [25]), and in subsequent news the fact that she appeared is cited, so she is known by these roles. She also appeared in recurring role in Emmy winning series, and in above mentioned film she had a star billing (billed before Vyto Rugynis). There are also actors that have one significant roles and are notable. And I would also argue that critical reviews are needed for criteria 3. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spoilertv.com and Deadline are promotional sources and are not considered independent coverage because they are essentially repeats of WP:ROUTINE press releases which are not independent of the shows and actors they are helping to promote, or are regurgitations of WP:TABLOID type content. In other words they are not useable materials for proving notability under Wikipedia’s policies at WP:SIGCOV or WP:Verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mentioned it to show that Deadline wrote more about her than this website. She also appeared had a star billing in several films, including aforementioned film and film with Kathleen Quinlan [26] (her name is on poster, that probably shows it is significant role). Kirill C1 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deadline, along with Variety, THR and Wrap is used precisely to demonstrate notability, otherwise there would be no reliable sources to provide notability for actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are tons of entertainment publications of quality. Variety is one, so is Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, as well as general newspapers. Deadline is typically not a good source. The issue here though is the sources are not in-depth enough to prove notability. Further, a film poster doesn’t prove anything. Lots of non-notable films get made. This particular film has no wiki article, and I’m not sure was ever released into theaters. I can find no independent sources reviewing the film or which indicate that the film itself was notable, let alone any of the actor’s performances. Again we need an independent review of the film demonstrating the role the actress portrayed was significant to pass that guideline. Trivial mentions don’t count. Read WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        First, it's not like there are only three cinema publications of quality. Second, I have written that Quinlan stars in it (and also Lin Shaye). There is another film that has reviews and were Bogart's name is on poster. If the role is starring, it is significant per se and if it is in notable film it satisfies the criteria, there are significant supporting roles and even roles in episodes may attract coverage. There are multiple sources that combined demonstrate notability. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis. Given the pushback here; I have decided to give a detailed source analysis which clearly shows we lack enough RS to justify keeping the article per wikipedia's notability criteria. All of the sources and the external links from the article are included, as well as all additional sources presented so far at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source	Independent?	Significant Coverage?	Reliable?	Pass/Fail	Notes
"Andrea Bogart". Hollywood.com. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	N	Y	N	Essentially a credits list likely provided by the subject, their publicist, or taken directly from IMDB
Michael Fairman (December 17, 2011). "Andrea Bogart talks about her exit from General Hospital!". Michael Fairman On-Air On-Soaps. Archived from the original on July 1, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview source is directly connected to the subject and therefore lacks independence. Self published tabloid website run by actor Michael Fairman with no editorial oversite; not considered reliable RS per WP:Verifiability and WP:TABLOID
"Emily Bergl Upped To Regular On Showtime's 'Shameless'; Andrea Bogart To Recur On 'Ray Donovan'". Deadline Hollywood. March 13, 2014. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	N	Y	N	Press release of new role; most likely paid for and provided directly from Bohemia Group and Intelligence Artists Agency. Lacks independence and not RS per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestravelguide/2020/03/23/from-cocktail-classes-to-an-arts-salon-try-these-virtual-hotel-experiences/?sh=37755e44657a	N	N	Y	N	Trivial mention promoting the subject's yoga classes which directly link to her self written self promotional Facebook posts; very brief and clearly self promotional
NCIS Exclusive First Look: Who's Tony Chatting Up on the Beach in the Bahamas...?	?	N	Y	N	Very brief mention of the actress highlighting a picture of her in a bikini. Likely provided directly by the NCIS producers and paid for to promote the show; even if independent not significant RS
https://2paragraphs.com/2017/06/who-is-wife-heather-in-the-wrong-neighbor-on-lifetime/	N	Y	N	N	https://2paragraphs.com/about/ is an essentially pay to promote media content engine; it therefore lacks independence and is not considered reliable RS; most likely paid for by the subject or her agency
This Lifetime Original Will Make You Appreciate Your Noisy Neighbors	Y	Y	Y	Y	Independent film review in Bustle (magazine). This source is good.
HAWAII FIVE-0	N	N	N	N	Much like IMDB or wikipedia, site can be altered by anyone with an account.
Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 7 at IMDb	N	N	N	N	See WP:IMDB
Eades, Chris. "Andrea Bogart Is "So Grateful" For Her Time on GENERAL HOSPITAL". Soaps In Depth. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Steinberg, Lisa. "Andrea Bogart – Cheer Camp Killer". StarryMag. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Turano, Sammi. "Seduced By My Neighbor's Andrea Bogart Interviewed". PCM World News. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS.
https://www.nerdsandbeyond.com/2019/09/23/andrea-bogart-on-this-weeks-episode-of-in-love-with-michael-rosenbaum-and-chris-sullivan/	N	N	N	N	Unreliable website; paid for PR which lacks independence; not in-depth enough to be significant
https://www.tvovermind.com/andrea-bogart/	N	N \|	N	N	Trivial fluff website; not clear if the site is independent or accepts money to promote subjects; not likely to reliable; WP:TABLOID applies
https://deadline.com/2015/09/powers-enrico-colantoni-andrea-bogart-snowfall-1201562096/	N	N	Y	N	lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID
https://www.spoilertv.com/2014/03/ray-donovan-season-2-andrea-bogart-gets.html	N	N	Y	N	lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID

