Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 27	August 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stordeur

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

Non-notable Belgian fencer at the 1928 Olympics. The article is a stub created by Lugnuts (of ArbCom infamy). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Belgium. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG: clearly not a notable. Ekdalian (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG nor any other notability standard User:Let'srun 14:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

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

Firstly one of the only three wars listed should not be here because the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria ended in 2000 so it cannot participate in a war that started in 2022. And we don't really need a list for two wars. Unnecessary article. Not every country needs a list like this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CHRI did not end in 2000 nor in 2009. It's government and armed forces continues to exist abroad (in exile), which is supported by RS. It's armed forces are participating in the Russian-Ukrainian war on the side of Ukraine. I mean, even the infobox for the Russo-Ukrainian war has it listed as one of the main belligerents, and it's pretty well sourced, here. And it's been like this for months apparently. If it doesn't deserve an article simply because of the lack of conflicts, then other articles should be held to the same regard. Such as this one, or this one, or even this one. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All those lists seem to fall outside of WP:NLIST as I understand it. The wars are notable individually, but not together. Which RSs are writing on the wars those countries participate in as a group enough that it has become notable? JM2023 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the CHRI may or may not have "ended", but it is no longer a state by either theory, declarative or constitutive. It is not recognized by any state and it has no territory. So is it logical to list the Russo-Ukrainian War as having the involvement of the CHRI? JM2023 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern This article was nominated for deletion less than 6 hours after it was started. There was no discussion first at Talk:List of wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Nobody reached out to the article's creator at User talk:Ola Tønningsberg. No tags were added to the article noting problems.

Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is a partially recognized state, and organizations representing it have fought under the Ukrainian flag for nine years now. Whether that constitutes being a belligerent for the purposes of the list is an article-content and policy/consistency question that would have been better discussed at talk or at WikiProject Milhist, rather than being introduced as a claim in an AFD. —Michael Z. 18:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not recognized by any state. Mellk (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It met the declarative theory of statehood when the Russian Federation signed a peace treaty with it. It met the constitutive theory when Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada voted to recognize it as an occupied state. —Michael Z. 03:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian parliament voted to recognize it as "temporarily occupied" (whatever that means). A separate bill for recognition of independence was not yet considered. Mellk (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So recognizing it as temporarily occupied is some kind of recognition but not not partial recognition? I can’t quite reconcile that grammatically nor factually. It is something. —Michael Z. 13:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is just your original research then. Mellk (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark indicated that I was asking you if that’s your opinion, or just your original research then. —Michael Z. 21:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] You mentioned declaratory and constitutive theories, which do not appear to be supported by RS. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Meduza’s anonymous news post integrally acknowledges that its view on this is not universally held. Other sources disagree.[2] So its non-recognition doesn’t appear to be an established fact in RS consensus.

Have you read the Rada’s declaration? It clearly recognizes the existence of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and its territory, as well as its agreement with the Russian Federation (denounced by the RF). It doesn’t explicitly make a declaration about its sovereignty or independence, but clearly acknowledges their existence when it respectfully refers to CRI declarations of sovereignty and independence. —Michael Z. 02:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine has not recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. "As of 18 October 2022, the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as temporarily occupied by Russia awaits the signature of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.... In early November, Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states." Therefore the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria does not fall under the constitutive theory. It no longer falls under the declarative theory, since it had lost all of its defined territory, permanent population, and effective government in the Second Chechen War. JM2023 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying it did have sovereignty according to the declarative theory, presumably until some time between 2000 and 2009.

(I believe it has a defined territory and permanent population, as they have not disappeared; but what it has lost is effective control over them.) —Michael Z. 02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CHRI was definitely a de facto independent state (i.e., declarative theory conditions met) between 1991 and 2000 (from c. the dissolution of the USSR to c. the 1999-2000 Battle of Grozny), and is (and ought to be) universally regarded as such by RS. However, without effective government control, it no longer meets those conditions. Regardless, that has no bearing on its (lack of) recognition by Ukraine. JM2023 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its de-facto recognition in Ukrainian law. —Michael Z. 16:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources or reasoning behind that? As far as I can tell, "Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states." i.e., no recognition. I don't know what "de facto recognition" is, but recognition is the prerogative of Zelenskyy, not the Rada, and as of yet Zelenskyy has not recognized the CHRI. Maybe if you could define "de facto recognition" (e.g., a case similar to countries having unofficial relations with Taiwan, a state that meets the declarative theory conditions anyway).

And regardless, the very lead of the CHRI article says this: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria [...] was a de facto state that controlled most of the former Checheno-Ingush ASSR. [...] Since the 2000s, several entities have claimed [emphasis mine] to be an exile government of Ichkeria." Its description in the wiki search says "former unrecognized country". Enwiki itself makes it clear this was a state that no longer exists. JM2023 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minor points -- 1: A. B.'s point above was valid when written under WP:RUSH and, arguably, remains valid. 2: There is still no discussion on the Talk as recommended by WP:BEFORE C3. Along with RUSH, this is another possible indication of WP:OZD in this good-faith nomination. Major objections -- 3: No policy rationale has been presented by the nominator or !voters. Unnecessary article. Not every country needs a list like this falls squarely under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is refuted (lacking other rationale) by WP:NOTPAPER (see WP:NOTHING essay). 4: If there are policy- or guideline-based reasons to delete this article, I don't see them. It's sourced and informative, and wars are generally considered a free pass for WP:GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST, as while the individual wars are notable, the set "wars involving the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" is not notable. Additionally, the article solely consists of a minimal lead and a list, and the list only has 3 items in it with minimal text within each list item. It would have a maximum of 4 items if one adds the War in Dagestan, and the addition of the Russo-Ukrainian War is contested already (are there even any RS for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria still existing even on paper?). JM2023 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's sourced, and whether the government is recognised or not doesn't effect the notability of the government and the wars it has participated in.Newystats (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a real country. Seems to be serving as WP:SOAPBOX for separatists. NavjotSR (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which editors do you imagine are Russian separatists? —Michael Z. 17:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Please, let's not go there. I'm sure no offence was intended. NavjotSR, would you be amenable to striking the last two words of your good-faith comment, please? Just out of an abundance of WP:CIVIL? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not offended, but it’s just a dramatic comment in the form of a criticism against an undefined group, that seems to have no relation to any guidelines or rationale. I’d like to give the commenter an opportunity to let us know if there’s really anything to it. —Michael Z. 17:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Model School, Civil Lines

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

Declined prod. No indepth sourcing to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks references to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not find enough in-depth coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reference and poor coverage; fails GNG. Ekdalian (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Angels School

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

Declined prod citing existence of sources. The sources provided are all directory listings. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks references to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS hits in Google News, Google Books and Google News Archives. Note that there are several false positives as Holy Angels seems to be a common school name in various parts of the world. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources; clearly fails GNG. Ekdalian (talk) 07:04, 1 September 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!} 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bahr

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

The person in this article does not meet the notability standards and uses Wikipedia in multiple languages for public relations. Ungeruehrt (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete professional profile (WP:NOTLINKEDIN) with a twist of BLP WP:CRIME issues. —siro χ o 04:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, I've removed the portion that ran afoul of WP:CRIME. —siro χ o 07:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is meant for promotional activities (professional life); should be deleted since it defies the purpose of Wikipedia. Ekdalian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 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!} 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaël Sow

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

Failure of WP:GNG. He made two appearances at the second level of Belgian football, and was created at a time that NFOOTY existed. Some coverage exists (also here), but is not significant coverage and does not pass GNG. Note that I created this article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Senegal, France, and Sweden. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:52, 3 September 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!} 02:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garvita Sadhwani

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

Article fails WP:GNG. The article has no substancial work, awards, roles aur sources to pass WP:GNG Sssaaraa (talk) 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only are none of these sources independent, they're all about a single thing: that makeup for this role took three hours. Extremely trivial. -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent reliable source available supporting notability; clearly fails GNG. Ekdalian (talk) 07:16, 1 September 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. While numerically, this could be closed as a Keep, the sources are admittedly poor and no improvements have been made to this article during the discussion or further sources unearthed. So, there has been very little follow through by editors wanting to Keep this article to the notability problems pointed out by the nominator and so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holos (software)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability To be honest, I have given up on this and fully expect it to be deleted. The current reduced entry is now uninformative and effectively useless, having had mentions removed for both the US patents for its influential COA technology. Apparently, it was notable to USPTO but not Wikipedia.TonyP (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TonyP, your edit appears to have messed with the main Articles for deletion log page (particularly on mobile). Could you remove the "==" or add an additional "==" for your Notability section? Conyo14 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources I found so far:

article about Holos use: InfoWorld 22 January 1996 (Volume 18, Issue 4), p. 63

Holos review (1/3 page): InfoWorld 1 March 1999 (Volume 21, Issue 9), p. 63

There are also short news in this magazine eg. about Seagate/Holistic purchase (1 July 1996, p. 37; 4 November 1996, p. 6), or new release (5 August 1996, p. 35)

If there is similar kind of coverage in other magazines of the late 90s, this article may be salvageable. Pavlor (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some argument here about whether or not reliable sources exist that could establish this article subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember it being really high-product and expensive product back in the 90's. Its certainly has historical value as computing history. Unfortunately seagate bought them and crystal reports and horsed both of them. Definently a keep. There should be coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help find more sources maybe? The current ones are really bad and don't suggest the kind of notability you're referring to. Steven Walling • talk 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - could be improved with further sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there any possibility of merging some of this to eg Online analytical processing? -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm relisting a third time because there is not a vocal group of editors clamoring for Deletion and an editor has brought up the possibility of a Merger with another article...can that option get some consideration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes GNG and there are enough sources to establish notability. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what sources are those? They aren't in the article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can those asserting notability and voting to keep please share references to look at? - Indefensible (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather sad AFD in my opinion; the article quality is poor and there are 3 keep votes with only Pavlor giving sources, none of which seem easily accessible. Definitely could use some improvement and cleanup. I would agree with merging it except part of this article is about the company which is not appropriate for the online analytical processing article, it would need a 2nd target such as Crystal Decisions which is another mess itself. - Indefensible (talk) 19:17, 30 August 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!} 22:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thet Hein Soe

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or the SNG. All references are database type sites. No even medium dept coverage vs. in depth. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:52, 3 September 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 new comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Komodo

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

Does not seem to meet notability for films [3] this in CNN Indonesia was all in RS I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mention here [4], still nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Among existing reviews, please see:

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film Threat, maybe, the other two aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but they are! They both are even reference sites in their domains! If you don’t know them, see, https://artusfilms.com/blog/26_Focus-site-internet-5-Devildead-com, and https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/09/voyage-au-bout-de-la-nuit-nanarland-1116968 and https://www.liberation.fr/ecrans/2008/03/18/le-nanar-tapi-sort-de-l-ombre_958685/ etc, etc

Please ask before asserting a source ’is not RS’....thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the Echos article about a different film has to do with this film. I mean we don't have them as reliable sources here in wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair that page is hardly a comprehensive list of every single reliable entertainment website that exists.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second set of sources are not about the film, they're about the sources listed in my first post, in general.... If those two sites are not in the list of resources so far, feel free to ask if you can add them, you have my full support, or to ask at the Horror/Film projects what they think about them, if you prefer. No further comment from me, as I think that we have enough for notability, specially when adding what you and StarTrekker mention .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

I managed to find this revirew in Hungarian and a little bit of coverage in these books [5],[6], not sure if its enough.★Trekker (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 28 August 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 Grenada#Economy. I'm not sure that this is the best Merge target but I go no response to my Relisting comment so I'm just selecting the option most often mentioned here. I hope the editor responsbie for the Merge will use their best judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada and the International Monetary Fund

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

The article as it stands is sourced either to Wikipedia, to non-independent sources, or to sources with no significant coverage of the supposed subject. WP:BEFORE doesn't show much that couldn't simply be merged to Grenada#Economy at absolute best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and Grenada. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we maybe need to look a bit deeper for sources as I think there may well be academic references which directly address the subject such as 1 and 2 JMWt (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article would have to be be entirely supported on the first source then JMWt. As I said in the nomination, I don't see a reason for an independent article; the second would be far better served being used in Grenada#Economy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's an opinion. As far as I'm concerned in the main we are trying to think about policy, and I can't really see a good reason why there is a lack of notability of a page describing a country's relations with the IMF - when there is academic study describing it as important. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - other than the notability question, this is a very encyclopedic article. The IMF is a reliable source; the question is independence for reliability purposes; I could possibly be persuaded that it's sufficient.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IMF sources fall into the category of "reliable but not independent"; in a case like this, it is valid for use in the article, but I'm not sure you could judge notability merely on that. On the other hand, the Kirton source above seems to indicate there is more likely to be notability than not (though it is quite outdated). Curbon7 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: personally I don't see how an economic analysis of four/five months in 1983 to be sufficient to establish notability; why do you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at, and perhaps did not explain well-enough, is that a 23-page scholarly analysis in a reputable journal is an indication that there may be other similar sources (granted, 1983 was a hell of a year for Grenada); I was not making a definitive statement that it alone establishes notability. Curbon7 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness there are more recent academic journal papers describing the longer term impacts of the IMF intervention. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well-written and encyclopaedic. I think it passes GNG easily as written and the only real problem is a lack of sources. I believe that Curbon7's argument toward RSs-yet-to-be-found is also valuable. I do not think that deletion will improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think the best option is to condense relevant parts into Economy of Grenada. I'm happy to do this, if others agree; just ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is not the same as the nom's suggestion to merge it into the economy section of Granada, which I would oppose. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we have an editor arguing to Keep this article and ones advocating a Merge, either to Economy of Grenada or to Grenada#Economy. Any last thoughts about this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 28 August 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 Bangladesh–Italy relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of The People's Republic of Bangladesh, Milan

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

This article about a consulate is sourced only to primary sources. I can find no significant coverage about this consulate to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Bangladesh, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect- to Bangladesh–Italy relations. Not independently notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Italy as an WP:ATD. I think that list is a slightly better target than Bangladesh-Italy relations. In any case, I agree with everyone that the consulate isn't independently notable. @Whpq and LibStar: Would you find redirect acceptable, and if so, where would you recommend redirecting to? --Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference. With either redirect target's current state, the reader really gains nothing by being sent there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 4 September 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!} 21:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel King

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

Despite the article's longevity on Wikipedia, it is based on little more than references to the subject's own organizations' websites. Little other independent information can be found. The recent removal of the "Controversies" section per a discussion at WP:BLPN, removed what little independent sourcing existed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Health and fitness. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. #prodraxis ^connect 21:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of her in any reliable sources that are independent of her. Cullen328 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any significant coverage in independent sourcing either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be any significant coverage about this person. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. When researching the discussion about the "Scrutiny" section of the page, it became clear there just isn't that much out there. --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, can't find any independent coverage about King, articles just link to work that King publishes herself

