Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 27

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 26 March 28 >

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 delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Vaissaire

edit
Griffith Vaissaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 seems to be a translation of the 2nd (or the other way around), and neither that nor the 3rd say much more that she was called for the national team, so that's not a GNG pass. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ED source is paywalled. The others are the usual drivel you claim is GNG/SIGCOV. Vaissaire lives and plays in the Netherlands so doesn't have a "club career abroad". That shows your understanding of the sources. BTW playing football no longer makes someone notable so stop spamming AFD with that non argument. Dougal18 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we look at the sources provided above, it is clear that most of them are versions of the same press release announcing a Suriname call-up for Vaissaire (and another diaspora player). This press release contains very little information about Vaissaire; she plays amateur football for SSS in the Topklasse (second level) and futsal for a club that competes in district-level tournaments. There is a Suriname match preview which drops her name, and a note that she won an award with her futsal team. This coverage is about all I could find online, and it is woefully short of satisfying the WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources clearly do not demonstrate GNG. Agreed with Dougal18 about spamming useless sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a fundamental disagreement about the quality of sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The sources are not strong enough for WP:GNG or WP:NFOOT. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that the subject passes WP:GNG. Merely being a player cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:NATHLETE is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE or GNG. Essentially, I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:NATHLETE is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE or GNG. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jogurney's comment 2 weeks ago is still relevant here. Nobody has been able to present any evidence of sourcing that helps address the shortfalls that have been pointed out on 16/3. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although some references were presented but I feel they are not notable enough to support the "Keep" claim. Charsaddian (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ascend Music

edit
Ascend Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to puff pieces or advertorial/partnered content. KH-1 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akeem Williams

edit
Akeem Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Stewart (footballer)

edit
Malcolm Stewart (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dishi Somani

edit
Dishi Somani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found. Instagram, Linkedin, then her website. appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:NBASIC. Agree with @ULPS, there aren't any reputable sources that I found to meet guidelines for WP:BLP. I found some sources that mention her, but unclear if they are actually reputable. 1 2 3
RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- Please find linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/dishi-somani-a12b2111/?originalSubdomain=in,
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/dishi.somani/ DISHI SOMANI (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well that's helpful... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Another day, another G5. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Crawley

edit
AfDs for this article:
Amos Crawley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting ACTOR or GNG. No sourcing found, Behind the Voice actors, then tv tropes and Fandom, then it peters off. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy's BBQ Sauce

edit
Big Daddy's BBQ Sauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails corporate notability guidelines (WP:CORP); defunct company that I could not find additional sources for with google. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources that I am able to find I see what you did there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if there happen to be relevant sources that others are able to find, I would of course be willing to assess those objectively. --Kinu t/c 19:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Humour. Any sauces. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Kindgen

edit
Lars Kindgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the five references included, 3 of them are sports database entries. Another is an interview, which as a primary source does not go towards notability. And the fifth, while in-depth, is from a source, erft-kurier, which I am not sure qualifies as a reliable source as it seems to be an advertising platform. Was draftified in hopes of improvment, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 10:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; Kindgen doesn't appear to be notable as a footballer or employee of the player's union since I cannot locate WP:SIGCOV in any online sources. There are some Q&A interviews such as the one with his youth club (linked at the de:wiki article) or at wuppertaler-rundschau.de (the same interview is hosted elsewhere too), but these lack independent coverage beyond a few brief statements about his career (while making 100+ appearances in the 2. Bundesliga seems to be a significant achievement on its face, I'm just not finding any in-depth reportage of that achievement - perhaps because it occurred in the 1990s). Some of the sources linked above have almost nothing to do with Kindgen (especially the one from zeit.de), and are woefully short of in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - KatoKungLee has spent a long time doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". On top of that he definelty also has offline sources, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Das osmnezz What would you say are the WP:THREE best significant sources that goes towards GNG that have been added since the start of the AfD? Alvaldi (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sources are database entries, trivial mentions or interviews (that for obvious reasons are not independent of the subject). Alvaldi (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article has been refbombed with databases/interviews/brief mentions, none of it meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found this newspaper article about him, which suggests there are many more offline sources about him, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. In addition, KatoKungLee has spent a long time doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". The article is already a decent size and meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see a consensus to keep, even preceding the prior relist. As such, I am closing this as keep. While I doubt there will be any objection, anyone who might take issue with this closure is free to let me know. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Licious

edit
Licious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

written like an advertisement Endrabcwizart (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added third-party reliable sources for India's 29th unicorn.--Curvasingh (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input, even though consensus is already leaning towards "keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it a unicorn? Like a horse with a horn? Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, it's a term from startup culture, see Unicorn (finance). Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowe Roche

edit
Lowe Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant PR and Advertisement. Not notable DreamlarT (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no valid rationale for deletion provided. This is a 4-sentence stub about a defunct advertising company (and has been for a decade) - it is certainly not "Blatant PR and Advertisement". Walt Yoder (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How can it be PR/advertising when the company hasn't operated since 2015? ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reasoning as ScienceMan. -- Grapefanatic (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. In addition, the subject also meets WP:NCORP as well. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NOTABILITY, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. The sources provided in the table above satisfy SIGCOV requirements necessary to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG guidelines. On my own review of the subject and sources, I find that notability criteria are met by the amount of demonstrable reliable independent source significant coverage. Additionally, the nature of the coverage indicates WP:IMPACT, which also supports inclusion as a standalone article under inclusion guidelines. The fact that promotional material exists on the subject is not a valid reason to suggest deletion (many subjects covered in Wikipedia articles are heavily promoted outside of Wikipedia, but that doesn’t negate their notability). Furthermore, the subject does indeed pass notability thresholds under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Agustin, Arizona

edit
San Agustin, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topo maps show a "San Augustin Ranch" in the 1940s which inexplicably becomes just "San Augustin" in the 1979 edition. I couldn't find any coverage of this location; the Arizona papers only mention a cathedral in Tuscon and a place in the Phillipines of the same name. There's no evidence of either official recognition or significant coverage that would establish notability for this spot. (Note to closer: Please remove this entry entirely from any lists and templates instead of simply delinking.) –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Lucia, Arizona

edit
Santa Lucia, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any coverage of this spot; satellite view shows a few old ranch buildings. (Note to closer: Please delete from any lists and templates onstead of just delinking) –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria, Arizona