- There is certainly a problem here - half the sources are deemed unworthy only because they are 'likely' to be not independent. Deadline Hollywood is a good source, and is used in great many Wikipedia articles. Casting news are frequently used in Wikipedia article as source, and you can not properly write career section for actors without them. My main concern is - if the sources are needed to cover the topic (in this case the actress) and interviews are not good, the news about actor specifically are not good enough, recaps and sneek peeks of TV shows are not good enough, random news about actors are not good enough, and the mentioning of the role actor played is not significant enough, then what could theoretically be used to establish notability? We can just disqualify all the possible sources and delete most articles. Then, the rule says that sources can be combined, and together they may be enough to write the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- While I do not agree with the description of the sources and the approach seems too critical to the sources ('likely provided', 'likely paid'), the person still has enough significant roles and hence passes WP:Nactress. There are several reviews you can find in the Internet. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Кирилл С1 You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD. I strongly urge you to read WP:GNG. We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ultimately, I don't think you have a strong grasp on what makes a quality source per wikipedia policy, as evidence by your defense of sources that are clearly not reliable or independent.

Not all sources that are permissible for use in building article content are equally usable or valuable towards proving notability. For example, GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Deadline Hollywood routinely prints press releases, and we explicitly exclude those from counting towards notability per GNG policy. Likewise, interviews are directly "produced by the article's subject" and are also not usable towards proving notability. This doesn't mean that we can't use those sources in writing articles, it merely means we can't use them to justify keeping an article at AFD. The problem is not with my analysis but with your failure to accept wikipedia's written policies at WP:GNG. My analysis is not unusual, but standard/typical practice here at AFD for evaluating source content when we are measuring it against notability standards. As it stands, there is only one quality source currently in evidence which can be used to prove notability because there is only one source that is independent, reliable, and demonstrates significant coverage. Typically we require a minimum of three sources that demonstate independence, reliability, and significant coverage to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To give you examples of quality sources for actors and entertainment in general: Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, books written by someone other than the subject or someone closely connected to them that are not self published, etc. are all quality sources in entertainment. They write original content, don't print press releases, have editorial oversight, and don't accept payment from the people whom they are writing on. This demonstrates independence and reliability.