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Celestial Toymaker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Toymaker

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

While generally notable in universe, the Toymaker has only appeared in one on screen story and some spin-off material, and I can't find much beyond that and 60th Anniversary speculation. While some commentary related to his role in the episode "The Celestial Toymaker" may exist, I don't think it's enough to warrant a separate article. In regards to the 60th speculation, it's just that and rumor mills right now, unlike someone like Beep the Meep, who's confirmed to return and has a shot at getting some significant coverage from it. Should anything turn up then, the article can be recreated, but I believe that as it stands right now, there's nothing concrete, and the Toymaker just doesn't have enough to justify the separate article. A possible AtD would be either a redirect to his titular episode, or a redirect to the Doctor Who Villains list. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Celestial Toymaker as there's more info of him there. He is not notable enough to have his own article. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect per nom. Doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE didn't reveal sources that really focus on this character. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Celestial Toymaker: This seems to be a valid WP:ATD-R as it could be used as a valid search term for anyone omitting "The", and it can also provide the relevant character information given the character's limited use. - 2pou (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The character does not have enough SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 4 September 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. It looks like the consensus is that Clean up, not Deletion is called for here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwa dynasty

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

This article is mostly based on untrustworthy Colonial Era sources (WP:RAJ) that are based on British-based work, assumptions or mythological beliefs and that are not allowed on Wikipedia please see WP:RAJ. This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources.Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Royalty and nobility, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources. And I'm not sure what you've got going on with the formatting errors, it's gone wonky. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see guidelines for notability WP:RAJ.I have removed some Colonial Refrences from the article but still there are many you can see. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did, it basically says not to source your article from old sources which have one way of thinking. So long as we can balance out with modern sources and present a rounded point of view, there is no concern. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Oh, yikes - no, that's really not the case at all. You can't "balance out" these sources any more than you could write an article about Jewish history by using nazi history as the basis and balancing it out with more recent historians. It's more or less writing an article entirely based on primary sources that are prejudiced against the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ouch. My bad. Feel free to trout me again. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! History is harder than it looks. :) Things vary by subfield, but in general it's good to be more skeptical of anything more than a few decades old, and anything from the 19th century or earlier is best left out unless you're really familiar with the material. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:RAJ does not apply here and if you see history of page WP:RAJ author Sitush has himself in past edited this page. As rightly said by Oaktree b WP:RAJ is an essay and not a policy - it is written that Raj era sources should be avoided in caste based articles but Raj era sources are valid for historical facts - if Raj era sources say Jethwas have their capital in Porbandar and it is a princely state with xyz area and xyz population - it is valid source. You are misdirected in this deletion and Jethwa dyansty is centuries old dynasty - further read WP:Before - before you nominate article for deletion. Jethwa dynasty covers all wikipedia requierments of The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS). Porbandar State was ruled by Jethwa dynasty was a 13 Gun salute princely state under British Raj Jethwarp (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your nomination argument itself clarifies your mindset you have nominated it with comment it reqiers clean up or redirect - now here only your deletion argument fails for clean up there are tags to be used or you can start clean up yourself with starting a topic on clean up in talk page. Secondly redirect to Jethwa argument is not valid as per me because Jethwa page is about surname used by many castes in India and this page is about a dynasty that ruled for over 1000 years over many parts of Saurashtra from Morbi to Porbandar. Again if you see history and talk page Sitush author of WP:Raj has in past been involved in discussion and editing of these both pages - Jethwarp (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Basing an AfD on WP:RAJ is questionable; basing this AfD on it is unreasonable.

First and foremost, it is not policy; it is as editor's opinion essay with zero constructive dialogue attached.
The essay is about the unreliability of British sources regarding castes due to a valid assumption that their inherent bias (the unassailable superiority of Englishmen over all 'inferior races' added to drive to legitimise the Raj itself) makes them unreliable.
1. This article isn't about caste or race, but about political history starting eleven centuries before the Raj.
2. Starting a discussion about a given source by positing that bias is valid and useful; ending it there for all such sources is neither. Setting the caste question aside, making a blanket statement that all British sources on all India-related subjects from that period share the same bias is fundamentally invalid. To go full ad Nazium, it is the same as saying that all mid-century German scholars were Nazis, thus they cannot be trusted on any subject at all. It is tarring with a ludicrously wide brush. Impugn the sources, not the generic society from which they come.
The nom discusses eleven sources out of thirty-seven. That puts this AfD unquestionably within WP:BATHWATER territory.

In short, there is simply no policy basis for this nomination. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG with SIGCOV and depths of sourcing. If those eleven sources need to be deprecated (which they well might; I haven't read them individually), fine. That still leaves two dozen sources and a well-written and encyclopaedic article that enhances Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't update my explanation above, but the article seems mostly well sources, with a balance of old and more modern (1970s to present) sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 30 August 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!} 21:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

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

This article is mostly based on untrustworthy Colonial Era sources (WP:RAJ) that are based on British-based work, assumptions or mythological beliefs and that are not allowed on Wikipedia please see WP:RAJ. This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns. Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view. Seems fine to me. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first 25 sources are from the 1970s forward, so basically half the sourcing doesn't use British-era sources. These are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kindly remove this article from AFD because I made mistake will prod Delete I prod Jethwa dynasty and this page was wrongly prod for deletion Wich I also revert my mistake. Good Faith. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has sources from the 1960s going forward. It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no dear I have explained that I made a mistake my intention was to prod Another page of Jethwa dynasty when I undo revert my mistake a bot again prod this page for deletion I didn't. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 20:18, 28 August 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. SouthernNights (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio

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

Subject fails NLIST/ LISTN as well as GNG. The opaque bare URL sources are impossible for me to decipher. Many, if not all, towns/ cities have fire stations so it's not clear to me how these ones would be notable. A BEFORE search only revealed only materials from those fire departments, from Ohio government offices, or historical offices in pay of same so there is no independence from the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ohio. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not particularly notable. All towns have fire stations so I don't see any reason why this list should exist. It also fails NLIST. There does not seem to be any significant in-depth coverage. FlutterDash344 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a drive-by comment with no real work put into it. You can find an insane amount of information on many of these buildings, and certainly there are news articles about each and every one. $ɱ$ (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be nice if the article's creator had included the title, date and newspaper for each reference accessed through the Columbus Metropolitan Library, but the context suggests that they are mostly newspaper articles from the Columbus Dispatch. Fire stations often have architectural merit, and I see from the footnotes that at least one station is on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the massive amount of coverage from the Columbus Dispatch over the years, the book A Historical Guidebook to Old Columbus: Finding the Past in the Present in Ohio's Capital City, is already cited as a reference. The Ben Hayes reference includes two newspaper articles from the Fabulous Short North newspaper. The first one doesn't deal with fire stations, but the second one is for "Fire! Fire! Fire! Ben Hayes Relates Area Fire House History". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it starts out ok, with a picture for each station and a small history. Then it's simply a "phone book" style listing. We need some context around why the stations are notable; either historic architecture or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not the right reaction. This AfD process checks for WP:N / WP:GNG, which is established here with dozens of citations. This article meet's Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

There are also complaints about the lack of citations and inappropriate format of citations. I sympathize with that, but also, formatting citations for this kind of content is a poor use of human labor. Realistically, no human is demanding these citations, because the only info that these citations provide is a claim of the existence of particular fire stations. Many of the citations here are behind a wall, but they are machine readable or bot verifiable, which is good enough considering that the claim of mere existence is so mundane.

I am going to issue my own take: every city in the world of population over 50,000 should have a Wikipedia article titled "Fire stations in X". If possible, we should use Wikipedia article writing bots to generate these articles in English, the local language, and a few other languages. Verifying them with machine-readable sources or primary sources is okay. The information in these articles should be cross-referenced to Wikimedia Commons for pictures through Wikidata, and then Wikidata should exchange info with OpenStreetMap so that project can give map data to Wikipedia and Wikipedia can provide pics and more info when available to the map. Beyond fire stations, we should also have articles like this for hospitals, police stations, public parks, and other places which are essential to register for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. I am not going to argue that every fire station or hospital is automatically notable, but I think that I am ready to say that we should expect city services are and that list articles like this seem like a scalable pattern for Wikipedia-style documentation of them.

Another opinion: for list articles like this, photos count as sources. The goal here is to establish that this city has fire stations. We do not need to go into detail. Our custom is to treat published text sources as meeting WP:V, even if they do things like poorly describe the architecture or say something like "the mayor was there for the opening". Sometimes for some claims, like the existence of a thing, a picture is the best reference or source or authority. These pics are great, and I think we should treat all the entries with a pic as verified.

For the entries with no pic, and with no citation at all, I think having a human simply point to a database or published list is enough verification for what this is. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Unfortunately nobody has the patience to allow me to finish formatting the references, and nobody has actually directly asked me to. Also, I do have photographs of most of these places I can upload, but scanning and uploading takes time and effort. When people don't appreciate the countless hours of work I put in, I have little incentive to put in more effort. $ɱ$ (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: Again, could you not have formatted the references in your sandbox? Have you read the essay WP:REALPROBLEM? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read essays, I don't need to follow them, there are others that say the complete opposite thing, and I don't agree with the one you linked. Thanks. Every article is a work in progress; these are good enough for the mainspace. There is no ref formatting requirement on this project. $ɱ$ (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for those who might not be familiar, NewsBank is a database of reputable newspapers. All bare URLs are to NewsBank's Columbus Dispatch archives. I always come back to fix these citations, but it takes time and patience. And automated tools like ReFill unfortunately can't be used to help. So it's a slow process. Asking for attention to any one article would be helpful, rather than an AfD. $ɱ$ (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please fix the bare URLs, and in the future, please fix them in your sandbox space before adding them to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try my best, but in the meantime perhaps consider writing a draft addition to a policy or guideline and getting consensus for your opinion above. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the citations all went to the local newspaper, per WP:AUD. You haven't made a case that the subject is notable (that there are fire stations in Columbus) nor does each and every station listed already discussed in a standalone article. The subject isn't notable. Pictures don't make the subject notable. Local coverage doesn't make it notable. That you started editing in 2009 doesn't make the subject notable. This isn't merely an argument about citation style. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbus Dispatch is the largest newspaper in Ohio, and covers most of the state. It's simply not a local paper. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does citation style make an article warrant an AfD. You didn't really provide any real explanation for the sources warranting deletion, nor even bother to provide an assessment of the references. Which is your whole argument. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the paper makes no such claims. Also, my clear deletion rationale is lack of notability, much as you try to reframe it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the article was any good. Most of Wikipedia is crap, unfortunately. And your nomination might as well be a drive-by comment. There's no effort put in, and no detailed assessment of the notability. Simply you're confused because you can't access. Then Ask! $ɱ$ (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of ability to read a source does not mean (or indicate) a lack of notability. I'm sorry you have no access. That does not warrant whole days of effort to be wiped away. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you <3 $ɱ$ (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extremely well sourced, encyclopedically presented, and the chart has everything going for it per Wikipedia article requirements. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's currently impossible to evaluate the article based on its sources because of the bare urls, which redirect to a login page. @Ɱ: Per WP:BURDEN (which is policy, not just an essay), there needs to be sufficient information in the citation to be able to find and verify it: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)... see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this. If it takes a minute to properly format a citation, it would take you less than an hour to fix all the citations in the article. That is something you need to do before putting an article in mainspace, per policy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nevermind the fact that you need a login to even access those bare URLs, are there any sources that are not WP:LOCAL? Right now it's a little difficult to determine WP:NLIST given the awful ref formatting. Frankly I'm leaning towards draftify since the creator above clearly wants to use the main space as their sandbox. Conyo14 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the requirement that local sources are somehow unacceptable? And again, The Dispatch is the regional newspaper for Central Ohio, not a local one. $ɱ$ (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only asking, no need to get choppy. Conyo14 (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD grew out of heated arguments first at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope? and subsequently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Autopatrolled editor removing maintenance templates. This recent comment by Dominic captures the issues and this AfD in a nutshell.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The definitive policy is the Deletion policy; it lists the allowable 14 reasons for deletion in the ”Reasons for deletion” section. None of those reasons apply here. If the nominator doesn’t like Columbus’s many fire stations, just avoid this article. The article is well-referenced, notable and useful. The author is to be commended for all the good work put into it. As noted, there’s more work to be done but that’s true of every article that’s not a featured article.