edit
Santa Maria, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNIS lists two places with this name on the outskirts of Phoenix [7][8], however I could not find evidence of significant coverage or official recognition for either. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bensimon Byrne

edit
AfDs for this article:
Bensimon Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason for Wikipedia inclusion. Advertisement only page DreamlarT (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The firm keeps a low profile but is Canada's largest domestic ad agency and has been involved in various high-profile political and ad campaigns described in the media. ScienceMan123 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikort Chuapo, Arizona

edit
Sikort Chuapo, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any significant coverage to establish notability for this spot. Older maps show a few buildings near the eponymous well; satellite view shows only a corral. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Constantino (MMA trainer)

edit
Mike Constantino (MMA trainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable COI/vanity page. Removed a bunch of promotional fluff and page doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, however Mr. Constantinos page is a bio of his accomplishments in his career in MMA and other fields. Successful training of many fighters who went on to become UFC champions. It hardly qualifies for a deletion.
The quote " Famous guy who works with other famous people was never added by his team. As wikipedia is a community effort we can not control the outcome of individuals content" Thank you. Vdm2011 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, we're here looking for reliable sources that mention the subject so we can keep their article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the coverage can be considered significant independent coverage of him. I got a 404 error on several and the others were, at best, interview questions after fights. Successful is not the same as WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully. I beg to differ. The coverage is not the only accomplishment listed on his page. He has an extensive bio beyond "coverage". There are wikis with a lot less skilled individuals. Vdm2011 (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please just show me the coverage that meets WP:GNG and I'm more than willing to support this article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dooley and Pals Show

edit
The Dooley and Pals Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without explanation by a date-change vandal. Original rationale, by Liz (talk · contribs), was:

Not notable children's TV program from the 1990s that has been repackaged multiple times and syndicated through regional networks.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Tiffany, Laura (2004-10-31). "The Dooley and Pals Show Vols. 1–3". Video Store Magazine. Vol. 26, no. 45. p. 36. EBSCOhost 14933353.

      The article notes: ""The Dooley and Pals Show" is a well-produced educational show that blends live action, music, puppetry and cartoons, and is full of warm and cuddly lessons. Each episode has a unifying theme — like home-sickness, how families differ or welcoming a new kid — but lots of other lessons are packed in. In one episode, Dooley receives advice on his insomnia; letter carrier Ms. Z introduces the group to the letter "S"; a puppet is taught that "no" isn't a magic word; a song helps kids keep track of their things; and even the Spanish phrase for "sweet dreams" is slipped in. The show can be an exhausting watch if you don't have a toddler-sized attention span, but it's perfect for its core audience. The songs are catchy, the dance moves (performed by ages 7 to 11) are easy to follow, and the many lessons are age-appropriate. "

    2. Berman, Pat (2001-02-11). "S.C. ETV shows off its technology (and Dooley) during family day". The State. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "But the big "D" as in Dooley was the draw of the day. The antennaed, pink-faced Dooley, described by a TV writer as "a happy, bug-like critter from another planet" can be seen daily in a before- and after-school children's program called "Dooley and Pals Show." Smart Cat and Arthur, two other popular characters, also drew crowds. But children willingly waited in a line that snaked through the studio corridors, out the door and down the block for the chance to have their picture taken with Dooley."

    3. Abbott, Jim (2000-06-29). "An acute case of Barney burnout influences new preschooler show" (pages 1 and 2). Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "If Dooley, which airs at 7 a.m. Sundays on WMFE-Channel 24, really is hipper than Barney, he uses similar techniques to reach young minds. Produced by Orlando-based Victory Entertainment Corp., Dooley features plenty of music, a cast of fresh-faced youngsters and themes about friendship, responsibility and learning. ... Each episode features a visit from the local mail carrier (Orlando actor DaVonda Simmons) and guidance from a nurturing mother, played by Orlando actor Ginger Lee McDermott. While many children's shows and prime-time sitcoms portray adults as clueless comedic foils, Dooley uses them as role models."

    4. Sitarz, Joseph (2000-11-22). "Dooley to make parade debut". The Index-Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""The Dooley and Pals Show" is the popular children's show on public television stations around the country. Dooley was created by Greenwood's Mark Riddle with Gary Zeidenstein. ... "The Dooley and Pals Show" is crafted around the concept that education through entertainment and discovery. The show used music, dancing with highly-educational life lessons and pro-social skills. The show is geared for 2-5 year olds."

    5. "Dooley is Jerry's pal". The Index-Journal. 2000-09-02. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""The Dooley and Pals Show" is a weekly series centering on Dooley, a friendly alien who lands in the backyard of an Earth family and quickly makes friends with not only the family but the neighborhood children as well. The children become role models, demonstrating to young viewers the value of knowledge and learning. The series combines live action with 3D animation, talented children and dozens of original songs. The series is created on the premise that play enables children to grow socially, emotionall, intellectually and physically to their maximum potential."

    6. "'Dooley and Pals' now on DVD: Emmy Award-winning show created by Greenwood native" (pages 1 and 2). The Index-Journal. 2005-09-04. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""'Dooley and Pals' is unique as a series by its use of the principle of reinforcement," said Dr. Gordon Berry, Educational Consultant and Professor Emeritus at the Graduate School of Education, UCLA. "The life lessons in each episode will be carried throughout the show and then summarized in a distinct ending.""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Dooley and Pals Show to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Additionally, there is plenty of SIGCOV to demonstrate the subject’s notability in a manner that satisfies the relevant guidelines for the subject. I would be more likely to push for deletion if the subject weren’t notable or if coverage was of a WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL nature failing to meet WP:SIGCOV, but this simply isn’t the case because reliable independent sources effectively establish the subject’s WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if notability and significant coverage requirements weren’t satisfied. However, since they are satisfied, the stronger case to be made here is that for inclusion. For these reasons, keeping the article is the appropriate course of action. Deletion rationales pointing to a lack of RS SIGCOV don’t have much weight in this case, since the subject does have sufficient coverage of a significant nature by independent WP:RS. I will also point out that the subject meets WP:GNG requirements, as demonstrated by the available reliable sources which establish WP:NOTABILITY. Since all of these conditions are met, the article should be kept. Deletion would be more appropriate for an article on a subject without demonstrable notability via lack of adequate WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Due to this subject’s notability, however, the article should not be considered eligible for deletion. Also, the nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT (i.e. this justifies a standalone article). I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Life Is...