To give you examples of poor quality sources: tvovermind.com, www.spoilertv.com, deadline.com, www.thefutoncritic.com, 2paragraphs.com, tvline.com/ are all sources with little or no editorial oversight; most routinely print press releases; most routinely accept money from the people they write on or their agents. In other words all have problems with independence and reliability.09:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD." No, I am not. I participated in and have read enough discussions to see that some guidelines are interpreted differently, that are different approaches to establishing notability. Filmakers whose work was reviewed in reliable sources were proposed for deletion, even academy-award nominees were proposed. There are different perceptions what significant is. If we read that the purpose of Wikipedia is creating widely accessible and free encyclopedia, and giving access to the sum of all human knowledge, we will doubt that deleting the article about the actress who co-starred in films with Jason London, Amy Adams and had recurring TV roles. "We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there." - but if we understand that the actor is notable by looking at his roles, do we need to look at the sources so thoroughly, especially since there are more sources in the article than in many other articles about actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when Deadline Hollywood is poor quality? It is not worse than Wrap, or DenofGeeks, or Screen Rant. In truth, there are more reliable sources than 4 mentioned, and even more top sources. It was written by you that the news about her was likely provided by network - how so, if the news consists of two casting pieces about project on different channels.Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources are referring to Deadline - "according to deadline" while reporting news [27] [28], [29], also Slashfilm, Space.com, Vulture, and others. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the deadline pieces are press releases. Cast announcements are press releases. We can't use press releases as proof of notability at AFD. Further WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are not valid arguments at AFD. At this point I am not going to respond any further because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR obstructionism.4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I disagree with this view in a "narrow" sense – reports like this in Deadline Hollywood do somewhat contribute to "notability" in that they can be used to establish "significant roles" under WP:NACTOR. But they are almost always "passing mentions" and are not "significant coverage"... Again, the important metric in the case of WP:BLPs is WP:BASIC, which easily trumps WP:NACTOR as the actually relevant standard, and again I agree with the broader argument that this subject has not received enough "significant coverage" to actually pass WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 4meter4's source assessment and my own research that was not able to find much more, e.g. Los Angeles Times, 2019; VH1, 2013. The criteria for WP:NACTOR does not appear to be met, including significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, and relatedly, WP:BASIC notability also does not appear to be supported. Beccaynr (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little available in terms of independent analysis and content from RS, obviously fails NACTOR requirements too. I very much agree with the comments from 4meter4, Beccaynr and Qwaiiplayer above me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 21 September 2021 (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AstralSat

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

Not notable. Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH Asketbouncer (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, and I think notability is now demonstrated. The corresponding article in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia has been deleted. AstralSat may have suspended operations or been taken over by another company, but I think it was notable while it existed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. Eastmain added some references (all the references) and there is one, that meets the criteria for establishing notability, this company analysis report from Digitgaps as it includes analysis and fact-checking and meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. I'm of the opinion that a company is very rarely given this much analysis by a single analyst and although I have been unable to locate another reference, I'm happy enough to believe that one exists in Portuguese and I'm simply unable to locate it - see WP:NEXIST HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2021 (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 13:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ror dynasty

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a single reliable scholar discusses the subject. The article confuses history with mythology of epic cycles. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources largely seem to fail verification. Ref #1 on the opening sentence which supposedly establishes Ror existence and notability as a powerful dynasty fails to mention "Ror" anywhere. Ref #2 is either broken or fake. It goes to a page on an entirely different subject. Ref #9 (now ref #10, Singh), which is cited to the list of Ror rulers, is marked as self-published, but I can't even find evidence of the book's existence. This does not seem to be the sort of work that fits with Pal Publications usual titles. Ref #5 is a scholarly book, but a gbooks search (admittedly not always perfect) fails to find any of "Rudrayan", "Shikhandi", or "sandstorm" which all appear in the sentence being cited. The source does say that Roruka was abandoned and is now buried in sand, but that's a long way from the claim that it was destroyed in a sandstorm, and goes nowhere with establishing the Ror dynasty as a real thing. I really can't be asked to check any more – I might reconsider my position if someone can point to a slam dunk source proving existence, but even then there is a strong WP:TNT case on this one. SpinningSpark 15:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk page makes for fascinating reading ~ TrangaBellam (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The newly added ref #9 (Historum) appears to be a copy of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. SpinningSpark 17:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In dealing with a subject such as this, I have to ask: Is it true? and Is it important? If the answer to both is "yes", we should be keeping it but tagging it for verification. Wikipedia mirrors cannot be allowed as references. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The approach is quite illuminating. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT if not for anything else. There is no adequately cited material in the article, if this even existed, it'd need a complete rewrite. I'd rather not have potential hoaxes floating around here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tufail Hussain Chowdhary