We have 6.7 million articles. I’m sure we have at least 100,000 real dogs to get rid of; let’s shift our deletion energies to them and leave this article and its harried author alone.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For all the fretting about article quality, no comments were ever left at Talk:Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and let me get this straight. There's a set of arguments going on all over the place and this AfD, which is obviously targeting an article which passes GNG on the newspaper cites alone, was added to more or less harass a long-time productive editor because they didn't put in a couple dozen ref tags? How many articles have a couple dozen sources right off the bat? Then it's obvious that this editor has promised to continue to format the page and edit it the way he has edited many other articles, some to feature status? Why should we not trust that he'll do what he says? All of these discussions should be closed and apologies given all around. Really, this seems to be a case of eating-our-own, and shows that quite a few editors itch for a fight. I wouldn't be writing this if it wasn't for the fact that all of these discussions combined have MJ considering leaving the project. Ridiculous use of pile-on, just stop it and apologizes all around for fightin'-words, and close those discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well illustrated with pics from Commons but, with many bare URLs that leads to a login page and makes mobile app readers uncomfortable, the sources from the Dispatch and others support the notability of the article despite the many sources that cannot be verifiable due to login requirements. Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources in the article there's passages about the early Columbus fire stations on pages 90, 93 & 97 plus 2 images of Engine House no.20 in The Firehouse : An Architectural and Social history by Rebecca Zurier, available through Internet Archive. This helps partly satisfy WP:NLIST. There's sufficient sourcing to pass GNG. Rupples (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helpful list with sufficient sourcing, even if formatting is required. Consider a move to "List of..."? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I make no comment on the AFD but I have replaced the Columbus Metropolitan Library URLs with ones that go direct to Newsbank. Some of these URLs, in particular those which say open URL should now work for everyone. I think these also have additional details already. The other ones, I think all of the bare URLs will still at a minimum require Newsbank access. I have no idea if they still work or work for everyone with Newsbank access or only for the OP as they look to be search related URLs. But I see no reason to keep proxy URLs. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nil, sorry but your link changes should be reverted. I read your comment on my talk briefly. I appreciate you trying to help, but unfortunately the non-proxy login doesn't let most library card holders in, and no Columbus library card holders in. I mentioned this bug to NewsBank months ago. They replied essentially that they don't care. And the readers of these Columbus articles are most often people from Central Ohio, so the most useful reference URL is one they can access. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR, actually, I found a way a few months back to include both URL forms. Which allows more access to everyone. Just takes more time to do. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that doesn't apply to the open URL links since these can be access by anyone even without library access.
But more importantly, if it's difficult for Columbus Metropolitan Library holders to use the direct URLs, that's unfortunate. But links to Newsbank are infinitely preferable to links to some libraries proxy. Articles should not be designed for ease of access of one particular population at the expense of the rest of the world. And you cannot assume that even people from Central Ohio will have access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library anyway.
There are various ways people with access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library can access those URLs which are sort of beyond the scope of this discussion (e.g. it's likely they will work from an actual library computer, or they could ask a librarian for help or just manually replace the URL if they know what they're doing). But for good reasons we ultimately considered it the responsibility of readers to obtain access when we've provided sufficient information for them to do so. The URLs still aren't that but non proxy URLs are more that than proxy ones are. (I'm sure there must be a discussion about this somewhere since these sort of library proxies are very common and have been for many years.)
P.S. If you want to revert me while you fix these URLs, go ahead provided you're going to fix them within a week or so. Note if my fix had made it more difficult for you to access these URLs or see what they are, consider this an illustration of why everyone else is so frustrated when you leave these confusing URLs.
P.P.S. I don't want to get into this too much here but I'd also note you can't defend these as links to Newsbank implying anyone with access to Newsbank can use them, while simultaneously saying you actually want them to be links to the Columbus Metropolitan Library proxy used for Newsbank access (so only people with that particular library have access).
Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, please be concise with your responses! You're restating yourself, and I understand your position. Again, anyone in Ohio can apply for a free library card. These CML URLs are accessible to anyone, statewide. Both URLs should be provided, but the CML URL is actually more useful to the readership of these niche topics. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only article on the entire site that is a list of fire stations in the city. As a result of the conflict around this and the sources I won't be voting, but it does seem like it's up there with Bus Routes in City in terms of not meeting NLIST, even though there are notable fire stations that already have articles. I'm mostly commenting if someone wants to revisit this AfD in awhile. SportingFlyer T·C 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete. We have inscrutable references that are almost certainly local coverage anyway. Then we have patchy coverage of individual firehouses, which do not satisfy NLIST. Where are the requisite multiple SIRS sources, including at least one regional one, that show the topic as a whole is notable? This list additionally fails INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIRECTORY.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While every small town in the U.S. doesn't need a comprehensive list of fire stations, a major city will have plentiful coverage (both in newspapers and perhaps even in books and other materials). Some stations are also notable enough for their own articles, either due to historic merit, a heritage designation, or significant coverage on its own. It sets a horrible precedent to toss out an article simply because it is sourced to a local-to-the-subject but still major regional daily newspaper. What on earth drove everyone to this end? Sounder Bruce 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Columbus Division of Fire. That article is basically a stub, and can easily cover this content. If that article was becoming too large to read, I'd support breaking this out as a seperate article, but in it's current state, no reason to have 2 related articles. No issues with sourcing and find the arguments made regarding them silly.Dave (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is trending towards keep, but think a merge is the best possible outcome here. There's no need for two stand-alone articles - again, this is the only list of fire stations in city X on the entire site - while we wouldn't lose any of the information. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is the kind of list that people come to Wikipedia to find (and I generally loathe list articles). I think it needs a lot of work (which the editor is providing), but is genuinely encyclopaedic.

First, I think this AfD should have been procedurally closed under WP:BEFORE C4 at the very least, with good reasons also in B2, C2 (synonymous to WP:RUSH), C3 and D4. Architectural RSs alone appear to give us a reasonable assumption that additional RSs exist and the article may be ripe for improvement, not deletion.
That said, the article should not have been started in mainspace but in draft. I think, though, that the article is more than strong enough now to stand on its own while being improved.
I really do understand the nom's good-faith NLIST and GNG arguments, but I don't completely agree with them. The overall subject has (limited but existant) notability for architectural and historical reasons. The fact that a significant number of list items have noncontroversial articles is not in itself definitive, but it is indicative of notability as well.
I think the arguments over sourcing and source-formatting are a distraction. The sources presented are reliable and non-primary (a news article that includes or summarises historical info is generally considered secondary). For a regional subject, a regional source is reasonable and expected, and the coverage does not seem passing or trivial.
Lastly, it's an article that actually passes WP:SELCRIT which is a rare pearl in list AfD discussions.

Overall, I think the article improves Wikipedia and should remain in mainspace. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bickering aside, the topic of fire stations in a particular city clearly will have enduring coverage in local newspapers over time. Merge discussion, if any, can be held on talk page, as there is no policy-based reason to enforce one as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for what has already been said well above. HenryMP02 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm Central Ohio based and will convert the bare urls. 9H48F (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just this article that needs worked on. There is dozens and potentially and potentially more than 100 need the bare search urls converted into a real references. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 4 September 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and will submit it to AFC for approval, let me know or you can go to [WP:REFUND]]. Head's up to those helpful admins who work at REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Trudeau Jr.

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

I wasn't able to find reliable, independent, indepth sources about him (so not databases, organisators, ...), just routine match coverage. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include a more homogenic set of results and backed it up with articles from an independant source (PokerNews (not exactly routine coverage)). TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about him being a micro stakes qualifier doesn't take away his results (some high-stakes). In the second revision of the article I panned out his high-stakes results and in the third revision I included his most notable midstakes results. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Semi-pro implies amateur, so there won't be much coverage... and there isn't. It's all Pokerweb sites. Gnews has nothing about this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does't matter if you're a semi-professional and/or micro stakes player when you have over $3,500,000 in poker winnings. Many bracelet winning players doesn't add up to that. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But we need sourcing that covers this, otherwise, we have an article only sourced to gaming websites. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But PokerNews, the most frequently used source in the article, although a gaming wesite, is independant and not regulated by the poker market in itself. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if all of the PokerNews articles were SIGCOV, that would count as ONE source and the requirement for GNG is "multiple". As it is, 3/4 PokerNews articles are mentions in routine event recaps/stats, 1/4 has slightly more commentary but is still routine. The PokerGuru source is similarly deficient.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new source (Seminole Hard Rock Poker Open (SHRPO)) so that the article now has five sources independant to eachother. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source covers his biggest score to date ($352,200). That alone should merit noteworthyness regardless of a (factual) news article. Many news articles copies their material from poker articles anyway. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is solely dependent on the amount and depth of coverage in independent secondary RS, not on level of accomplishment. If news articles are just copying announcements from poker outlets then those aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SHRPO is obviously not an independent source on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Backed up his Main Event results with two new refs (ESPN Sports). TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But again, these are brief mentions in routine tournament recaps. NOTNEWS makes it clear that routine sports reports are not enough for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Guy did stuff, scored 12345" is about what each source says, loooong way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 1 September 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!} 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by GameTV

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

No evidence of notability, primary or unreliable sources. Fram (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Fram (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE search only showed primary sources. FlutterDash344 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An all-repeat channel (outside fad distractions and oddball deals); we don't usually do lists articles (much less lists) for networks not made up of any original content. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only this article fails for notability, most of the sources are poorly sourced. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 08:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. We should only show programming listings for channels with original content, none of this is. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 30 August 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!} 18:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City Cruises

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

Solely Promotional article, and not a notable company. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Search shows this may have been renamed "City Experiences" but even under that search term I cannot find enough to meet WP:NCORP. Was going to suggest a merge to Hornblower Cruises but I also cannot find a reliable source to confirm that company purchased this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems unlikely that enough notable sources can be found to bring this article up to NCORP viability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be enough sources to meet WP:NCORP and it reads like an advertisement. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Folgueira

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers - can't find anything decent Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 16:53, 3 September 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. and lightly salted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great spider

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

seemingly a case of repeated creation, pseudoscience, and not particularly notable. would recommend salting as well DrowssapSMM (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. DrowssapSMM (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jba fofi. Plantdrew (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like this was recreated by the same author. It also does not seem to be notable. FlutterDash344 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to The Giant Spider Invasion~~ ~~Redirect to Wild Wild West#Writing~~ Delete per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A collection of anecdotes with nothing holding them together but WP:OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if the article would be slightly more acceptable as Great spiders, instead of sort of focusing on one Nessie, "the creature" per current lead. Still, current sources aren't great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G4 Speedy delete and salt - Inappropriate repeat re-creation. The notability and source reliability issues raised in the previous AfDs still stand. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the purported creature has been listed in several more sources in the intervening years and is found in at least four published fiction works [added to the article], I thought that another stab at this would be appropriate. Marino73 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being in fiction doesn't really help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 1 September 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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Magalhães

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 16:53, 3 September 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!} 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Haylock

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

The subject has earned at least five caps for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Honduras. JTtheOG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable sportsperson. I was unable to find significant in-depth coverage. FlutterDash344 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:51, 3 September 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!} 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovro Benić

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

Benić very briefly had a professional career until around 2014, after which he disappeared into the lower levels. The article is only supported by database sources, so doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. This Croatian source search yielded no significant coverage. SportCom is not significant coverage as it's just an interviewer asking him for opinions on the season and contains no third party coverage of Benić at all. All other coverage seems to be just pure stats like Soccerzz. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of GNG sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:08, 29 August 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 Albania women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floralba Krasniqi

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

Redirect to List of Albania women's international footballers. The subject has appeared for the Albania women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Albania, and Austria. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The subject is not notable enough to have an article of their own. Nothing like in-depth coverage. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:24, 28 August 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. SouthernNights (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing_of_Tahir_Naseem

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Killing of Tahir Naseem

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

I believe this article is not notable enough to have its own designated Wikipedia page, there have been a total of 4 edits in 3 years and it is a one paragraph long article with no relevance or large media presence. Also a consideration for the children of the named person and family, a permanent internet reminder is not ideal.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There is not a country in this world where unfortunately these random killings don't occur. This is an encyclopedia and not a local newspaper. WP:NOTEVERYTHING...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. This is a mistaken AfD. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply here, neither does consideration for the families -- there's more than enough already on the Internet about this case. This was not your average local case, nor random, but a case that garnered significant WP:SIGCOV in international media for several years. More than enough coverage in a wide number of WP:RS to justify including on Wikipedia at a minimum, or even keeping this article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just say either merge or keep as a way to force your opinion as if there are just those two options screams of arrogance ,deletion is very much a considered option,

There’s no relevance what so ever these cases happen all of the time and don’t have their own Wikipedia articles otherwise we might aswell make Wikipedia a news site .

There is media attention about Karen from Gloucester who got drunk and spat at the doorman on the local pub , she doesn’t have a Wikipedia . 2A00:23C7:9DA5:9301:C1A3:8979:3AF9:4D6A (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. And hardly a routine case as alleged above. Not many people are murdered in courtrooms because of their religion. The fact that the nominator has never made any other contributions to Wikipedia is also unusual. Few editors start their Wikipedia career by nominating an article for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:EVENT including WP:PERSISTENCE with, for example some coverage in a paper from 2 years after the incident (published in hard copy 3 years after incident) [7] and sigcov in an Oxford University Press book 2 years after the event, [8]. —siro χ o 04:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo's research. Redirecting to List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan seems inappropriate, as the charge appears to be pretextual for a judicial murder. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Garbage news not notable enough for a Wikipedia article , one paragraph in length it’s embarrassing . 86.169.18.103 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:STUB, which is perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above besides the article has improved a fair bit. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Improved by you? makes no sense to improve an article to prevent it being deleted . bias, seems like admins got together to try and stop removal. 2A00:23C7:9DA5:9301:C5AB:18BE:FFB:2773 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, assume good faith. If you'd like to learn a bit about improving articles nominated for deletion, consider reading WP:HEY. —siro χ o 22:57, 1 September 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 International rugby league in 2018. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific Rugby League Tests

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2017 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Oceania, Australia, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2018. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and convert to redirect. I completely agree with J Mo 101. WP isn't solely a database, and necessary elements of a database needed on Wikipedia should be prosified. I would suggest that this standard apply to all pages and separate articles when article size isn't an issue. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:24, 29 August 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 International rugby league in 2017. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pacific Rugby League Tests

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2017 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2017. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 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 International rugby league in 2016. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Pacific Rugby League Tests

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2016 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon, Oceania, Australia, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2016. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 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 International rugby league in 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pacific Rugby League Tests

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here has now been merged with International rugby league in 2010. Pacific games don't need there own page, especially how small it is per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oceania and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2010. No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 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 Randers FC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dronningborg Boldklub

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Amateur FC. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark. UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randers FC, doesn't look to be independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:24, 28 August 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 Ship classification society. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dromon Bureau of Shipping

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

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

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced and no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Egypt, Tanzania, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Turkey, Belize, and Panama. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>> ship classification society Djflem (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I'm not seeing any significant mentions in Google Books or Google Scholar on a quick search. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In effect completely unreferenced - the second ref refers to one minor fact, and the first one doesn't have anything relevant to the article. It has no content that is not just repeated from the company's own website. There's no point in a redirect to ship classification society since that article is about what the class societies do, and the only mention of Dromon is in a non-exhaustive list - it can stay there as an entry (in black). Davidships (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, doesn't begin to meet guidance at WP:NCORP.Davidships (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Administration of Dromon Bureau of Shipping,

DBS should be listed on Wikipedia because it is a notable international classification society and certification organization within the maritime industry. It plays a vital role in ensuring the safety and quality of ships and maritime operations, which is of significant importance globally.

DBS operates on a global scale, providing services to a wide range of maritime stakeholders, including shipowners, shipbuilders, and regulatory bodies. Its activities impact the safety, environmental sustainability, and regulatory compliance of maritime operations worldwide.

There are verifiable and reliable sources available that document DBS's history, operations, and contributions to the maritime sector. These sources, including industry publications, official reports, and academic studies, provide a solid foundation for creating a well-referenced Wikipedia article.

DBS's involvement in maritime classification and certification involves adherence to international standards and regulations. Documenting its role on Wikipedia can help educate readers about the importance of classification societies in maintaining safety standards within the shipping industry.

Listing DBS on Wikipedia can serve an educational purpose by providing a comprehensive and impartial overview of its activities, responsibilities, and the broader context of maritime classification. This information can benefit students, researchers, and the general public seeking knowledge about the maritime sector.

Classification societies like DBS play a critical role in ensuring the safety and compliance of vessels. Articles about DBS can shed light on their contributions to maritime safety, which is an essential aspect of the industry.

In summary, Dromon Bureau of Shipping merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to its notability, global impact, the availability of verifiable information, its role in maritime regulations, and its potential educational value to readers interested in the maritime industry.

Awaiting your feedback. 81.4.153.226 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) — 81.4.153.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I hear what you’re saying but we have internal requirements that require us to delete the article as presently written. Perhaps you can help - please read WP:NORG and WP:RS. If you have references that satisfy those requirements, that would be great. Otherwise our rules require us to delete this article as unverifiable.