edit
Life Is... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find a source on the charting, although those websites have always confused me so maybe someone else can. If that can be found, this is more promising, though I also couldn't find any other reliable coverage so it's probably still not notable even then. Redirect to Ken Hirai if not kept. See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missin' You (It Will Break My Heart). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIFE is... QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ken Hirai discography seems to suggest it was a number one album in Japan. And possible platinum there too? If true, this album almost certainly received the coverage to be considered notable. It's likely just locked away in Japanese hard copy sources, as it was a 2003 release before the internet age. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely the case, yeah, but we can't just leave an article up with no reliable coverage on the assumption that it exists somewhere, right? On the bright side, the discog page did lead me to a source for the charting here which I believe is reliable. The cert source was annoying to navigate but does confirm. At least we've got that much nailed down now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a known notable album like this, I'd prefer keeping it as a stub with the sales/charting/tracklist info and tag it for improvement/expansion, over deletion/merging. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know what, that's fair enough. The charting and cert are strong enough that it could probably get kept on those alone, and since we have sources confirming them now (which I will add momentarily), I don't see why I shouldn't withdraw this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Oricon chart linked above. Went to #1 in Japan and stayed on the chart for 89 weeks. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it topped a major national albums chart. Strip it down to stub status if you must, but don't delete an article for an album of this caliber. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, top artist and album topped chart. Fulmard (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely notable and noteworthy, having topped a chart and selling close to a million copies in Japan. I would imagine most coverage is in Japanese. Unless the nominator knows Japanese (yes, even with a title in English), Japanese-language sources are not easy to find through Google searches for 20-year-old albums. I know from experience. Ss112 00:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also well aware of the trouble with finding foreign-language sources on Google which is why I don't ever search just there. In this case, even with an expanded search, I didn't find much. But it matters not as this is getting kept either way (and I've already withdrawn above). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Parata

edit
Ari Parata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged it for notability, hoping that it might be improved, but the tag was removed without improvement. The refs in the development section are either primary, or short blurbs, with no in-depth coverage of the character development. In the reception section there 8 new refs. The first is a brief mention of the character, and is about why the actor left the show. The second is an awards show announcement - now I can't access it, but awards shows are about the actor, not the character. The third is a one-line mention. Likewise, the fourth is also a single line mention. The fifth, actually mentions him several times, but it is a plot synopsis. The same for numbers six and seven. Number eight, again talks about the character, but again is plot synopsis. There are 4 other refs in the section, which were used earlier in the article, but none of them are in-depth about the character. On the whole, there is not a single in-depth source about the real-world notability of the character, all of it is in-universe. As per WP:NOTPLOT, this does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Qwv (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article definitely meets notability. If this is simply an issue with references, they can be improved, as can in-universe information. I must admit when I saw your tag it looked like it had been tagged without the article or the subject being read or understood. In my opinion, this shouldn't have automatically nominated for deletion because the tag was removed. This is something that can be resolved by discussion on a talk page 5 albert square (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the whole, there is not a single in-depth source about the real-world notability of the character, all of it is in-universe. – That's not even remotely true. I think it also shows that you haven't been through all of the refs (or showed good faith for those offline). What about the interviews with the actor discussing his character? The news sources talking about how he's part of the first Maori family on the show? I believe there are enough sources covering real-world info pertaining to the character to pass WP:GNG. I wouldn't have had the article moved to the mainspace if I didn't think it was okay. Yeah, there probably are some in-universe bits, but nothing that can't be rewritten. Deletion is a bit much, no? If you want an apology for removing the tag, then I'm sorry. I genuinely thought it was a drive-by tagging from someone who quickly glanced at the article. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:June found 57 CREDIBLE Sources off her *own* back and the article "fails to meet notability"? Call BS on this. Smacks of someone throwing their weight around. Conquistador2k6 (Yo, Talk to me) 21:34 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article clearly passes WP:GNG. Home and Away is a television series broadcast in multiple countries and this subject is about a prominent character in the series. There are numerous sources cited in the article and my assessment is some of the more trivial ones have been highlighted above. But they are needed since they support information in the article. The character development is clearly explained throughout using the sources. Those sources in those sections that you could scrutinise are used to support the claims in character development. This character is part of the first Maori family on the show. Notable that the article documents the need for authenticity and the show's efforts to reflect Maori culture via the character to an Australian audience. In the reception the award info is cited to a magazine source. Accessing the source on Readly, this is directly to do with the character since the nomination is for his role in Home and Away. Perhaps the sources do not include endless paragraphs of character analysis - they still have writer's opinions included in them, so I fail to see why they should be discounted here. As mentioned above, this nomination was created after a notability tag was removed. It does come off as using AFD as a weapon in retaliation.Rain the 1 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination, AfD is not the place to request article improvement and deletion is nothing like improvement. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 23:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – this article has 50+ sources that JuneGloom07 has worked tirelessly on including and a deletion is not appropriate at all. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above discussion. The sources provided by JuneGloom07 show that this subject has received significant attention from third-party, reliable sources so it passes the WP:GNG standards. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reception section alone demonstrates notability. – Meena • 09:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article has sufficient sources to prove notability. ––– GMH Melbourne TALK 11:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is demonstrably notable. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenage Sharks

edit
Stevenage Sharks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league / semi professional ice hockey team. Natg 19 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling in these other semi-pro/minor league teams from the same locale:

Stevenage Oilers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stevenage Strikers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 and redirect to National Social Security Fund (Uganda). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kimbowa

edit
Peter Kimbowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman, no independent sources to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy redirect to 2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council election. Obvious WP:DUPLICATE page hardly needs further discussion. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council elections

edit
2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a duplicate of 2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council election  M2Ys4U (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 14:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NCAA Women's Gymnastics Championship

edit
2023 NCAA Women's Gymnastics Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another reversal of a redirect, with zero in-depth coverage from independent sources. Should have remained a redirect until it could be properly sourced, but since it's been challenged, we are here. Currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kungrat (1827)

edit
Battle of Kungrat (1827) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is unreferenced. Although this is not a sufficient reason for deletion, the problem is that "Battle of Kungrat" returns zero hits on Google (including Books). In fact, there's no Wikipedia on either Kungrat, Oydustbiy (first belligerent) or Muhammad Yakub (second belligerent). Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open Configuration and Management Layer

edit
Open Configuration and Management Layer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a search and mostly just found copies of this article so doubt it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zougla

edit
Zougla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched and found other stuff like restaurants. If it was notable I would have thought there would have been a Greek article Chidgk1 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthbert School

edit
Cuthbert School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a search and it does not seem to be particularly notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources cited by Cunard do not establish notability: as coverage of local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, they are trivial coverage, not significant coverage. The sources establish that it existed, but that does not make it notable WP:ORGSIG The school does not pass WP:NSCHOOL. . Hmee2 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding "The listed articles do not describe the school in any detail", this is incorrect. The 13 May 1938 article discusses how the Cuthbert School's Purple Tidings school newspaper was "awarded a certificate of distinction by the Georgia Scholastic Press Association in Athens to denote outstanding excellence in journalistic work and ideals among high schools from all over the state". The article notes, "The paper, only commendation from John Drewry, two years old, recently received director of the Henry W. Grady School of Journalism at the University of Georgia, for its progressive stream-line makeup and policies."

    The 13 December 1924 article discusses how the Southern College Conference rated the school as an "A" grade high school. The 23 March 1958 article discusses Cuthbert High School's annual Parent-Daughter, Parent-Son banquet in very extensive detail. The 20 November 1937 article notes that the school did not have any students who "failed in college" in the last eight years since the school superintendent joined. The article notes that the school "added departments of public school music, of public school speech and a school newspaper" in the last eight years. The article notes that the school's newspaper The Purple Tidings was founded a year ago. The article discusses the running of the newspaper.

    Numerous articles discuss the school's graduations and sports games. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says it is sufficient for a non-profit school to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    The school was covered in reliable sources in the decades spanning the 1910s and the 1960s. This is sustained coverage of the school.

    Cunard (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the above is SIGCOV. It is ROUTINE normal news, it doesn't show notability.  // Timothy :: talk  08:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSky Charter School

edit
BlueSky Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Gtgamer79 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. XAM2175 (T) 18:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep the controversy around the school means that it passes WP:SIGCOV with almost 30 newspaper articles in some of the most circulated newspapers in the state. --hroest 18:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of nuclear holocaust fiction