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

Doesn't qualify WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject does not hold any position that would allow a WP:NPOL pass, and is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2021 (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. czar 03:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Futuretimeline.net

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

WP:BEFORE search shows that this fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found a fair number of passing mentions, but I cannot find anything substantial, other than the ZDNet article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most citations are self published and also can't find any significant news coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bernard Werber. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exit (comics)

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

Article hasn't been substantively updated in 17 years. No references. No assertion of notability. Andrew³²⁷ 13:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernard Werber - I am finding no coverage in English sources regarding the comic. My inability to read French is admittedly hindering my attempts to find reliable sources in that language, but I did take a look at the equivalent article on the French Wikipedia, here, and noted that it is also missing any reliable sources. If anyone is able to locate any non-English reliable sources, please ping me so I can re-evaluate my vote, but from what I can find, redirecting to the author's article is the best that can be done. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (otherwise Redirect to Bernard Werber)

Are we running out of disk space? The comics are 20 years old (already? yikes ^^;) so I’m not surprised that the page hasn’t been updated in a while.

What references could we add to a page about a comic series?

FiP (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, no evidence of notability. (FiP, disk space is irrelevant, because "deleted" pages aren't actually removed from storage, they are just tagged with a mark meaning that they are not to be displayed on the publicly visible website.) The king of the sun (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 00:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernard Werber.. That's much ok Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernard Werber.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2021 (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. Considering this AfD and other recent AfDs on various lists of Playboy models, it seems that there is significant disagreement on the best way to organize this content. For those that believe that the content isn't organized well, I'd suggest starting an RFC to determine the ideal organization first, and then delete any lists that are no longer needed in the new organization (as opposed to deleting first and reorganizing later). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Playboy models

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

WP:NLIST suggests that for stand-alone lists, the list as a collective (though not necessarily its individual items) should have been discussed by sources that pass GNG.

As far as I can tell, such sources have not done so for this collection. I have found sources discussing sub-lists of this list ("Celebrities", "Famous people", "Athletes" etc), but I have found no list where the collective is discussed.

Further, the articles themselves cite no sources, and I suspect a lot of the content is WP:OR; for instance, not only is Maureen Hingert's mention not cited, their article makes no mention of their claimed appearance.