The ball’s in your court now.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Per above; no sources in Google News, and the article is somehow not written like other articles, containing a long heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToadetteEdit (talk • contribs) 08:21 3 September 2023 (UTC)

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!} 18:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Donnelly (artist)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and New Zealand. UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person does not meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST. Mostly what was found online is social media and blogs. There is a little local human-interest coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG; I can't find anything that one would normally see like reviews of his work in notable art magazine, museum collections, etc. Netherzone (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find good sources for this person. Lots of Peter Donnellys, but this one is not notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:34, 2 September 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!} 18:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Deschouwer

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, and Belgium. UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both the Chaire d'honneur de la Ville de Lausanne and the Binnenlandse Francqui Leerstoel aan de ULB [9] might plausibly pass WP:PROF#C5, and I found maybe five published reviews of three of his books on JSTOR and Google Scholar, enough for a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR. Article needs updating (he is emeritus professor now) but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are listed as "prizes" here: https://researchportal.vub.be/en/persons/kris-deschouwer. So I think you're right about the C5. -- asilvering (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also passes C#8 as editor of the European Journal of Political Research between 2003 and 2009. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:03, 30 August 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!} 02:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VFL Development League

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

Fails WP:GNG. The seven references currently present are a handful of WP:ROUTINE sources describing a couple of key moments in this league's 90-year history; but there is no non-database reference which describes this league in any significant or holistic way. From my extensive experience editing on articles about the VFA/VFL seniors (this article covers the reserves team for that league), I do not believe the necessary SIGCOV exists, and even Fiddian, Marc (2004); The VFA; A History of the Victorian Football Association 1877–1995 – a book widely considered the best overall compendium on all things VFA/VFL – covers the topic of the Development League only in a couple of end-of-book reference lists (list of premiers, list of best-and-fairest winners, list of leading goalkickers) with little in the way of prose. The subject is adequately, and with due weight, covered in Victorian_Football_League#Seconds/reserves as is. Aspirex (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think GNG is clearly met by the press coverage, and merging this into the VFL article would lose the reference tables which you would expect to find in an encyclopedia - and as the nom notes, were still worthy enough to be referenced in the compendium. Simply put, it's properly sourced, notable enough, and deleting the article makes Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shocker that I'm saying keep but yeah it's referenced properly and I think - similar to the new AFL reserves page - we'll have more info added soon to really differentiate it from what it was as a small section on the main VFL page Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD is the right venue here – surely the decision is keep or merge, not keep or delete. – Teratix ₵ 04:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first of all, this was listed at the wrong deletion category - this is the wrong football code. However, article seems to have some sourcing, and it clearly seems like a notable league to me. Keep. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. Skynxnex (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes GNG; the League is definitely notable IMHO. Ekdalian (talk) 07:31, 1 September 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. Possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spyros Spyrou (runner)

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

Notability not demonstrated and never won a medal; seems comparable to a Lugstub. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Cyprus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Spyros Spyrou (runner) Meets WP:NTRACK per “1.” with his 6th place at the Athletics at the 1982 Commonwealth Games – Men's 800 metres and per “2.” Winning multiple gold medals at the Games of the Small States of Europe. He set the national record in 1983; and that is still the Cypriot national record. Because he was internationally active between 1981 and 1989, sources should be searched at off-line and Greek language sources. 109.37.152.36 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable runner who competed at the top level of the sport internationally for many years and is one of Cyprus's best ever distance runners. Has held the Cypriot national record for decades – a fact still mentioned in Cypriot press to this day. SFB 16:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~. The sources on the page do not show the subject meets GNG, and no one here has presented any additional citations. SPORTSBASIC requires a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article for additional coverage to be presumed, and even that is rebuttable. Meeting NTRACK is irrelevant when SPORTSBASIC is failed.
Keep per SIGCOV in documentary suggestive of multiple other sources of GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NTRACK might still be relevant as it states “coverage is likely to exist” of this athlete; and looking at the era of his active years coverage would be in offline Greek sources. As we don’t have access to offline Greek sources the sentence “coverage is likely to exist” cannot be invalidated, and I assume this is one of the reasons why NTRACK exist. 109.37.152.3 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is likely to exist if they meet SPORTSBASIC. If they don't have a piece of SIGCOV cited then none of the presumptions from NTRACK apply. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that I amended my !vote in response to the documentary source -- apparently editing a comment doesn't show up in watchlists) JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching his name in Greek in relation to "800" (his national record) seems to bring up a bunch of results, but I don't have the time to go through them all and some aren't translating for me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @BeanieFan11: I have gone through some Greek language sources and located multiple interviews with the subject. I've used these to add his coaching achievements – besides being the national record holder, he is Cyprus's foremost athletics coach at national level. SFB 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Sillyfolkboy, I haven't had a chance to look through those interviews, but if they are mostly quotes/repetition of things he's said they would not count towards notability due to failing independence and being primary. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The subject is not the publisher, hence it is independent. Some of the sources provide retrospective coverage of the athlete's past achievements, which is the definition of a non primary source. Other sources are interviewing the subject on the basis of his achievements in the sport – this is pretty much the common definition of the term, notability. SFB 12:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No, per OR, interviews are regarded as primary sources, and any content coming directly from the interviewee is obviously not independent. It doesn't matter where the interview is published. It also doesn't matter why the subject was interviewed. The requirement is that someone else has written their own significant commentary on the subject completely independently of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  If there's independent content written by an author for a reliable source in addition to the interview part it would count towards notability I believe; I haven't yet looked at the sources but that's what SFB seems to be saying (Some of the sources provide retrospective coverage of the athlete's past achievements). BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, maybe SFB could point us to which sources would satisfy that criterion? JoelleJay (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I found an old documentary about him: see here. And is this a reliable source dromeas.com? 109.37.131.169 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell whether dromeas would be considered reliable, but that would definitely count as significant coverage if so. That documentary wins me over. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is a clear Keep now, thanks to IP 109.37.131.169. A 45-minute documentary focusing on his life, which includes at different points images of newspaper headlines about him? Plus a pass of NSPORT, and numerous modern news mentions of him for holding a decades-old national record, at least one of which is clear SIGCOV (assuming reliability)? He's notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:56, 3 September 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!} 18:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Cowdy

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

Question if having affairs with two MPs makes you notable, looks like case of WP:BLP1E. PatGallacher (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only significant coverage on Cowdy I can find is around the affair. Her political activities seem restricted to being a local councillor. As above, this seems to be WP:BLP1E. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local council is not a level of government that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just for existing, but we would have to see coverage about her work on council, not her sex life, to bestow passage of NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 3 September 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!} 18:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Union of Greek Alexandria

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Egypt, and Greece. UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some significant coverage, could use more sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One century old club, played at Egypt's top league. The references are hard to check, I wish there were easier ones, but I'll presume they are legitimate unless p+roven otherwise (RSSSF is mostly OK). This looks like a clear keep. - Nabla (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cantor

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

Similarly to Andrew Horowitz from the same band, he has very little coverage under "rob cantor" tally hall and "rob cantor" singer; just stuff about two viral videos he did and general band coverage. His Shia LaBeouf song has 82M views on YouTube but WP:NMUSICIAN doesn't seem to count YouTube-successful songs for musician notability; unless that is valid I don't see a path to notability based on current coverage. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 05:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 05:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found this page because I wanted to look him up from Spotify. So if this page wasn’t here, I wouldn’t see the connections as easily. 2601:1C0:5682:1240:F543:8AF6:8866:18BB (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I get at he is not the most notable artist in the world, there are multiple other Wikipedia articles that refer to him such as the band Tally Hall, the Shia Labeouf song and I believe Shia Labeouf's article itself. I guess I would just like to see the rabbit hole of starting at Shia Labeouf and winding up at Rob Cantor stay open. 2607:FB91:2D87:47F0:7009:CC75:11CE:165C (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tally Hall, Longhornsg (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he follows WP:NMUSICIAN criteria 1(?), 3, 8, and 10. Koopastar (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BLP2E. 3E, really, I also found this which was reprinted in Business Insider. casualdejekyll 00:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He also is notable for creating music for the Disney Junior channel on the show Happy Monster Band and multiple Disney Channel albums 2603:7081:6D07:F3FC:40B1:24FA:CDA7:7708 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 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!} 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guarani Wikipedia

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

Unnotable wiki citing 2 primary sources (that is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects), and blog.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Latin America, South America, and Paraguay. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources added. ~~This one has one independent reference but unless we find a better one I think, still Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R~~ —siro χ o 06:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have just added more references, including two Paraguayan newspapers. Best, --Fadesga (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does seem to contain some useful information, so I feel less strongly than I do about the other Wikipedias. For the moment I won't vote. Athel cb (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above.★Trekker (talk) 07:18, 29 August 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!} 18:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Denver shooting

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

Commonplace mass shooting. Drug deal gone wrong, 10 wounded. This doesn't stand apart from the other hundreds of shootings. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and Colorado. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a routine shooting. Sad that 10 victims doesn't count as a mass shooting anymore in the USA, but it's ROUTINE at this point. Coverage is all "as it happens" news stories, which will likely be glossed over in a few days. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The vast majority of things in the newspaper are not notable, and appearance in newspapers is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No deaths, no big deal. Just another day in Gunmerica. WWGB (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only routine coverage here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine event, really broad title, and WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:44, 31 August 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!} 19:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlock

AfDs for this article:

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

No SIGCOV of the character himself, [10] all I could find are passing mentions of his toys or one article by screenrant detailing a hypothetical fictional scenario. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, what the fuck is the point to these AfDs? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of non-notable articles with a lot of fancruft. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't someone tell you to stop?

Anyway, the discussions are pointless.

-https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/06/10/transformers-our-favorite-autobots?page=3 - it's a list, and lists don't count

-https://www.looper.com/181677/the-most-powerful-transformers-ranked/ - Looper (website) isn't the New York Times

-https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykarcz/2023/07/19/robosen-asks-transformers-fans-to-dig-deep-as-1699-auto-transforming-grimlock-stomps-onto-the-scene/ - it's about a toy and nothing about a toy can possibly be notable in any way shape or form.

-https://www.cbr.com/transformers-comic-grimlock-different-marvel/ CBR writes about literally everything, hence all the hits you get on every single fictional character ever.

-https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Transformers/YBVjDwAAQBAJ? - not a real book because Reasons

-https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/02/14/transformers-age-of-extinction-movie-toy-line-first-look/5490205/ - not written by a prize-winning journalist

-https://screenrant.com/transformers-5-last-knight-grimlock-returning-details/ - guys i think this website wants people to read it, untrustworthy

So Delete, it's what's going to happen anyway.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The USA Today article above is good. Additionally he is discussed well in a two-volume publication (Vol.1 and vol.2). These are similar to the Forbes piece above, but The Verge and Gizmodo gave good coverage of a new toy iteration without the "Forbes contributor" concerns. Older coverage from the existing article and previous AfDs at IGN (Did the nominator review the sources that are already present and the sources brought forth in prior AfDs?) Also, he was the inspiration for a whole video game in the franchise per Polygon. I don't understand the comment regarding the toys; the character is a toy. A character can also be portrayed in multiple formats, and discussion of any of them is discussion of the character. -2pou (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully recognize that there is a whole lot of cruft in here. By all means delete a lot of that content, but outright article deletion is not appropriate when sources WP:NEXIST to justify at least having the article in this WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia. -2pou (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Dinobots. It's clear that Boombox is heavily invested in the character, but saying WP:IQUIT and being uncivil is not a convincing argument. What this needs is hard proof of notability, and there is almost none. Besides the one Polygon article, which is decent, the most that sources comment on Grimlock is "ooh, robo T-Rex", with the character not having the depth of coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The book appears self-published, which, per WP:SPS eliminates a major potential source. Therefore, unless more significant sources can be shown, it should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You interpreted that as me quitting Wikipedia? You wish. I'm just not dancing to the tune of a sockpuppet account with highly dubious motives. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments presented by 2pou. BOZ (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He is clearly one the main characters in the Transformers cartoon series and franchise as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:08, 1 September 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!} 19:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Magnus

AfDs for this article:

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

No SIGCOV, the only sources I could find are from Tformers and content farms. [11] Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the recent developments of the nominator's block, I'll lazily copy from my previous !vote:
Kind of borderline, but there is coverage of him out there. The article may not appropriately reflect that, but the coverage just needs to WP:NEXIST per the Notability test. It's also a bit tricky when it comes to these transformers since there is so much cross-media possibility and so many variations... Does that make it easier or harder to establish notability? Anyway, that's a separate discussion. Here are some examples of coverage:
1. Review from a major Philippine newspaper/outlet that also goes into his history
2. BleedingCool review of a toy
3. His movie death has been covered by a few places regarding what it was and what it might have been by io9/Gizmodo and by Den of Geek among other places.
4. Den of Geek also covered how his toy and character actually came about in the first place.
5. He's also in a CBR list of most powerful autobots. (Yes... a Top X list... that's why it's last here.) --2pou (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
My opinions of the sources are unchanged. -2pou (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments presented by 2pou. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is indeed a very well known character in the transformers franchise. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:01, 1 September 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 NHS trust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care trust (NHS)

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

No such entity exists, content covered by NHS trust, no reliable sources, dead link, weird unfounded claims as to which "care trust" was "most successful" Elshad (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, England, and Wales. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NHS trust Unsure about how the term is used/applied for specific trusts. NHS trust says care trusts were abolished in 2013, but this news article from 3 weeks ago shows one of the trusts mentioned in Care trust (NHS) (Bradford District Care Trust) is still active. Think a redirect to NHS trust might be best regardless of the continued existence of the organisations, with severe updates needed to the article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirection to NHS trust Elshad (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NHS Trust Entity does not seem to exist, and the only sources in the article are primary. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 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!} 19:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jetfire

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

Did a WP:Before, searched the news outlets and only found passing mentions to his toy and no significant coverage of him, [12], whenever mainstream outlets talk about him, it is always in a part of a greater media context and it is only a passing mention. [13] So he does not meet GNG. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a shame there is so much cruft in the existing article, but looking into this briefly, the whole Jetfire / Skyfire naming and the licensing conflicts between franchises and manufacturers make this guy's real-world story pretty interesting. Some works that cover it: Den of Geek did probably the best job here, Gizmodo touched on it with a re-release, this book has seen some criticism for basic coverage on some characters (only stats), but the entry here provides the good real-world info. A few more: Anime News Network coverage and a cartoon to film breakdown from ...yes... the dreaded Comic Book Resources (for what it's worth, this one is not a listicle piece, and actually reads with some decent insight). There have to be some comic reviews to pull from, but there's clearly enough already that WP:NEXISTS to maintain this one. The article should definitely be trimmed down outside AfD, though. -2pou (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CBR is a strange site, in that they run a lot of social media listicle fodder but do have both good analysis, interviews and the like if you poke around. The dismissal of it as a source outright in some AfDs has been somewhat unsettling, as most news websites run plenty of frivolous stuff to stay afloat. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments presented by 2pou. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as yes I agree that the Jetfire/Skyfire naming and the licensing conflicts make him a very interesting character indeed. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:58, 1 September 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!} 19:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye Fox