edit
List of nuclear holocaust fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly unreferenced, fails WP:NLIST/WP:IPC/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Could redirect to Nuclear weapons in popular culture of which it is effectively a fork of anyway, just in a list format. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete strikes me as an archetypal glorified category. Not seeing any benefits to having this information in article form, especially when it’s in two completely different formats like someone got bored halfway through constructing the page. Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Distinct enough genre, and the article itself being in different formats is not a reason to delete it. Categorisation is usually self-evident, so lack of sources isn't reason to delete. Jamezofchez (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current content of Nuclear weapons in popular culture has little overlap with our list here. This list provides a navigation function. List allows for commentary, one of the advantages of lists, see in general WP:CLN. Most importantly, there are significant secondary sources discussing the thing as group: Full books: Nuclear holocausts: Atomic war in fiction, 1895-1984, The Nightmare Considered: Critical Essays on Nuclear War Literature. Science Fact and Science Fiction has paragraphs of discussion on p. 48-49 as part of the chapter "Atom Bomb". The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has a dedicated entry "Nuclear War" in volume 2, p. 562-564. That should be sufficient to fullfill WP:NLIST, as we could easily write Nuclear holocaust in fiction as the companion article to our list here. In addition, many secondary sources dedicated to sub-topics exist, like Nuclear-War Themes in Soviet Science Fiction, Nuclear Holocaust in American Films, Nuclear fiction for children, etc. The fact that the formatting is not uniform within the article is unfortunate, but a typical issue that can be solved by normal editing and therefore not at all a reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge properly to List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. I've reconsidered, contrary to what I originally thought, the "Cause" column at this target would allow for a merge without loss of collected information, if we agree to introduce the entry "War, nuclear" or some such (instead of only "War") and merge at least all blue-linked entries. While I still think our topic here fullfills WP:NLIST, merging to the parent topic list - which has somewhat better formatting place - avoids duplication and will make maintenance easier in the long run (and we no longer have to quibble about notability). Daranios (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios I think that's a reasonable solution, but I remain concerned, as always, about merging unreferenced content... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps. The problem with the current list is that it classifies as nuclear holocaust any work in which nuclear war happened, even if it happened long ago and has relatively little impact on the work. We have Planet of the Apes, Star Trek: First Contact, Terminator, The Matrix, Battlestar Galactica, Dark Angel and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, among others... I very much doubt any RS classifies those works as related to nuclear holocaust/war/etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS. This would be good to use to add a bunch of references: Nuclear Holocausts: Atomic War in Fiction. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: "I very much doubt any RS classifies those works as related to nuclear holocaust/war/etc." Randomly taking two of your examples: Planet of the Apes: [10]; Terminator: [11], [12]. So taking these two as a baseline, I have no problem of assuming in good faith that previous editors have used the primary sources (which are present) in a reasonable way, until I see evidence to the contrary. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Thanks for finding the sources, I encourage you do add them to the article if you haven't done so yet. I am happy to be proven wrong, if sources can rescue this content - it's win-win. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: Yeah, why not. I've added them now. Daranios (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios Thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-recognized genre of fiction as characterized by the large number of entries on the list. If the nominating editor had a concern, perhaps they could have mentioned it in the article's talk page first for improvement before doing a drive-by shooting.MartinezMD (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As is par for the course when it comes to fiction lists, this is a poorly-sourced mess that hinders rather than helps proper encyclopaedic coverage of the topic at hand. I find the argument that the list serves a navigational purpose wholly unpersuasive; it seems exceedingly unlikely that anybody looking for e.g. the A Canticle for Leibowitz article would come to the List of nuclear holocaust fiction article in order to find it. It also obviously falls flat for the list entries that do not have articles to link to. I likewise find the argument that a benefit of a list is that we can add commentary unpersuasive—that's how we've ended up with a whole bunch of embarrassingly poor TV Tropes-style lists in the first place. I don't really understand how the editors arguing in favour of keeping the article think a "finished" version of this article would look. The Nuclear weapons in popular culture article is not exactly in great shape, but that at least has the potential to become a high-quality (or at minimum decent) article covering the topic. As far as lists go, this would also seem to be wholly redundant to List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, since a nuclear holocaust is a type of apocalypse. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TompaDompa: I fully agree that someone looking for e.g. the A Canticle for Leibowitz would not go through here - if I am interested in a specific work and know the title I will just search it directly. The navigation help rather is for someone like "Leibowitz was for me, I wonder what other fiction there is featuring a world destroyed by nuclear holocaust?". Or "Nuclear holocaust gives me the facts, now I wonder where can I see or read this pictured in fiction?" The argument that providing short commentary in lists is an advantage does not originate with me, it's a consensus expressed in the form of being part of the WP:CLN guideline. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not serving a navigational purpose then, it's serving as a catalogue or list of recommendations. An article that aids navigation helps you if you want to find a specific article, but don't know the title of the article you want. As for commentary being an advantage: I know the argument does not originate with you, but you presumably think it somehow applies to this article since you brought it up. I don't think it applies to this article, since adding commentary to lists like this ends up making the article worse rather than better. Not all topics lend themselves to lists—topics on fiction usually don't, and I don't see that this would be an exception. This is simply not a good way to cover a topic like this. And it's redundant to another list to boot. TompaDompa (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TompaDompa: "helps you if you want to find a specific article" - That would work, too, if there is indeed a sentence of summary there. Maybe that's a rare use, maybe not, but one put forward by WP:LISTPURP. "list of recommendations" - In the form of a value judgement, I'd say no, because the critereon we could apply is appearance in secondary sources/being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. In the form of, "If you want to know more, we have information for you here", yes. Be that as it may, your definition of navigation is not the only one for which lists on Wikipedia are meant for: WP:AOAL has right as it's first point "Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia." That's what I was describing. If this is a good way to approach this topic, I guess we can agree to disagree. As for the overlap with List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction (which incidentally also has a column for adding commentary), see below. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exploratory browsing and navigation are completely different things. If exploratory browsing was what you meant, then fair enough, but that's not a reason to have a list article as opposed to a proper prose article; exploratory browsing is an advantage of lists as compared to categories. Prose articles on fiction-related topics are way better for exploratory browsing than lists are except for in a small number of specific circumstances (mainly when the connection between entries is strong and the list can be made complete, such as List of James Bond novels and short stories). And of course this list is self-evidently not even constructed to serve that purpose, because it includes a bunch of WP:REDLINKS. This list is a hobby project, a TV Tropes-style list without much in the way of encyclopaedic merit. List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction is far from being even decent in terms of quality, but this list is entirely redundant to it and really has no valid raison d'être. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TompaDompa: More of a general question out of this specific reasoning: WP:LISTPURP says "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." This would be the case for more or less all lists mirroring reasonable categories. Aside from the additional WP:LISTN requirement, you stated that still "Not all topics lend themselves to lists". Is there any guidance on which topics lend themselves to lists then, or is this rather a matter of opinion, i.e. decided through local consensus? Daranios (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but most topics don't lend themselves to lists. Wikipedia prefers prose, see e.g. WP:PROSE. There is WP:SALAT and WP:NOT for further guidance in general. TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Daranios' analysis demonstrates that the topic meets GNG, and a sensible, appropriate list can be made and maintained through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nom. raises three policy issues where this fails. Daranios addresses WP:NLIST and demonstrates that notable lists similar to this are possible, but inadevrtently shows why this list really does fail on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a list of short and long fiction, music, comics, animation, games, films and television on the topic of nuclear holocaust, including notable and non notable examples. It is the very definition of indiscriminate, and as Daranios has shown, notable lists are more carefully drawn in practice, being, for instance, nuclear war themese in soviet fiction, or nuclear fiction for children. Note that even then, the first of those is only about written fiction, the second is about the subject in general and appears to make no attempt to be comprehensive. The third example restricts itself to films. Because this list is indisriminate it is also impossible to maintain. If kept it will remain an incomplete, unsourced and unhelpful list. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: So do I understand correctly that you would be fine with having separate lists for various genres (i.e. splitting it more or less according to the sections we now have)? As for "It is the very definition of indiscriminate", which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you actually think applies here? Now I can understand the goal to avoid a WP:TVTROPES-like listing of all instances of nuclear holocaust appearing in fiction, but that can easily be solved by limiting this to blue links in keeping with the navigational nature of the list. That way it is not an indiscriminate (in the normal language sense) list, it is limited to what entries we have on Wikipedia. I personally think we should additionally include treatments which are not notable enough to have their own article if they can be supported by secondary sources in keeping with WP:ATD-M. And that's also my dividing line where may need secondary sources and where we don't. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you understand correctly that I think some kind of list, based on suitable sources, is possible. But I also thought about what is required to bring this page to that, and we basically have WP:TNT, because:
  1. The list needs to be written sources or films or whatever... WP:IPC is an essay, not policy, but having the list cover all media almost certainly fails it under WP:NLIST which says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There is no evidence that this list, covering all media, is described as a group anywhere. Although the above evidence does not demonstrate this, I think it is very plausible that there are specific lists of, say, films on the subject of nuclear war. The problem with keeping this article is that we don't know which it is. It needs to be one thing and not all of them, and then a source describing that collection can be the basis of a list.
  2. Even if we accepted the above, and deleted everything but one medium, we still have to rename the list per Xx236.
  3. The list needs clear inclusion criteria. One key criterion is likely to be notability.
Note that the third issue there is cleanup, and as we are all aware, deletion is not for cleanup. Except WP:TNT. In this case we have a list that is so indiscriminate that any attempt to rectify jettisons most of its content (and we have no lead as to which content should be retained, an edit war seems baked in). More content is lost by restricting to notability, and the list also has to be taken through Requested Moves. The fiction content is much more fully covered in List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, which list is properly sourced. What is lost if we delete this? An unsourced list of information that is likely available elsewhere. This list should not exist in this form in WP Mainspace. I would, however, be content with "draftify" if anyone wanted to mine it for lists that are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE (summary only collection), and indeed WP:N and WP:GNG Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no evidence that this list, covering all media, is described as a group anywhere." So what about The Nightmare Considered: Critical Essays on Nuclear War Literature, which claims to cover "a wide range of fiction, film, poetry and drama" (p. 2), Science Fact and Science Fiction and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy? And if notability would be used as a critereon, WP:TNT would not at all apply, because then only a fraction of the current content (lacking blue links) would need to be removed (or bolstered with secondary sources), while the majority would be kept. "summary only collection" does not apply then, because if a work of fiction has an article on Wikipedia, there have to be sources describing more than summary at the target article. The one serious argument I see against this list, also raised by TompaDompa is the overlap with List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, of which this is basically a sub-genre. The advantage of this list is that, well, we have a list for this sub-genre available. This is counterbalanced by the need to improve and maintain it. I have no serious objections against a merge with List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, but then we would likely loose this distinction between parent- and sub-topic. So I personally still slightly tend towards keep in the balance of those points. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Nightmare Considered does not discuss the topic as a group or set. Does not evidence WP:NLIST. I can't see the text of page 2, but it is clearly talking about a genre of literature (so sans music, games etc) with no list, group or set, but with papers on some specific titles. The rest of my comments stand. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Nightmare Considered is also a collection of essays on various specific aspects of the topic, as opposed to a book on the overarching topic. The science fiction encyclopedias referenced are certainly usable sources for the Nuclear weapons in popular culture article, but trying to apply them here is to my eye fitting a square peg in a round hole. TompaDompa (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx236: Interesting, I did not think about that. You can see already from the titles I have listed above that "Nuclear holocaust" is indeed used by secondary sources. But changing the title to List of nuclear war fiction would be fine with me, both terms seem to appear (equally?) in sources, and if we can have a title without a controversy behind it, why not. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx236 @Daranios The issue here is the existence of the nuclear holocaust article. If the name has been criticized, that would be good to mention in that article. If it is considered very improper, a WP:RM could be started. Right now I don't think the article mentions any criticism of the term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Xx236: I don't really know, but this paper is very interesting. It says that the "nuclear holocaust" is and has been quite common, but on p. 51 touches on the critcism of using the term holocaust loosely. And, sure, this discussion is relevant for the nuclear holocaust article and our list here. Daranios (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Maybe copy this subthread to the article's talk page? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wird