I am also nominating the following sub-lists:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Describing the contents of a published work, which can be easily verified by reading the work itself, hardly constitutes original research. Not being mentioned in a particular model's Wikipedia biography is a matter of due weight, not verifiability. As for Maureen Hingert/Jana Davi, the Playboy issue is obviously retrievable and there's at least one Google Books hit (Six Decades of Centerfolds). • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_XXXX just closed as keep. The Playmate is apparently whoever is in the centerfold, and it is different than who is on the Cover and Pictorials. Some of those on this list are notable for being in the magazine, that an accomplishment for their porn careers I suppose. Plenty of blue links, and a valid grouping, so this is a suitable navigational article. Dream Focus 05:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above linked discussion closed as no consensus, not keep, and on a personal note I was not aware of the recent discussion; thank you for bringing it to my attention Focus. Incidentally, I am not aware of the specifics of the navigation standard, and haven't been able to find the policy about it; could you point me in the right direction? BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already linked to it, just didn't read the bottom part. Search for the word "navigation". Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). Dream Focus 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, WP:LISTPURP; thank you. I'm not sure it meets the definition of "navigation" provided there; if users don't know the name of the person they are searching for, I don't believe the list will be of much help. Of all the options, I believe its would best align to "information", but even there I'm not confident that it qualifies. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dream Focus. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repackage per Clarityfiend and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, who are saying very similar things, and are convincing. "People in Playboy" is too vague, separate lists of interviews or cover models seems reasonable. --GRuban (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Being a Playmate of the Month is notable. So is being a celebrity who posed for Playboy, but not just anybody, e.g. obscure actresses like Meg Myles and Marla English, anymore than List of people in ''Time'' magazine or List of people lampooned by ''Mad'' magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of Playboy cover models and jettison the Interview subject and pictorials columns. People on the cover of Playboy are fine.[30][31] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about just being on the cover of any magazine at all? Lists of covers of Time magazine Lists of Harper's Bazaar cover models List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine Lists of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models List of Vogue Korea cover models and many more. Category:Lists of people by magazine appearance is the main category. Some things aren't put in it yet that should be. Every magazine that exists can have a list of who is on the cover. Many people subscribe to magazines, without knowing who will be on the cover in future issues, and usually buy them for other reasons than just the one famous person. But with Playboy they are buying them for who is pictured in them. Dream Focus 12:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covers are okay, just not every woman who bared it all in the magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, although not for the reasons set out by the nominator. Playboy was an influential magazine for a few decades, even if its fiction and journalism took a back seat in the public eye to its (un)coverage of attractive women. These lists were constructed not to actually present the consequential "people in Playboy" -- the articles don't mention fiction published by Ballard, Vonnegut, Le Guin, Garcia Marques, Calvino, Borges, or David Foster Wallace, to say nothing of nonfiction from Woodward & Bernstein to Thompson, Capote, and McLuhan. And while the listings of undraped conventional glamour models are often annotated in loving detail, more surprising appearances, like Shere Hite, go unmentioned. Some of this material, like lists of cover models, can be appropriately repackaged. But this article, riddled with systematic omissions like the facts that Alex Haley interviewed MLK and Alvin Toffler interviewed Vladimir Nabokov (while detailing the circumstances of Suzanne Somers's posing) is demonstrably lacking encyclopedic sensibility. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep The rationale given for outright deletion is unconvincing. Better to expand, rename etc than merely to delete. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why this page should be deleted.

It is just a reference page, and any deletion would be seen as revisionist and backwards to what actually happened and who was featured where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.244.35.55 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Playboy is notable. Being in Playboy is notable. Remove any unsubstantiated members of the list but the list itself passes WP:NLIST. Ifnord (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ifnord. In regard to its impact for a period of time: WP:NTEMP. Some sort of repurposing may be due per Dream Focus and GRuban. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I also think it should be renamed to "List of Playboy Models," but definitely do not delete. Peter303x (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999#ISO 1 – ISO 99. Sandstein 12:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 5