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this transgender activist and priest, but not been able to find any references to add. I do not think she meets GNG or anybio. Four of the references are to obituaries of her in local papers. The remaining one is an article originally in a local paper, reprinted in Q-Notes, based on an interview with Fox. The article has been tagged for notability since 2019. Tacyarg (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, Religion, and New York. Tacyarg (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The obituaries are staff-written obituaries, not paid death notices, and the broken link has been fixed with the Internet Archive. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Democrat and Chronicle story linked in the article is all I can find about this individual; not sure the individual is notable for wikipedia, barely any coverage beyond a local level (and this is sparse to begin with). Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's unusual for coverage of clergy to roundly fail to mention which denomination a particular cleric was associated with. In this case, my assumption would be Episcopal or some sort, but it's an odd defect of coverage in this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the criteria under WP:RELPEOPLE nor WP:ANYBIO. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 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!} 19:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Stonebridge

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or Geo SNG. Abstract districts like this are specifically excluded under the Geo SNG. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that all Canadian provincial electoral districts have Wikipedia articles. See, e.g., List of Saskatchewan provincial electoral districts. This district Saskatoon Stonebridge is incipient. The deadlink reference has been fixed with archival data. It may be the case that piecemeal Afds are not the most expeditious method of deciding their notability. --Bejnar (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a future provincial constituency, which is automatically notable. Expect lots of discussions of its demographics (remembering the role of ethnicity, religion and social class in elections) and voting patterns during the lead-up to the next provincial election. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Bejnar. This article will prove useful as it's expanded and elections are held. Wikipedia has extensive articles for 435 House of Representative districts in the United States, so there's ample precedent that this is not an abstract district.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response The "435 House of Representative districts in the United States" referred to are national US districts. More analogous is state level US districts. I did a spot check on those and it looks like only a small minority of those have articles. I looked at the noted list and the majority of those are "stats only" articles. I think I handled it in accordance with the guidelines but whatever y'all decide is fine with me. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A small number of US state legislature district have articles only because no one has written them yet (because it is quite a mammoth task), not because they aren't notable. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was only addressing that particular point made, it was not the basis for my nominating. Also, I was not arguing for inherent non-notability of provincial legislature districts. But IMO mass creation of "election stats only" articles is the other extreme. But again, I think I handled it in accordance with the guidelines but whatever y'all decide is fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally have articles on these electoral districts - the difference here is that it's new, so there's nothing to populate yet. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Electoral district articles aren't subject to WP:GEOLAND — their relevance to Wikipedia is political, not geographic, in nature. The thing is, because WP:NPOL #1 considers state/provincial legislators to be inherently notable, their articles need to be able to link to an article that explains what the district that they represent in the legislature is: we need for readers to be able to learn where the district is located, what communities or neighbourhoods are within it and what communities or neighbourhoods are not, the political history of whether it's a "safe" district for one party or a "swing" district that bounces back and forth between different parties at different times, and on and so forth.
I'll grant that since it was newly created in the recent electoral redistribution, and won't be represented in the legislature for the first time until the upcoming election that may still be a year away, an article about it may seem trivial right now — but even if we killed it off right now, it would still have to come back in 2024 anyway. And the voters in Saskatoon also need the information too, so that they know what district they're going to be in next year: if they want to consider running for office, for example, they need a way to find out what district they're even supposed to register their candidacy in. So even if the primary content that validates articles about electoral districts isn't already here yet, the article is still already serving a useful purpose anyway.
And US state legislature districts probably should have articles too: the fact that they mostly don't isn't because they can't, it's just because people mostly aren't actually getting that work done. To be fair, one obvious challenge is that while Canadian provincial electoral districts actually have proper names, US state electoral districts mostly just have numbers, which can make tracking their political histories much more complicated: the numbering system can be completely overhauled, so that a redistribution results in Illinois House District 1 moving all the way from Carbondale to Chicago, so you get into questions about whether it's more important to track the history of the number regardless of how much the political context of what the number represented in the first place had changed, or the history of who represented Carbondale regardless of how much the numbering had changed. Canadian electoral districts don't have that same problem at all, so Canadian editors haven't been nearly as "screw it, I ain't got time to deal with it" about them as US editors have — but it's not that state legislature districts can't have articles, they really should have articles if the people who represent them in the legislature are considered to satisfy NPOL, and editors just aren't getting nearly as many of the the articles done as we would like them to. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US state ones are very transient and very numerous. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US ones may be better covered in a different format because they wipe the slate clean whenever they draw a new map. Maybe an article for each reapportionment cycle? I reckon constituencies which have some sort of continuing claim to a specific place are probably different. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many things in the United States, there are 50 states doing different things governed by 50 different state constitutions.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think one could make the argument, based on the fact that all holders of these constituencies are notable, that these constituency articles fall under WP:NLIST as non-traditional lists; rather than a leading zero, there is a leading "List of legislators of". Curbon7 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. Sal2100 (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Bearcat. As mentioned, if those elected from such districts are considered notable, then the districts themselves also would be notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per my reasoning above. Curbon7 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 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 12:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincinni

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

Non-notable stub, formerly a PROD nomination. Draft contested on my talk page. If anybody wishes to skip this, it likely qualifies for WP:A7 deletion, but I wasn't sure if that was appropriate since this was moved to draft and back. ASUKITE 12:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and North Macedonia. ASUKITE 12:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , if not speedy, per nom. This is the only (even partly) sigcov I found (appears to be made in collaboration with Vincinni though), failing WP:GNG. NotAGenious (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company does verify see here, but it fails WP:COMPANY for lack of substantive coverage. Apparently their biscuits (cookies) are imported to the US, among other countries. --Bejnar (talk) 14:25, 28 August 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. Several sources were proposed, several editors found them sufficient to demonstrate notability, and no one disputed this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Explosion in popular culture

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

Poorly referenced piece of WP:OR (just four footnotes) that fails also WP:GNG, MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC and WP:NOTTVTROPES. My BEFORE does not suggest that the concept of "Halifax Explosion in popular culture" exists outside Wikipedia and what we have here is a prosified version of the all too common list of media that mention topic foo. Seems like this article was spun off from Halifax_Explosion#Legacy section while it was being improved for GA/FA and has been forgotten since. Redirecting it back there might be a fine WP:ATD. Bottom line, while some works mention this concept, this is not a topic that merits a stand-alone articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Canada. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic does not exist outside of Wikipedia and I could find nothing in a google search. This article has no reason to exist. It also fails basic GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems someone knew the topic wouldn't pass WP:NLIST so they put it in paragraph form. Still completely non-notable and doesn't pass GNG since there doesn't seem to be any source anywhere discussing the explosion in the context of culture. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a notable topic; it still resonates over a century later. I've read some of the books. In particular, Hugh MacLennan's novel, Barometer Rising, is a Canadian classic.

This article is not WP:OR. As for citations, most of items are blue wikilinks to notable books and films with their own articles; I see no need to footnote them. The few works that don't have existing articles can be cited or ditched -- that's a matter of cleanup.

I reviewed WP:NOTTVTROPES. The site is described as "a wiki that lists plot devices, tropes, and the like in all manner of fiction." The essay (not a guideline) then describes 12 characteristics that set TV Tropes aside from Wikipedia; I don't see this article matching any of the 12.

I reviewed our "In popular culture" content essay ("WP:IPC"). In the first paragraph, it notes: "When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short. That's exactly what was done here. There's also a specific section, "Creating 'In popular culture' articles" ("WP:IPCA").

The WP:IPC essay makes a good point that the phrase "popular culture" in an article title or section heading is a poor word choice and encourages the addition of cruft and trivia. Better titles would be "Cultural references to the Halifax Explosion" or "Cultural depictions of the Halifax Explosion".

I reviewed MOS:TRIVIA. This material doesn't look trivial after reading that essay. Compare this article with the trivia example cited in the guideline; this article is very different and qualitatively better.

With regards to the earlier comment above that this is a disguised list, MOS:TRIVIA states "As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears."

So the question for me is not one of notability but rather: one article or two?

Delete and redirect to Halifax Explosion
- We lose useful, reliable content
Keep this article
Merge with Halifax Explosion
- That reverses a decision made in producing a featured article. That's a non-starter for me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Regarding WP:OR and WP:GNG, yes, it is OR/not N because WP:SYNTH. No source cited discusses the concept of "Cultural references to the Halifax Explosion" or "Cultural depictions of the Halifax Explosion". Compiling a prose-style de facto list of such references is SYNTH OR. Regarding spinning off, see WP:SPLIT which notes that this can be done "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia". Finally, re "We lose useful, reliable content" - see WP:USEFUL. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Also, to quote User:Rorshacma from a similar discussion, I think that This seems to be a rather unnecessary WP:SPLIT, as the Haka article is not so long that a spinout would have really been needed, and most of the information here, including the links to the related full articles, is already present there. Low quality content was copied, not split from the main article, then somewhat (although I think not sufficiently) improved in the main article while the copy (discussed here) remains forgotten. Best solution is to redirect and try to improve the content in the Featured Article. If the section grows, we can split it off then, at near-FA levels. Trying to rewrite this forgotten spin off while the section at FA still needs help too is waste of effort. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notification of this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated, the overall topic of the article, "The Halifax Explosion in Popular Culture", does not appear to actually be a distinct topic that has received coverage in reliable sources. Halifax Explosion#Legacy already contains a well written description of the incident's impact, including discussion of several notable works, both fiction and non-fiction, on the topic. The works mentioned in this article that are not already discussed there, in fact, look to be mostly either non-notable works or of the "this thing mentioned it" variety. Neither the Halifax Explosion article as a whole, or the Legacy section in specific, are long enough that a separate article would either be needed or preferable for ease of reading. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of the Halifax Explosion in popular culture has received coverage in reliable sources - see for example [14][15][16][17][18]. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s 5 solid refs from reliable sources directly addressing the effect of the explosion on literature - thanks!

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but sadly, WP:TNT applies. The current article is poorly referenced OR, we need to rewrite it from scratch based on cited sources. And the FA probably needs a FA review considering the section there likewise should be rewritten. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT is an essay, not a sufficient justification to delete a notable topic. Your assertion regarding FA review appears to be equally without merit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, the essay WP:TNT (“Blow it up and start over”) states ”Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up.”. Those cases do not apply here.

The definitive policy is the Deletion policy; it lists the allowable reasons for deletion in the ”Reasons for deletion” section. This article doesn’t satisfy any of them.

Nikkimaria just provided 5 solid refs a few minutes ago about the explosion and literature. They more than address any lingering SYNTH and OR issues.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The sources do indicate that we can write an article on this topic. What we have here, however, is not it. The old OR synth with randon examples that the original writer or writers thought relevant need to be blanked, and replaced with the summary of the sources found. And since this is based on the nearly identical version in the main article, improvement should take place there, there is no need to split anything given how short this article (and the corresponding section) are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting that draftification is also an option, as was done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese mythology in popular culture (2nd nomination), though this is nowhere near as poor as that article. Curbon7 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 While this is prosified, other than that I think both article as just "as poor"... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Nikkimaria. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nikkimaria has provided RS that shows the explosion has relevance within popular culture, hence no reason for deletion. Meanderingbartender (talk) 18:28, 29 August 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 Haka#Cultural influence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haka in popular culture

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

I fear this article fails WP:OR, WP:GNG and MOS:TRIVIA. My BEFOFE does not suggest that the broad concept of "Haka in popular culture" exists outside Wikipedia. The article simply discusses some uses of this dance outside traditional venues. Some facts like this can be mentioned in the article about haka, but there is no need to split that, and titling this "in popular culture" is pure OR.

Please note tha that much of this article is a copy of Haka#Cultural_influence, so an WP:ATD can involve redirecting this there (that said, that section likely needs trimming for the same reasons as outlined here). Half if not more of what we have here is also a dupe of the better defined Haka in sports. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Popular culture, and New Zealand. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This particular list-disguised-as-article does at least cite some decent references. But they are all simply verifying that a group of people did the Haka at some event; none of the sources I can access discussed Haka in popular culture at all. Nom's suggestion of a redirect would also work for the reason given. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haka#Cultural_influence - This seems to be a rather unnecessary WP:SPLIT, as the Haka article is not so long that a spinout would have really been needed, and most of the information here, including the links to the related full articles, is already present there. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 28 August 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 12:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Barnet

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

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, no correct references (CQC reference is incorrect, for another organisation), dead external links Elshad (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 28 August 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 Wye Valley NHS Trust. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herefordshire Primary Care Trust

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

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, no references, dead link Elshad (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wye Valley NHS Trust, which is the current health body for the area. Herefordshire Primary Care Trust and Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust were merged to create the Wye Valley NHS Trust. I've redirected Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust to the Wye Valley article. This is Paul (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wye Valley NHS Trust, per This is Paul. Sal2100 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 29 August 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 12:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford and Airedale Teaching Primary Care Trust

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

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, no references other than single dead link, leads of irrelevant external links Elshad (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 28 August 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 12:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel certification body

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

Pretty much a DICDEF, unsourced, essay-like, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above reasoning Elshad (talk) 11:15, 28 August 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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China (disambiguation)

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

Essentially, "Republic of China" is not ambiguous. A disambiguation page should be a list of articles that might otherwise be called "Republic of China", and any entries on this page that meet this criterion are all linked from Taiwan. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly cut down. The title "Republic of China" is certainly ambiguous between Republic of China (1912–1949) and Taiwan, and is also occasionally used as shorthand for the Republic of China calendar, as in this source. Many sources say "Republic of China" or "Republic of China period" to refer only to the period of Chinese history from 1912 to 1949 (excluding modern Taiwan), whereas some sources use it to refer to modern Taiwan. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether any of the other topics listed are also valid topics for this DAB, but there are at least three, and that's enough to merit a disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a great dabpage, since there are a number of links there that are not plausible for the search term "Republic of China", but the page should be kept and stubbified to retain disambiguation between Taiwan and Republic of China (1912–1949). Folly Mox (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed by User:Sillyfolkboy's cleanup. Keep. Folly Mox (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been bold and cleaned this up. The article is pretty much the definition of a valid disambiguation. SFB 16:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is not called for. The page seemed to have grown into a list of republican goverments in China, but as now revised, nicely deliniates the options. --Bejnar (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep, though properly cleaned up to just relevant articles and minimal descriptions. --188.31.148.74 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 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 Moldova women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Covali