edit
Wird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one match other than the main topic (Wird (Sufism)), and that's the radio station WIRD, so WP:TWODABS applies, and Wird (Sufism) should be moved here. The other entry is a partial match closely related to the main topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The General Reference

edit
The General Reference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this webpage per WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. ... discospinster talk 12:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2023 Indian Premier League. This may be undone when we get CLOSE to the actual match, of course. But redirect for now. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Indian Premier League Final

edit
2023 Indian Premier League Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect - currently only source is the schedule announcement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it is notable. Probably should be a redirect or draftified, but that is no longer an option, since the redirect was contested. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Merlion Cup. Courcelles (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Merlion Cup

edit
2023 Merlion Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect - zero sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 12:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 01:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be a separate entry, it should be combined with the Merlion Cup, and if it's a separate entry it should have something to offer, but I don't see it here.--Caiyayu (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to 2023 Women's Premier League (cricket). Courcelles (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's Premier League Final

edit
2023 Women's Premier League Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect - zero in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OSE, also the issue is whether a WP:SPLIT is needed for a separate article on a final or not. Which for the record, I don't think we need one for men's IPL final either, a couple of paragraphs in the main season IPL and WPL articles would be sufficient in both cases. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of One Piece characters. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaidou

edit
Kaidou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect. Zero real-world notability, delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Onel5969 TT me 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Evolution

edit
Tree of Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  09:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source table:
Comments Source
Primary, promotional 1. Çağrı Mert Bakırcı (4 September 2020). "Hakkımızda - Evrim Ağacı". Evrim Ağacı. Archived from the original on 30 March 2019. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
evrimagaci.org Traffic Statistics 2. ^ EvrimAgaci.org Archived 19 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Alexa.
Primary, promotional 3. ^ Outreach Fund Archived 11 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine, European Society for Evolutionary Biology.
Blog, blank page 4. ^ Neden Evrim Ağacı?[dead link], Fulda's Blog
Blank 404 5. ^ Bülent Keskin Doktora Tezi: Biyoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Evrimle İlgili Kavram Yanılgılarının ve Biyolojik Evrim Konusunu İçeren Web Sitelerinin İncelenmesi Archived 12 August 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Atatürk Üniversitesi.
Opinion piece 6. ^ Evrim Ağacı'nda bilim adı altında hayvan düşmanlığı! - Erdal Ergüler Archived 19 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine, VeHaber.
Same piece as above 7. ^ Veganlar gerçekten naveganlığa dönüyor mu? Archived 5 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Abolisyonist Vegan Hareketi.
Interview about another subject 8. ^ Doğadan ve doğaldan yana: Gaia Dergi Archived 29 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine, KaosGL.
  • From my understanding, this started as a non-profit back in the day but has grown into something more since then (the wording on their own website is super unclear as to what it exactly is). According to this, it was still just a student organization back in 2015. The thesis in ref 5 is accessible via the government thesis site [13]. Pages 110–127 of it are specifically about Evrim Ağacı. There is some general information but independent conclusions are present towards the end. Other than that nothing in the article strikes me as a good source, so I'd agree with the assessment above. Some additional sources are present at the Turkish AfD from a few years back, where it was kept. Among them was this RS from 2014 about a conference they organized and that's pretty much the only source that deserves to be mentioned here; the rest are either small mentions, non-RS sources or just not independent. I found this 2 sentence piece about the website being blocked by the National Library, which solely relies on a tweet made by them. There is this RS which reads a bit promotional. Others are just reciting a scientific passage from the website ("According to Evrim Ağacı..."). I'm quite undecided on this one. ~StyyxTalk? 16:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tree of Evolution is the perfect name, they certainly have branched and evolved.  // Timothy :: talk  17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what this "thing" is either, it's tagged as a think tank, but reads like it's a social club at a university. I can't find sourcing for whatever it is; if I can't tell what it is after reading the article, it's not needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking this site isn't a RS [14], explains this group is an online learning portal. Very confusing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Key-sung Cho

edit
Key-sung Cho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Also I don't think his academic career meets WP:PROF. Fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think I've now seen dozens of these AFDs about ambassadors. It used to be articles about football players and then ghost towns in Arizona and now it's cleaning house of ambassador articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've been able to find several mentions of his career as an ambassador through a Google Books search; it seems that he played a fairly important role in encouraging South Korean investment in Guatemala while he was ambassador there in the late 1980s. I don't have time to add the sources right now, but I'll work on improving the article as soon as I can. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Yahya