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

Prodded with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD removed by anon with no rationale; article has not been improved since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would argue that ISO standards ought to be considered inherently notable, like members of parliament, because their development and use is likely to be covered in reliable sources. I can't find evidence of that for this standard, partly because "ISO 5" is also a level of air cleanliness for a cleanroom, and I get a lot of cleanroom hits when I search for ISO 5. See ISO 14644. 14:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Eastmain: you forgot to sign We could have a community discussion about this, but many similar articles about ISO standards that were one-two sentnecers got deleted. IMHO some ISO standard may be notable, but most warrant nothing but a redirect to a list. And we have it: List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999. If there is nothing else to we can say about this standard then such a list should be sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further discussion; previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find detailed technical coverage of this standard – see Colour Engineering, for example. It is therefore an easy pass of WP:GNG, as one would expect for an international standard, and policy WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not withstanding Andrew Davidson's generally-valid point. The value of empty articles is that they act as signposts that something could be written about the subject. But in this case the list of all ISO's already acts as a signpost, and contains precisely the same information as the ISO5 article. The statement that "improving the article should be done rather than deleting the page" implies that one of these two options will be done. In the present situation, the likely outcome is that neither will be done. Deleting doesn't stop someone from re-creating the article as soon as anyone has something useful to write about the subject - and I hope this is ultimately what happens. If anyone writes anything useful between now and the closure of this AfD, I'll happily withdraw my "delete". Elemimele (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants information about ISO 5 then the title ISO 5 is clear, simple and straightforward for navigation. The suggested alternative of List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999 is comparatively useless because its title doesn't even contain the common initials ISO and its content is lengthy and confusing. The stub in question is a plausible foundation for expansion; the bloated list of thousands isn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect will take care of the lack of initials, and for the rest, WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_International_Organization_for_Standardization_standards,_1-4999#ISO_1_–_ISO_99. These aren't automatically notable and I see no case to keep this duplicative article. Reywas92^Talk 14:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - duplicative, and can be re-expanded into article if sufficient material is ever collated by anyone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999#ISO 1 – ISO 99 without prejudice against turning this into a full-length article in the future. Right now, it's completely redundant to that page. So basically, what Elmidae said. TompaDompa (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999#ISO 1 – ISO 99.4meter4 (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to King of the Claddagh. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Oliver (Claddagh)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD would be merge to King of the Claddagh. Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. The topic needs work but it's easy to find sources such as this and that. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first (Irish Times) source listed is substantively about something else. The subject is mentioned but once in the article. A trivial passing mention. The second (Irish Examiner) source is about a different person. (The subject under discussion died in 1972. The Irish Examiner article is about a funeral which took place in 2020. The names may be the same/similar. But the subjects are not.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That depends what you think the topic is. AFAIC, what we have here is a traditional fishing family (the Olivers) who are well known and respected in Claddagh. The family members and their boats and history attract attention and coverage. As there's scope for improvement, policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to King of the Claddagh. (As any notability and coverage is associated with the subject's time as "King of the Claddagh".) In terms of the main claim to notability (holder of an honorary title), we might expect WP:NPOL to be met. And it wouldn't appear to be. (The "King of the Claddagh" is a largely ceremonial title and not an "international, national, or [..] state/province–wide office".) In terms of WP:GNG, all coverage seems substantively linked to his "time in office". (Otherwise, surviving a storm, owning a fishing vessel, selling same, and undertaking ceremonial duties at the oyster festival wouldn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King of the Claddagh. Spleodrach (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to King of the Claddagh per Guliolopez. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by an admin per WP:G5 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st.One (band)

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

Lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, all sources currently on the page are either press releases, primary sources, or just blogs or YouTube videos, which are not enough to establish notability. Searching on Google does not yield any significant coverage from better sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Possible creation of longterm vandal User:Philippinesfan. Please note that the vandal have recreated this article multiple times (see logs of 1st.One) There is even an existing draft article that one of the block socks have created that stills exists (Draft:1st.One). -WayKurat (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as per comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WayKurat. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2021 (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.

[1] Schute, Nancy (April 18, 2011). "Foraging The Weeds For Wild, Healthy Greens". Morning Edition. National Public Radio.

[2] O'Reilly, David (September 1, 2020). "Into the Woods". Mountain Home.

[3] Renalls, Candace (January 24, 2007). "Wild diet". Duluth News Tribune.

[4] "Living off the Land". In Wisconsin. PBS Wisconsin. February 17, 2011.

[5] Hardee, Howard (20 September 2018). "More Than Weeds". Isthmus. Madison, Wisconsin.

[6] Hay, Mark E. (July 9, 2020). "Interest in Foraging Is Booming. Here's How to Do it Right". Civil Eats.

[7] Martell, Nevin (September 28, 2013). "Birch For Breakfast? Meet Maple Syrup's Long-Lost Cousins". NPR.org.

[8] Sheridan, Megan (Spring 2001). "Find Your Food". Wisconsin Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

[9] Schultz, Zac (November 26, 2015). "Professional Forager Teaches People To Find Nutrition In Nature". Wisconsin Life. Wisconsin Public Radio & PBS Wisconsin.

[10] Shaw, Hank (28 June 2010). "A Wild Foods Library: 11 Books for Foragers". The Atlantic. June 28, 2010. A modern forager, Samuel Thayer, has done an excellent job with the images in his self-published Nature's Garden... an excellent book if you live east of the Great Plains

[11] Cape, Jessi (April 4, 2014). "Take a Walk on the Wild Side". The Austin Chronicle.

[12] DeMoss, Jeffrey (October 22, 2015). "Harvesting nature's bounty in Cache Valley". The Herald Journal.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]