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Moldova women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 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. I think discussion has finally run out of steam, and would recommend waiting a while before considering filing a new AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mahmud

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 5. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Pakistan, and India. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@US-Verified, Piotrus, Indefensible, NYC Guru, CT55555, and Visviva: Pinging previous AfD participants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for overturning the previous AFD close. I think it should either be kept or draftified at worse, not deleted. Was actually fine with the draft since I have no particular interest with the subject, however we could strip the article down to its sources and let remain in stub form. However there were enough references in my opinion to support inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and other notability guidelines are not supported by independent, reliable, secondary coverage at this time. Most of the article remains unsourced or poorly sourced after the addition of limited and trivial coverage from a 1956 Macon News article (which briefly notes Mahmud's service as one of two training officers in the Pakistan Air Force, his 1952 training in the US, and his work as an observer of trainings in the US) and the 1956 Albuquerque Journal source (briefly mentioning his attendance at a dinner party during his tour of US Air Force bases) during the previous AfD discussion. The suggestions of historical significance made in the previous AfD do not appear to be supported by available sources; original research and unverified claims are not sufficient to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC) - !vote updated to reverse outcome preference, after review and consideration of further discussion, particularly comments by Sportingflyer and Scopecreep. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge/redirect (somewhere). While the addition of two local newspaper mentions is nice, I fear that there is still very little to show notability. The Macon News is so local/news it does not even have an article. The coverage itself seems to be routine/press release level for local news (foreign officer visits tiny town, does something like attends a party...). I am sorry but that's not significant, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've added a Polish source for him being an ambassador, it's at the level of the local news - a regional newspaper/magazine notes that he visited a provincial governor (a voivode; "25 kwietnia ambasador Islamskiej Republiki Pakistanu w Polsce Zafar Mahmud złożył wizytę wojewodzie poznańskiemu Marianowi Królowi..."). Two other soruces seem to be catalogue mentions of him on lists of ambassadors. That's it for Google Books in Polish (granted, many sources are not digitzed yet). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I decided to look into The Macon News. It was a newspaper with a 99 year history. It was one of two newspapers serving Macon, Georgia, and merged with The Telegraph (Macon, Georgia) in 1983. CT55555(talk) 00:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is likely more notable than the invidual here. Thanks for creating the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (1st preference) or otherwise delete (2nd preference). From my perspective, BASIC and GNG are failed. None of the coverage here meets SIGCOV or are non-trivial IMO. The catalogue ref, image ref, and YouTube SPS video do not contribute to notability, Of the rest, this newspaper source from TWL covers the subject in a 10-sentence section, of which 2 sentences are quotes, so there are 8 sentences of independent content. By contrast, the other newspapers source covers the subject in a 5-sentence subsection of which there are only 3 sentences are not about the subject (two sentences are about Mrs Javovitz and another is Among those attending the dinner were Mr. and Mrs Patrick Manning and Miss Maxine Barrett. This leaves a 2-sentence coverage on Mahmud that is very clearly not non-trivial. I am not familar with Polish sources, but Piotrus above has noted that it is also very short coverage. I get that non-English historical sources are difficult to find, so I would support a draftication instead of a deletion, but at the moment upon searching The Wikipedia Library and Newspaper.com, there is no source IMO that is even borderline SIGCOV, so I oppose keeping. VickKiang (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, a few "keep" votes below noted that something along the lines of many existing sources seem reliable. In my view, more reliable sources can easily be found and added. I agree that some sources are reliable, e.g., the Albuquerque Journal, a moderately sized newspaper in New Mexico seems to meet WP:NEWSORG, and the historic newspaper The Macon News (yes, it is local but we are not applying SIRS standards here). Instead, my concern about SIGCOV, not contending that there is no reliable sourcing. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article has a credible claim to notability (he played a role in historical events). Those events took some times ago and the records are most likely offline. Quoting Wikipedia:Deletion policy If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.. This seems like great example of an article that can be improved. I assume the draftify votes above agree with that, but favour it being improved in draft space. However, that is likely just a slow delete, as we tend to delete things after 6 months and I don't know if someone will be able to undertake the level of verification needed on offline sources. I already added newspaper article citations talking about his international diplomatic role. He was the subject of the article, although they were short articles and the sources local newspapers. Nothing on wikipedia discounts local newspapers and I don't see it as an important point that one newspaper doesn't yet have a wikipedia article, I think it is a reliable source, and that is what matters. I've quoted policy already, but to note a pillar of the encylopedia too WP:IAR we can exercise judgement here and ask the simple question: is the encyclopedia better or worse for having this article. The "references needed" tags alert the reader that it is not well referenced. This article (like all) is a work in progress and a net benefit to the encyclopedia. CT55555(talk) 13:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with CT55555 argument plus the article is partially well sourced although I may have an issue with the page creator User talk:Shahidm who is possibly (Redacted). Citing Wikipedia:Notability (politics):Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable. but he was Ambassador in three different countries beside participating in several historical events. Also, just remember that most of the sources included here are written in English, wonder what Urdu sources will bring

FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one of the core content policies implicated in this discussion is verifiability, and for a substantial portion of this article, the policy Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, i.e. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Currently available sources [19] are:

bharat-rakshak.com - a website hosted by Wordpress (the About page of the website currently says "Oops! That page can’t be found.") that appears to provide a partial service record; this source also links to an Internet Archive collection that I have searched for verification without success. This source has been used to support claims about Mahmud, including a date of birth and some specifics of his service, which it does not.
Ismailimail.blog - titled "Historical Photograph: Prince Karim Aga Khan in early 1950s (Pakistan)" - this blog post has no content other than "Source: Vintage Pakistan." Searching this blog for "Zafar Mahmud" produces no results, but this source has been used to support extraordinary content in the article.
The Macon News (1956) - this brief local news article is reporting on an item of local interest, specifically, per the headline, "Pakistan Colonel Is At Robins Observing Training Program." This source notes a planned year-long trip in the US to observe trainings at USAF bases; that this is Mahmud's third visit to the US; that he previously completed training in the US in 1952, and had previously traveled in the US in 1955 observing trainings; and before this, had been one of two training officers in the Pakistan AF, and a quote from Mahmud praising the USAF training. The local nature of this source, in this context, appears to be insufficient to establish the extraordinary claim that this is a historical event. In the article, this source has been used to claim "Zafar spent a number of years in the U.S." but it does not appear to support this.
Albuquerque Journal (1956) - trivial coverage of Mahmud's attendance at a dinner party used in the article to support his 1956 rank of Wing Commander.
The Report of the Hamoodur Rehman Commission of Inquiry Into the 1971 War, as Declassified by the Government of Pakistan - Mahmud appears to be mentioned once in this source - "Names of the following officers, who were to act as the representatives of each of the three services, were intimated on Jan 12 1972. They were: (i) Air Commodore Zafar Mahmud, PAF; (ii) [...]." This source is used to support the claim that he did represent PAF, but this source appears to refer to his participation in a future tense, without confirmation or any detail of his participation in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission. This source is also used to support the claim that he became the Commandant of the PAF Air War College after the war, but this one line does not.
Kronika Wielkopolski, Issue 37 - added by Piotrus, noted above, to verify ambassadorships to ~~Somalia and~~ Poland, but not Czechoslovakia or Somalia.
A youtube video titled "Air Commodore Zafar Mahmud Celebration of Life" that may not be a reliable source, used to verify names that likely should be excluded per WP:BLPNAME.

I also think it is worthwhile to note All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic, and according to contentious topics procedures, we must e.g. edit carefully and constructively. This need for careful editing strongly indicates it is not better for the encyclopedia to retain an article suggesting extraordinary roles in historical events without support according to core content policies. And to reply to speculation above about my support for draftification, my alternative support is based on the previous draftification, core content policies, the amount of unsourced content in the article, the extraordinary claims asserted without verification, and the contentious nature of the topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Minor clarification: the source I've added only verifies the status of ambassador to Poland, not Somalia. Maybe add a cite needed to the Somalia word which preceeds Poland? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you, Piotrus - I have updated my comment above to correct my misreading, and to fix the diff I had meant to point to the version of the article I was referring to for my source review. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found (and added) a source that confirms his role in Somalia. CT55555(talk) 02:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly don't think WP:GNG is met here. I understand people are trying, but we're trying to piece together an article using only a small subset of sources per Beccaynr's analysis. I struck out with a basic Urdu search. No problem with draftifying this, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete 75% of the article has a cn or unreliable ref tag and it seems to be in mainspace for some reason when it should have remained in draft. There was a reason that folk didn't want to review in Afc, because it reads a like coi article with lots of unverifiable content, likely written by a family member. Why was the coi tag removed? As an Air Commodore, passing WP:V is a start and potentially notable as an Wing Commander and an ambassador, but the sources are currently insufficient to pass WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and improve before bringing back. Many parts are flagged with "citation needed," so at minimum they should be removed.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

The presence of tags should not be used to justify deletion. Tagging is noted as an alternative to deletion here WP:ATD-T. The essay Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, I think, emphasises this point.
I removed the COI tag. I explained in the edit summary why. As Scope Creep asked above, as per Template:COI: Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning. No discussion existed on the talk page.
I think it is incorrect to say that "citation needed" requires the content to be removed. More information about that can be found here Template:Citation needed CT55555(talk) 19:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about COI was redacted by @Primefac, see this page history. But I place a warning in User talk:Shahidm FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I see nothing in the current sources that suggests the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (per source analysis above). I suspect there should be better sources, but we want sources that describe the subject's specific contributions to historical events, rather than an acknowledgment of title (such as ambassador). --Enos733 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Draftify, although I'm not convinced there are enough RS to show significance (it's possible, but not likely based on what's here). Intothat darkness 17:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources do not add up to notability guidelines for WP:BASIC. While draftify is an option, I would think based on the length of the discussion that references would have been found already so don't see the use of doing it. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing and continued growth over time. This is a hard topic that will require the right person and sources to verify. We continue to see small improvements with time. So long as that is happening there is no benefit to deletion. Moving to draft is a waste of time, that's where articles go to die because they don't get the same attention. -- GreenC 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the continued debate, I do not see why this cannot just be stripped down to a stub with its sources if needed per WP:ATD instead of deleted. This is a historical subject who factually was at least honored and covered by international sources and served as their country's ambassador to at least 2 other countries. Yes the sources are not great but we should consider the context and people evidently do want to work on the article, so I do not see how deleting this will serve the encyclopedia. - Indefensible (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are seems reliable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many existing sources seem reliable. In my view, more reliable sources can easily be found and added. After all, he served as an ambassador to three different countries for Pakistan after he retired from Pakistan Air Force...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is the key point for me. Nwhyte (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DIPLOMAT. War Wounded (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DIPLOMAT is an essay with no community consensus for its presumption of notability (if an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay, an individual biography article can be created), and there is not sources noting Mahmud's role as "head of mission" that I can find, so this should not override GNG IMO. VickKiang (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, userfy or delete. Whether or not the portions of the article is not yet able to be sourced truly constitute OR, I find their presence concerning. Yet, if they are removed, we have almost nothing left. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs clean up and improvement, we should let this continue at least in stub form per WP:ATD, or draftify as needed. There is still no consensus for deletion in my opinion, maybe someone wants to check for sockpuppets above though. - Indefensible (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much of the keep arguments seems based on a fallacy that being an ambassador gives inherent notability when it doesn't. Absent that, the sourcing isn't good enough and attending a dinner doesn't give notability either. Overall the extraordinary claims for notability based on what seems to be hope and opinion that sources must exist or could be found is not a basis to keep this around. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but no consensus in sight...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the unsourced content. Subject's historical importance indicate there must be offline coverage in old Urdu newspapers and books. Insight 3 (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about meets WP:GNG and I suspect further sources may be found over time. Obviously a notable individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 29 August 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!} 05:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of MTV 00s music videos

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

No reliable sources discuss the list of videos played on this retro channel. Fram (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTIINFO. Nothing remotely encyclopedic about this list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I added until now are recordings that were posted on VK + the MTV 00s page from itizaps. You can't say that these sources are not reliable. Cat Manolache (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No sources I can find discuss the subject of the list as an aggregate topic. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT?! Explain why. Cat Manolache (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NLIST: "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". I cannot find any RS discussing this topic as a group or set. If you have such a source, please add it to a lead section and we can reconsider. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". In other words, it needs to have been discussed as a topic by reliable sources. As for your reply to the comment above, VK is absolutely not reliable because it is a social network; see WP:UGC. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. The sources provided in the list are primary. FlutterDash344 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete Music videos are effectively artist promotion, and Category:Songs by year already covers every song between 2000 and 2010; you shouldn't expect us to compile a playlist of the thousands of songs this network has played. VK is WP:USERGEN and 100% disqualified as a source (not even touching a current certain topic) and the only notable thing that would be noticed on MTV 00s is if they played something from 1999 or 2011 accidently...which shouldn't be cataloged in itself either. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources I added are not okay, give me examples of "encyclopedic" sources, because I have no idea where I can find this kind of source. Cat Manolache (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to get encyclopedic sources for this in any manner. It's a list of videos played by a TV network, which cannot possibly sourced outside of MTV uploading its playlist video to video, which we would not think MTV would ever do, nor expect them to do. We're just not going to be able to source this, plain and simple, and it's a useless list as it's just a list of songs from the 2000s. We already have that in the categories described above and articles like 2002 in music. Nate • (chatter) 13:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page has 240 views, so it's not useless. 😂

Okay, we should discuss about the sources on this page. What about www.itizaps.net, where are posted screenshots from music channels around the world (also MTV 00s)? Is a reliable source? Cat Manolache (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source, and not a useful source for , it doesn't contain any information about the artists and isn't interested in which videos are played at all, it is just screenshots of programs to depict logos and the like. Please see WP:RS and the need to have reputable sources which discuss the topic at hand direct and in detail. Fram (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They air videos that were popular from 2000–2010. They can choose any song they want from that time range, and we don't need a catalog for this because those lists and categories are already existent on en.wiki. We're not going to be able to source tens of thousands of songs in a coherent manner through an article. Nate • (chatter) 18:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read about RS, and I will say that you should accept recordings of channels posted on social media. I know that the recordings are not posted by MTV, but you can see with your EYES what songs are aried on MTV 00s. If you disagree with me, what are you gonna do, huh? Are you gonna delete my page just because the “encyclopedic sources" doesn't exist? Cat Manolache (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"If you disagree with me, what are you gonna do, huh? Are you gonna delete my page just because the “encyclopedic sources" doesn't exist? " Er, yes, that's what this discussion will most likely decide. Fram (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes; I've already listed multiple pages where the same information is posted, and music video playlists outside of limited top 25/40/50/100 lists are usually not posted in Wikipedia articles. Yes, we can see what will air, but the average reader can readily assume all the videos on MTV 00s are from the 2000s, so it's completely unnecessary to post what videos the network plays. Nate • (chatter) 16:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay, you're right. The only thing I can do is to wait for this page to be deleted. I tried my best to create this page, but finally, I accept the deletion. Cat Manolache (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minuscule amount of unreliable sourcing for such a huge indiscriminate list. Not encyclopedic. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:50, 31 August 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!} 05:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Apodaca