edit
Ahmed Yahya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 TT me 11:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Duffy

edit
Dylan Duffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources in the article, [15] is a database profile on Soccerway, [16] is a database profile, [17] is a small match report, [18] and [19] are routine transfer reports, [20] is a match report. I was unable to find anything significant during a search, only routine transfer reports and trivial mentions. Alvaldi (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moammel Abdul-Ridha

edit
Moammel Abdul-Ridha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 TT me 11:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumar Almadjed

edit
Sumar Almadjed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 TT me 11:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hassan Ahmed

edit
Mohammad Hassan Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanpur Government Girls High School

edit
Mohanpur Government Girls High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restored prod. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the single source is the school's official website, which Google translate converts into this which seems adequate evidence of the school's existence, and as there are only two government high schools in the Upazila it is quite reasonable to name this one at Mohanpur_Upazila#Education and redirect to it. PamD 14:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 36 high schools in the upazila. At the secondary level (unlike at the university level), being a "government" school is not a particular mark of distinction. "Non-government" schools, despite the name, are financed nearly entirely by the government (90% of teacher salaries, and grants for facilities repairs). The two categories of school follow the same curriculum, use the same textbooks, take the same standardized exams, and mostly charge the same amount in fees. According to one source, "Parents mainly send their children to private schools due to (perceived) low-quality ... at government schools".[1] So the argument that this school should be named in the upazila article because it's one of only two government high schools in the locality is unconvincing, and attributes too much significance to this school. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mousumi, Manjuma Akhtar; Kusakabe, Tatsuya (2021). "School Education System in Bangladesh". In Sarangapani, Padma M.; Pappu, Rekha (eds.). Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia. Springer. p. 452. ISBN 978-981-15-0031-2.
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. North America1000 08:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mesen Selekta

edit
Mesen Selekta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC Bexaendos (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 06:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project K (film)

edit
Project K (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unreleased film. There is nothing in this article that shows significant coverage of production of the film, only run-of-the-mill reports of rumors, development (director, producer), cast members, filming, etc that is written about every unreleased film. Unreleased films are notable only if the production itself is notable. Recommend moving to Draft: space where it can continue to be developed and when the film is released, it can be submitted for review for moving to mainspace. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 01:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Baylor

edit
Walker Baylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how Walker Baylor is notable. My redirect to his son Robert Emmett Bledsoe Baylor was reverted, so AfD can decide. Apart from the obituary, all sources seem to refer to him as "the father of", not about him personally, and just spend one line on him: e.g. this book, this book, or this book. Even this book, a detailed account of his military unit, gives only some small bits of information, and doesn't support the claim that he was a major of the unit (but only a captain). As it is a self-published book (authorhouse.com), it doesn't really count as a reliable source anyway. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Kentucky. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see what is notable about this chap. He served in a war as a junior officer and was wounded. No high rank, no high-level decorations, no key role in a battle or contribution to military operational art etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable for commanding Washington's Life Guard at either Germantown or Brandywine, where he was wounded while holding the colors. This is mentioned in all the sources that speak of him. I've found one obituary written in the year of his death, which focusses solely on the subject. There are probably others, just not on Newspapers.com. Also, this history of the Baylor family has information on the two likenesses of him which are known to exist and about which more may have been written. One of them was featured in a recent museum exhibition. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " One of them was featured in a recent museum exhibition"? That's not supported by that source, any other evidence for this? "Probably others" and "more may have been written" is speculation, not something we can base an AfD on, and it seems not very likely that these family portraits have been the subject of much attention anyway. The claim that he was a major is only sourced to an inscription on a photograph it seems. We don't know where he was wounded, never mind while supposedly "holding the colors" (source?), and "this" is not "mentioned in all the sources that speak of him", neither the sources I gave above nor the family history or the Virginia Magazine[31] mention him commanding the Life Guard, and this pdf which mentions his wound doesn't mention the Life Guards, Washington or "holding the colors" either. So it is rather strange that the sources which briefly mention him, don't mention the one thing he is supposedly notable for. Fram (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Internet archive shows multiple references to him commanding the life guards. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peacemaker and Hawkeye, at least from a military perspective. Intothatdarkness 15:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not see how he is notable for stand-alone article. Not major medals and states, he "may have" obtained the rank of Major (so not a General officer). Too much speculation. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- None of his activities seems to me to be quite enough to be notable. Only a captain; a local judge; a member of the electoral college. I am not saying that any of it is not true, just NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unfortunately, as I found the article interesting. Even if WP:NSOLDIER hadn't been deprecated, they would not have passed that, and there's simply not enough in-depth coverage about them to meet WP:GNG. Fram's source assessment is spot on.Onel5969 TT me 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF. A tweet claims this film is in post-production, but it is an unreliable source. There is no reliable source to indicate that it has reached the threshold equivalent to principal photography, that is, that the bulk of the budgeting is committed. There is no source confirming pre-production. The sources for who is writing songs is mere mentions. There is no secondary source commentary on this future film to meet the WP:GNG and bypass WP:NFF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to that close, this film is not a film, it is a future film in development hell with tweets attempting to give it credence. This is not material that can be merged elsewhere. A redirect to a page that mentions failed films is not a good redirect, because that page would not describe this non-film. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What information there is belongs at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10551654/, and none of it is reliable enough for Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about a future film for which reliable sources don't say that it has entered into the equivalent of principal photography, and the production of which does not meet GNG anyway—per nom. There are strong reasons to delete, and the no consensus AfD failed to deliver.—Alalch E. 08:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftily this article, because it needs multiple reliable citations.
CastJared (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are mostly not reliable, and of the ones that should be reliable, they are wrong because the information contained changed, it was speculative/intended future and then didn’t happen. It’s called Development hell. Sources and all, it’s worthless. If it comes out of development hell, new sources are needed. Probably, the cast will be all different. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion has boiled down to the choices of keeping the article in Main namespace or draftifying it to Draft namespace. After two full relistings, no consensus has ensued. North America1000 08:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jahzara Claxton