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

Appears to have no coverage outside of passing references to him, mostly when mentioning RenderMan's existence. Not notable. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 06:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 06:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has a lot of patents [20], not sure what to do with that. He has been nominated for multiple Visual Effects Society awards including but not limited to winning an award in 2013 [21] for Outstanding Visual Effects in a Special Venue Project and a nomination 2018 [22] and I think there are more. More importantly(?), he has been awarded an Academy Award (in 1993, for science and engineering). [Here https://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2009/Volume-32-Issue-2-Feb-2009-/Everything-You-Ever-Saw.aspx] is one source that mentions the Academy Award. There are a number of book references as well. I see a lot of sources that call him Tony or AA instead of Anthony. Anyway, there's a lot more there and I think an Academy Award is hard to overlook. I'm not familiar with the SNGs for movie productions and graphics software development, but I think this should be sufficient.Jacona (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not insignificant as an author, see gScholar. [23]. — Jacona (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO for verifiably winning an Academy Award, the most well-known and significant motion picture awards in the United States. —siro χ o 06:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo and the Academy Award.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:41, 28 August 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!} 05:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Bütz

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

The author is a minister and adjunct professor, , which do not satisfy notability alone. He seems most notable as an author, with a few books that sound interesting, but he does not seem to satisfy WP:Bio. The bio information about him in the few book reviews I found just repeats text from his book. Edison (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:GNG and is written in a promotional style due to being mostly focused on his books - not the worst promotional style ever, mind you, but not very encyclopedic. Needs cleanup if kept, but I'm not sure what's there to clean up. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to be some critical discussion of his work [24] and [25]. Author in a rather small field of theology, so sourcing is limited to begin with. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding a handful of short reviews for the first book, but not for the second (and the review I did find for that one implies that the author is a bit fringe). I'm not seeing any reviews of significant length, so I don't see much for WP:NAUTHOR, and certainly not WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are insufficient sources to write a properly balanced article on this subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 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. Can be renominated when someone can do the in depth source search requested Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Christian Schools

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

Could not since significant coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. Article only uses primary sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Christianity, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.This organization was founded as the Florida Association of Christian Schools, so it would be good to searched that name as well. I may or may not get around to doing so myself, so no !vote from me at this time.Jacona (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jacona, do you have a source on that? I searched and couldn't find anything, although this source [[26]] may go towards establishing notability User:Let'srun 02:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a good search would be for Al Janney, the segregationist Baptist preacher who founded the organization as an accreditation haven for segregated schools, such as Dade Christian School which he also founded. If the article is to be kept, it should attend to the reason it was established in the first place. — Jacona (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't have the ability to do much deep research, but I'd like to make note that the organizations that grew up around the post-Brown v Board of Education segregation movement are important to accurately and completely cover that movement. And school integration and the responses to it are the most important piece of 20th century (arguably, the entire) history of education in the US. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4.37.252.50, I think plenty of sources are available, from looking at newspapers.com, but I have trouble finding the energy to work on preserving the page because I think they’re horrible people. — Jacona (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like editors didn't have motivation to investigate the possible sources for this article so here's another week in case you want to get around to this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per source found by Let'srun and this book [27]. It seems as though other sources exist, though I do see a lot of references in passing. (One note, I also saw a book called The Praeger Handbook of Faith-Based Schools in the United States, K–12 which has an entry written by a member so it is not an independent source) —siro χ o 07:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources need to updated Salsakesh (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While participating editors are arguing for Keep, one is a Weak Keep and no changes have been made to the article during this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Anderson

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

The article should be deleted and redirected to his father‘s page, Arn Anderson. Here‘s why: simply put, he doesn’t meet the notability guidelines. He has wrestled a total of 3 televised matches since signing with AEW and is only known as his father‘s son. As of yet, he doesn’t have an individual career that justifies an own article. This is unlikely to change any time soon and as long as that is the case, he should be redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasallmächtigeJ (talk • contribs) 02:51, August 14, 2023 (UTC)

Nomination reformatted by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the content needs to be deleted before it redirected?--65.93.193.235 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's a newer wrestler who just debuted in 2021, but there's plenty of coverage on him. He's signed by the 2nd biggest promotion in wrestling right now. While he has had few appearances on TV, he's had 35 appearances total for AEW so far - here and just appeared on TV last week. @DasallmächtigeJ please see WP:CRYSTAL. Nobody officially knows how Brock's career will turn out. I also think is a waste of time since it will just be re-posted if it were to be deleted due to him being active. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have GNG-level sourcing covering this Anderson independently of his father, which is the only thing that matters in determining notability. The WrestlingInc story is almost entirely quotes and is presented in the context of his father; Fightful is just two paragraphs of quotes from his father; IWD is a stats database; LWOS is no better than a group blog where anyone can apply to write and "maybe get paid" (aka not professional journalists) and the cited article is again in the context of his dad; the Wrestling Headlines piece is by a "Las Vegas based actor and circus performer" whose full name isn't even provided, and the piece is just quotes from his dad; Wrestle Talk and Ringside News are both GUNREL; and the Slam Wrestling piece is an opinion column with a passing mention of Brock.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, encouraging editors to consider the nominator's suggestion of a Redirect (and it doesn't take an AFD nomination to redirect an article).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I have added several more sources. Unfortunately for Brock, he will always be in his father's shadow so there will be very few articles that do not link the two.--Gri3720 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources now added, appeared numerous times on AEW, a national Television show, see no reason why he shouldn't have an article. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more but it's looking like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lenz

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

WP:BIO1E and WP:NMOTOR. This boy was only really notable for one event: his unfortunate death. All the other claims of significance are only sourced to his own blog. The levels he competed at fail our standards for significant coverage. This person just wasn’t notable. T v x1 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. T v x1 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Couple thoughts.
1. First off, notability can surface after death. This may not be BIO1E in which case, the subject would meet WP:BASIC. Eg. Associated Press notes: Despite being only 13 years old and listing his profession on the Grand Prix website as "kid," Lenz was already a well-known racer. He had been riding bikes for six years, won nine national championships and nine regional titles, and appeared to be a rising star in a series that bills itself as a prep for riders 12 to 18 who hope to compete at a higher level.[28]
2. Also, this appears to be a notable death which would meet WP:EVENT on its own, and if the consensus is that that the BIO is not notable, it may still merit a rework and move to Death of Peter Lenz. Beyond the immediate news coverage there were reactions that followed. For example, All Things Considered on NPR had a segment on it discussing the impact of the death ProQuest has a transcript: [29]. Here's a columnist from The Oregonian with an opinion piece about it [30]. Here's the WSJ reacting [31]. (there are a lot more contemporary reactions, I won't list more)
  To demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED, here's some secondary coverage of a memorial from the following year [32], an editorial from about 5 months after [33], here's some coverage from over 7 years later[34], some coverage in French from 8 years after [35].

—siro χ o 08:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Florida, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, NSPORT SNG is optional. Perfectly fine with a discussion on renaming to be an event, but I don't think that should be an AfD-required outcome. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, his biography does not meet WP:GNG.T v x1 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that, but I find Siroxo's argument more compelling. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really see notability, it says he won "national titles", but I get the feeling they're not terribly notable. I would think it is like playing in Little League baseball; you can win titles, but we only really worry about the Little League World Series, and even that is a stretch. Young kid with a bright future, passed away too young. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Moreover almost of these are sourced to his own website only anyway. That's a major no-no.T v x1 14:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If an individual is notable, sourcing non-contentious material from primary sources is not an issue. You have asserted, but failed to prove, that there are not two independent RS'es providing non-trivial coverage. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the sources being primary. The problem is the sources being self-published by the subject or his family/entourage and that the claims of significance of his achievements all strem from them. It seems you don’t the understand thr difference between secondary and independent sources ( which are NOT the same). It’s perfectly possible to have primary but independent sources. T v x1 12:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BIO1E. Known mostly for his death, and at his age (and brevity of career) made no significant contribution to the sport, with non-notable awards and racing series. Only wikilinks in the article are racetracks and locations. Article has a lot of filler and sounds almost promotional in tone with sources consisting mainly of press releases. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:00, 31 August 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!} 05:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevelyan Street

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

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

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

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

Quite simply, this fails WP:GNG. This has been draftified several times now and rejected several times at AfC without any sign of actual improvement to meet notability requirements. Imzadi 1979 → 05:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article's content previously existed at Draft:Trevelyan St, and this street is only 700 metres (2,300 ft) long in Elsternwick, Victoria, a suburb of Melbourne with a population of just under 11,000 people. Imzadi 1979 → 05:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imzadi,

I understand the article was rejected many times, but I believe it doesn't lack sufficient notability. There are a number of sources on the page, each from a different reliable source, and many of whom covering significant detail of the street. Each time the article is rejected I continue to add more sources and improve the article in a way to highlight its importance, both architecturally and residentially. The important features of WP:GNG are that it must have reliable sources(The real-estate sources listed must be reliable as they deal with a very important industry), have significant coverage(The sources explain the location, map, details, homes, architecture), must be secondary(the sources are created by those who neither live on the street nor are particularly connected to it) and independent(they are completely seperate from me, the author of the article).

Additionally, Glen Huntly Road, a place very close to Trevelyan Street, has its own Wikipedia listing, so there is precedent for this.

I hope you will take these factors into account, and you will reconsider your decision to delete the article.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)— Toby3141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason for keeping. Plus Glen Huntly Road is now up for deletion too. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Imzadi 1979 → 05:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending a check of sources. This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the street is notable. The article also lacks a proper lede sentence that says that the street is in Melbourne, Australia. A reader should not have to look at the sources to know where a geographic feature is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page to include 'Melbourne, Australia', so now readers immediately know where the geographic feature is. As for the article speaking for itself, I believe the article does explain its notability as it talks about the architectural significance of the street. If the article needs to elaborate on the residential notability, please let me know and I will add it to the article.

I would like to once again touch on the similar article, Glen Huntly Road. Not only does it not speak for itself in a notability sense, but the sources listed are completely different from the Notability guidelines that my article is being deleted for. The sources are not specific at all, and some are lists which simply include Glen Huntly Road. They certainly don't cover a wide range of the road(there are only 6), and their reliability is not obvious. If Glen Huntly Road can be listed as an article, it should be clear that Trevelyan Street can be too.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This street is not notable in any way. Nothing notable happened here. It is just a local residential street. Steelkamp (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the article simply depicts a residential street, but this certainly doesn't dismiss it's notability. Hundreds of people call Trevelyan Street their home, and it is extremely important to the thousands of citizens who visit and use this street regularly. Trevelyan Street has created memories to so many people, and is the home to so many stories. The argument that 'Trevelyan Street is simply a local residential street' doesn't justify at all why it should be deleted.

Once again, I call attention to Glen Huntly Road. In the article, no notable events are depicted. But it is still important and notable in other ways. This is because of the importance Glen Huntly Road has on so many Melbournians. Glen Huntly Road isn't the place where an enormous event happened, nor is it something particularly noteworthy, but it is worth a Wikipedia page.

I'd encourage you to see both sides in your arguments, to understand that this article means something to a lot of people. It is their home.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other road, you're using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating memories doesn't equal notability in Wikipedia. We aren't here to help people feel good about things. We need critical discussions about the street in reliable sources, we don't have that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails on any claim to WP:GNG. Contains WP:OR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article either do not discuss the street at all, or are from database/user generated sources which are not reliable. Fails WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, could not find any sourcing that makes this road more notable than the standard residential road. Jumpytoo Talk 08:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I urge the readers of this debate to understand that just because this is a residential road, it doesn't need to be dismissed from Wikipedia, due to its importance to the hundreds of residents who call this street home. I also call you to further discuss the argument around Glen Huntly Road. Toby3141 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"due to its importance to the hundreds of residents who call this street home." Is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For notability requirements please see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) where enquiring minds can establish that this street cannot pass. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GEOROAD. The arguments put for keep are very weak. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely subjective as to whether or not an article is notable enough, and different reviewers could form different opinions. So I ask you to consider the other possibility; that Trevelyan Street might actually be notable enough for inclusion. Consider the arguments I have put forth, about architectural notability, residential notability, the notability which the sources bring, the similar notability of Glen Huntly Road, the geographical notability, and finally the emotional notability to all of the streets' residents. I have given a range of reasons as to why this street is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and the justification for your responses doesn't exactly touch on these specific arguments: they are simply referring to how the street isn't notable enough. So in your justifications, it would be amazing if you could be more specific, so I can make the right edits and better the article itself. Toby3141 (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAPOLICY
Toby3141 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a resident of this street? "emotional notability to all of the streets' residents" is irrelevant and not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete This idea that a generic residential block like any of the thousands of others in Melbourne and other cities – with this lack of significant coverage – is notable is ridiculous. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is "architecturally significant" as the lead suggests, we could redirect to Architecture of Melbourne. I don't find sourcing supporting that argument, nor much of anything for this street. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snow~~ Delete per WP:MILL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE; this was rejected on grounds of notability and sourcing several times at AfC, and I have not found any compelling sources to establish notability. LittlePuppers (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite the obvious temptation to Snow Close this discussion, we lose nothing by allowing it to run for the full duration. By doing so we allow the community to make a fuller judgement. I had been in favour of a snow close, but have changed my mind. Let us give the creating editor and their article a full hearing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You!

Just as we lose nothing continuing this hearing, we also lose nothing by keeping this article. The article does nothing but provide information about an important and architecturally significant street to the public. Might I remind you that this is not a discussion to turn a draft into an article, but rather to take an article down from the millions of others because it should be deleted. Trevelyan Street is not hindering Wikipedia in any way. It is bringing information and knowledge to the people, and taking it down almost means that Wikipedia would be 'better off' without it.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a resident of this street? LibStar (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. Wikipedia does not contain information on everything and every street in the world. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not directly using WP:NOHARM as a direct reason to keep my article. I believe the article is more than just something that "doesn't do anything wrong".

I quote from the wikipedia about page, "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by containing information on all branches of knowledge."

In adherence to Wikipedia's foundational goal, this platform serves as a repository of human history, culture, and progress. It is a tapestry woven with threads of knowledge, and every piece, no matter how seemingly insignificant, has a role in preserving our world's diversity.