edit
Jahzara Claxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Some sources exist but not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A quick google search provided these sources about this two-sport athlete. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Even has a foreign article about her here. 10. Updated article with these and other sources - previous revision to current. Courtesy ping to @GiantSnowman: as requested above. Prominent figure in St Kitts sports, receiving a great deal of coverage with various news articles and a television appearance. Very good candidate for meeting Wikipedia:YOUNGATH. (PS you AfD'ed her on her birthday lol) RedPatch (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage above.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Weak keep. Of the above sources, #1 is by a Social media coach and consultant, #5 is written by the Minister of Sport on a Government run St. Kitts Nevis Information Service (SKINS), #6 and #7 are the same announcement from SKINS and #9 is an interview (PRIMARY). The rest might look good on the surface but when I go through the sources the feel rather thin. They are also from a span of 11 months so maybe WP:TOOSOON applies. Alvaldi (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I came to a similar conclusion when reviewing these sources. The tour reception pieces are largely primary, e.g. Samal Duggins – the Minister of Agriculture of St Kitts and Nevis, felt extremely proud while welcoming Jahzara Claxton; the reports on the minister's financial contribution are almost entirely quotes/describing what someone said/repeating stats from a non-independent source without analysis; and the pieces on her call-up to the U19 cricket team are also deficient (the one that includes the opinion statement She is an exceptional sports lady, and we salute her certainly cannot be considered independent). For YOUNGATH subjects local sources (and I don't see how newspapers from a community of <50k and ~100 mi2 -- roughly equivalent in population and area to Casa Grande, Arizona -- can be considered anything other than "local") are almost always excluded from notability consideration; this leaves just the Guatemalan article, which is pretty barebones and mostly in the context of a match recap. I would definitely support draftifying until we see whether her performance on the West Indies women's U19 T20 squad garners more diverse coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After giving it some thought, I'm switching to Draftify. It is just to soon at the moment. Alvaldi (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the last two comments, I'm relisting to determine whether this article should be Kept or Draftified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disregarding the blocked sockpuppet comment, the first relist doesn't show a change in consensus one way or the other. Hopefully relisting it again will help shape consensus towards a result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FBC Třinec

edit
FBC Třinec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been proved. An insignificant club that does not play a professional competition. The page has already been speedy deleted once (17 December 2022) and has now been restored with the same scope and content as before. FromCzech (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would go so far as to say it should be a speedy delete, since it was already removed 3 months ago. Lindsey40186 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Canales

edit
Martín Canales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the old WP:NFOOTY guidelines as doesn't appear to have played in a professional league. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG — NZFC(talk)(cont) 23:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caaqil Dheryodhoobe

edit
Caaqil Dheryodhoobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Scattered youtube videos are all there is about this individual. Non-notable military person? The article is poorly written and I can't tell what the individual being discussed has or hasn't done. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a footnote source mentioning "the wise caaqil dheryodhoobe" in a passage mentioning garaad wiilwaal where both are known legends? The source itself is a western source that even studied from somali government stories? There are alot more stories and examples i can add in the page on the mans life by translating the links from laashin.com and himilonetwork.com Abshir55 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Buick

edit
Glen Buick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A Google web search returns Wikipedia mirrors, and Buick dealers in towns named "Glen". Book search (and the refs in the article) only give trivial mentions of him. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sadharan Paath. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaj Paath

edit
Sahaj Paath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a duplicate of the same topic of the Sadharan Paath article with an alternative title. I have merged the existing text to the Sadharan Paath article and request this one to be deleted as per Wikipedia rules. ThethPunjabi (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nusantara (TV program)

edit
Nusantara (TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings.  // Timothy :: talk  04:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Van der Merwe

edit
Piet Van der Merwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Muller

edit
Ben Muller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dammy Twitch

edit
Dammy Twitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed interviews, lots of promos, and mentions in lists, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  03:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Big Time Rush (group)#Headlining. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Get Enough Tour

edit
Can't Get Enough Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined G11, previously deleted under A7, G11. Google search reveals no independent coverage. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where A7 comes in (for a yet-to-occur event that doesn't seem to have a claim to notability) when I had nominated it and Deb carried it out. I would respectfully submit that is a stricter reading of G11 than I would use, but that's your prerogative. Thanks for your reply. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to A7, a well-known band touring is itself a sufficient claim to clear A7. Note that the band has other tour articles. I realize I may interpret the speedy deletion criteria more strictly than others, but I do not believe that is out of line with policy. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest it was. Just different. FWIW I've never heard of this band. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Villalón

edit
Álvaro Villalón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the old WP:NFOOTY guidelines as doesn't appear to have played for any club when it may have been in the top professional league for that country. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG — NZFC(talk)(cont) 23:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Pet travel#Air travel. I'm closing this as a Redirect as ATD. I would have closed it as Merge but there is already a mention of Jack in this section of the article. Still if there is content that would be useful at Pet travel, it's there. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (cat)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jack (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded by SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) after prior AfD in November 2011, due to lack of lasting coverage for this 2011 incident. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus on November 22, less than a month after Jack was found and then euthanized, because it was not clear yet if there would be lasting coverage. There have been no improvements to this article since then, except for a source added in 2013 that devotes 3 short paragraphs to this incident in the context of many similar ones, and removing several unsourced or non-neutral paragraphs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Merge/Redirect per Cunard below. The coverage of this cat’s two month habitation of the airport and subsequent death was absolutely extensive. His disappearance spawned a Facebook campaign and various online, print, and television stories. The existing sourcing meets Wikipedia:GNG.
And while I’m concerned about the prior AfD’s heavy reliance on ongoing coverage when I’m not sure that’s required here under WP:NTEMP, we don’t necessarily need to address that, as I *do* see periodic coverage after. For example, this February 2017 article mentions Jack and an associated now defunct organization formed in response to what happened to him: https://www.cntraveler.com/story/is-your-pet-safe-flying-in-cargo; and this December 2022 article also mentions Jack: https://www.tripsavvy.com/british-airways-dog-air-travel-mishap-6951390. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Found another mention in 2015. https://www.yahoo.com/travel/felix-the-cat-found-after-two-weeks-spent-116663476477.html It appears his story gets repeated at least reasonably often when a pet-related airline incident occurs, which would tend to support a degree of ongoing coverage and notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded by Cunard’s analysis and change to merge/redirect.Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, and juste because he made the news for two months doesn't negate the fact that he has no long-term SIGCOV or GNG- passing mentions since then are just that, passing mentions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_27&oldid=1148421205"