To dismiss this article on the grounds of "harmlessness" would be to undermine the very spirit of inclusivity and enlightenment that Wikipedia upholds. Our commitment should extend beyond the immediate concept of harm and focus on the broader concept of value. Does the article contribute to the collective tapestry of human understanding? Does it offer a glimpse into the microcosm of our society that might otherwise remain obscured? The answer, I posit, is an emphatic yes.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a resident of this street? LibStar (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I have access to it, giving me the ability to gather primary and secondary research. Toby3141 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Request a SNOW close. Looking at [36], the references don't support anything the article is saying. Refs 1, 6, and 7 are neighborhood realty pages, they don't tell us anything about the street, in fact they say less than a street map would. Ref 2 doesn't mention Trevelyan Street, so it doesn't support that those types of houses are on that street. Refs 3 and 4 are unnecessary because they're supporting a wikilink when we could just click that wikilink instead. Ref 5 doesn't support that there is a Tudor house on Trevelyan Street. Ref 8 doesn't support the claim that the two streets run parallel, quite the opposite! Ref 9 doesn't support anything about this "notable tree", or any specific tree. Ref 10 is a Wix fan page. Ref 11 is a Google Map, the one reference I don't have a problem with here; it indeed shows it's in Melbourne. Honestly, the article could be pared down to "Trevelyan Street is a residential street in Melbourne," and cited to Ref 11, but I think deletion is the better choice here. –Fredddie ™ 05:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fredddie,

You make some reasonable arguments about how individually, all of my sources lack a certain aspect. But I believe that together, they contain all of the information and research used in my article. All together they manage to explain the location, details, architectural features(of Melbourne), Geographical features, statistics(number of homes, ratio of bought to rented homes, ratio of homes to units to townhouses and time spent living on the street). I believe the statement that a street map would say more than the realty pages is false, especially with the 'domain' link, which, along with providing a map, also provides a significant amount of statistics on the street. About Kooyong Rd, I have edited the article to say 'perpendicular' rather than 'parallel', thank you for letting me know about this error. I have removed sources 2,3 and 4, as I understand they more appropriate as wikilinks. The significant tree is supported in both google maps(street view/satellite view), and in the image conveniently included.

If more sources are necessary which reference the other elements I mention in this article, I would be happy to either provide them or remove their mentioning. I would also like to thank you for being specific in your reasoning, as this allows me to know what I need to do to improve my article and my articles in the future. Please let me know if any further edits are needed to keep Trevelyan Street an article.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should really try editing a wide range of articles to get a better idea of what meets notability rather than focusing on 1 article. Secondly, I've also nominated Glen Huntly Road which has questionable notability. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, I might consider creating and editing more articles to become better at showing why things are notable. I would also like to note that residential streets like Trevelyan Street are actually allowed and even automatically considered notable by WP:GEOROAD, which states that "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

Any argument that the street is not notable simply because it is a residential street is by default false, and so anyone arguing against its notability must target the sources themselves. This passage shows that there is nothing wrong or not notable about creating an article about a street. As long as I can provide reliable sources which adequately cover the subject, which I have done, it is perfectly reasonable for something like this to be on Wikipedia. Please keep this argument in mind when formulating an opinion on this discussion.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unless there is a rush of keep !votes, the consensus here is very clear for delete. I know you think it's notable but that's not shared by the majority of editors here. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay.

I understand that whilst I believe the article has what it takes to be on Wikipedia, you are all experienced moderators and know that Trevelyan Street doesn't belong here. Feel free to snow delete it anytime, and I will stop submitting drafts and articles.

Thank you for giving me a hearing and letting me speak my reasoning before deleting it. I have really learned a lot from this, and I appreciate all of the time an effort you have pored into teaching me a valuable lesson I will remember for a long time. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This street does not pass the WP:GEOROAD test. Local streets are not "automatically notable" under that guideline. The sentence you quote about local streets restates WP:GNG. As Fredddie demonstrates in his comment here, the sources used on this article do not meet the GNG threshold. Specifically, we need "significant coverage". That means sources that talk about this subject directly and in detail. This would include a news/journal/magazine article about the street itself, or a book or book chapter about it. These sources need to come from publishers with a reputation for reliability, and Wix clearly does not meet that bar. None of those kinds of sources are present, and so the article fails to meet notability requirements, full stop.

Additionally, it's concerning some of the conclusions that have been drawn and inserted into the text of this article. The whole passage estimating the number of residents, which additionally uses an estimate of the number of homes along the street is pure WP:OR, and not allowed. Statistics like that need a source that's directly saying information like that.

Finally, a piece of advice to you, Toby3141: please don't feel the need to reply to every comment in this discussion. You also need to learn to read the room, so to speak. The range of opinions here is clearly against you, and yet you keep replying and almost badgering everyone. Please stop. Imzadi 1979 → 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration, I'm so sorry for wasting your time. I will stop in this discussion.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just me, a regular AFD closer, but I don't care for SNOW closures unless there is problematic content like material that violates BLP guidelines. Discussions can change dramatically over the course of 7 days and while this one seems to be sailing towards Delete, there is no harm done by waiting out 7 days. The article is not causing any damage to our readership. Also, closing a discussion too early can make a good case for reopening and relisting at Deletion review so it's better that article creators have their due period to hear a reasoned critique of their article creations than do a rush job. If that makes me a bureaucrat, well, maybe I should run for an RFB. (kidding, I'd never get 85% approval). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You!

So as to not badger anyone further, I will stop contributing to this discussion. Rather, I invite the readers to scroll up and see the previous arguments I have put forth.

Regards,

Toby Toby3141 (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG. If this survives then I'll have to propose my local streets for creation. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run of the mill residential road. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not garnered significant coverage in WP:RS and lacks any other claim to significance Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Utterly fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources actually aren't so bad, as they accurately convey that the street exists and supports the information used in the article. Zac Yates (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Zac Yates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The author has expressed in their arguments above just how notable and significant Trevelyan Street is. I would have thought the article would completely fail WP:GEOROAD, but have changed my mind reading the arguments of user:Toby3141. Well done on a great article! 61.8.27.210 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — 61.8.27.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article is doing nothing but expanding the knowledge and the database of an encyclopedia. It is clearly notable, as expressed in both the article and this discussion, and I see no reason for this article to be deleted.CB0001 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — CB0001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Despite what others have said, it doesn't fail WP:GNG. The criteria in the guideline is actually met by all of these sources together. The real estate sources are reliable, independent, and secondary. The other sources provide significant coverage over the street, and prove both its existence and its notability. I would also like to commend the author, user:Toby3141, for their determination and continued effort to keep their article. Well doneGary5362 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC) — Gary5362 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thank you! Toby3141 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have started a WP:SPI here in regards to recent voting on this RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there has been an admission by an editor here that they have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPET behaviour in getting others to vote keep above. TarnishedPath^talk 04:57, 4 September 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!} 04:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MinutePhysics

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

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

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

Most of the sources that were coted are trovia. Looking at WP:BEFORE, there's nothing more reliable source to be found,thus failing GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a firm keep for me. Sourcing present needs some work but clears GNG already. The NBC News source in particular supports notability being established. A very crude Google News search shows plenty of sourcing available that I'll have to go ahead and work into this article. 1 2 are ones found trough that crude search. Also found this criticism of MinuteEarth by the NCSE. This source from the Heising-Simons Foundation should also help support notability. Also 1, [2, 3 are suitable to incorporate into the article. Soulbust (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Likely SNOW coming on this one. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Clicking the "Find sources" links in the nomination template gives us more than enough:
1. Multiple reviews in The Physics Teacher, a peer reviewed journal of American Association of Physics Teachers [37][38][39]
2. Space.com article[40]
3. Professional writer, published on Nerdist[41]
4. Wired [42]
5. Wisconsin State Journal article about the creator (note this is not an interview, it's coverage of a talk containing quotes). [43]
6. The Mary Sue article [44]
7. Coverage on Slate, with disclosure of prior relationships with contributors to videos[45]

—siro χ o 05:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with siroχo that there are more than enough sources to warrant an article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable enough with a plethora of reliable sources significantly covering the channel. Looks like winter's coming soon on this AfD. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might even be argued that MinutePhysics and MinuteEarth are separately notable, although I see no need to split the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keepas per all said MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 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!} 04:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up! Cartoons

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

Looking at WP:BEFORE, there's nothing more reliable source to be found,thus failing GNG (Best would be to merge into Smosh.) GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost missed this one as I hadn't created it directly, but rather from a redirect, and for some reason it wasn't on my watchlist. But that would make it 4 articles I created in some way that've been nominated for deletion in a 35-minute span. Really odd. Also mixed in that span was an IP edit going for (not an AFD nom, but rather) a straight up redirect on a 5th article I created. Idk.

Either way, the sourcing present here is sufficient for GNG. The Adweek source, Variety source, and LA Times source all help establish notability here. The first and third ones there should be noted, need a subscription to access. Will update the references in the article to convey that information. Also found the following sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 that can be added to the article. Soulbust (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG.
1. Multiple articles with SIGCOV in Animation Magazine[46][47][48][49]
2. 147+ words of independent SIGCOV from AdWeek[50], before moves into interview.
3. ComicsBeat SIGCOV before interview [51]

—siro χ o 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 28 August 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. Here's hoping that some of the editors arguing for Keep work on improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe (Transformers)

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

Doubt this meets WP:GNG, not every Transformer deserves its own article, see WP:Pokémon test. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Quick Gnews hits:

- https://www.cbr.com/sideswipe-off-screen-death-transformers/

- https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/transformers-sideswipe-skywarp-team-up-exclusive-two-pack/

- https://www.wired.com/2009/08/autobot-sideswipe/

- http://www.actionfigureinsider.com/the-transformers-masterpiece-sideswipe-euphorium/

Suggests lack of Before and that there are sources that can be used to improve the article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bleedingcool is a PR piece about some toy that does not even appear to have been significantly rewritten from marketing speak. Wired piece does mention the character outside a name and seems to be a piece about some fan's lookalike car mod. actionfigureinsider is a review of a particular toy, not of the character. Those are bad, bad sources.

Only the CBR can be argued to have some analysis of the character that goes beyond plot, but I'd say it's just few sentneces long. Given that the article has no reception section, and the best source (CBR) is meh, my vote is for redirect to the list of Transformers. I can't say merge as there's nothing in this article than I think is encyclopedic. If kept, this needs to be pruned down by 95% to remove fancruft plot summary and merchandise detail. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've said those sources are necessarily definitive, it was a quick Google search, and I am mainly in opposition to AfDs where the nominator plainly hasn't bothered with Before. Is Sideswipe notable? Dunno, not sure. Wouldn't surprise me either way. Not in a hurry to sink a lot of research into it when I have other things I'm looking at.

But some random nominating a bunch of articles from a franchise they don't like because they "doubt" they're notable and claiming anyone who objects is required to write a GA-level article to prove otherwise is not something that should fly.

As said all the Transformers articles are fancruft and basically shit. Not sure thats cause for TNT so much as an open casting call for someone interested in the area to come in and fix it. God only knows what the List of Transformers everyone wants to 'merge' these articles into looks like... Once again it is easy to find people who say merge or redirect but very difficult to find people who actually do any of the work. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, content problems can be dealt with via editing. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz (Transformers) (2nd nomination) —siro χ o 04:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And possibly disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION. I am surprised people are looking at these sources and believing they are WP:SIGCOV. They are trivial mentions pulled off a Google search with no regard for how deep they go on the character, if they talk about them at all. Or, in the case of CBR, from a content-farm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources listed above. FlutterDash344 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments above. BOZ (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I agree with the arguments for keeping this are OK. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 31 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of Vladimir Putin's death or incapacity

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

A mixture of trivia, news-of-the-day, and speculation masquerading as biography. Yes, all these can be documented. No, none of it mattered even three days later. People obviously hope that Putin goes away somehow, but again, that's not an encyclopedic subject. Any actual event of consequence belongs in Putin's biography, not sequestered in a list such as this. They do not belong anywhere here at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is needed. It is more like speculating and trying to predict the future. Cwater1 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination does not present any policy-based arguments for deletion and actually should be counted as a Merge !vote and not Delete (i.e. "Any actual event of consequence belongs in Putin's biography, not sequestered in a list such as this.") The argument "The do not belong anywhere here at all." [sic] is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Further, our WP:CRYSTALBALL policy (an argument that OP did not make it) does not apply as that policy refers to predictions of future events. This is an exhaustively WP:RS-sourced list of past predictions that received WP:SIGCOV for the act of predicting this subject (in other words, sources are largely third party reporting on the sociological phenomenon of predicting Putin's death, versus the originally published predictions). This is not unlike our long-established articles:

That lots of these articles get created is only evidence that plenty of people have no idea what belongs in an encyclopedia. Yes, pundits predicted the end of the USSR over and over; that shows that these sorts of predictions are worthless, and really there's no argument made that these predictions were important. Ditto for the Google and Wikipedia article. These articles get created because they don't require a lot of work, not because they are valuable, and the message of these (which is really common knowledge in the fields of pundit-reading) is that these predictions are usually bunk— which is why most of these were flashes-in-the-pan which were forgotten about when pushed aside by the next news cycle. As for 2011 end times prediction, it should have stayed in the main Harold Camping article, along with all his other manifestly false prophecies of the end times that in the end everyone forgot the specifics of. You're making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and in the end you've simply directed me to more articles that ought to go. Mangoe (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You're making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument" Mangoe - with all due respect, you're not making any argument at all. You haven't cited any relevant policy in your nomination or in your latest comment; "none of it mattered" is not a reason covered by our deletion policy for the removal of content. In my !vote I actually had to come up with a policy to argue on your behalf (i.e. CRYSTALBALL) just so I could respond. Chetsford (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that passes GNG belongs on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's categorically incorrect. Notability is necessary but not sufficient. Failing WP:NOT is one reason something that is notable might not belong on Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If something is NOT then it can't pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it can. Passing WP:GNG merely requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's nothing stopping something like that from running afoul of WP:NOT in one way or another. TompaDompa (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing listed on that page can really have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it can (if not it would of course be entirely superfluous). How-tos and game guides are one example. Unverifiable speculation is another. Genealogies are a third. If we want to go really silly, today's weather certainly receives significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While many predictions received extensive coverage in media, there's no indication that any of them had lasting significance required by WP:EVENTCRITERIA. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"there's no indication that any of them had lasting significance" Hmmm. That doesn't appear to be correct.

This[52] 2015 Vox article covers the history of predictions made in 2012.
This[53] 2023 New Statesman article covers the history of a prediction made in 2022.
This[54] 2022 report from the Center for European Policy Analysis covers the history of predictions from 2003, 2005, and 2021.
This[55] 2022 New York Times article mentions predictions from 2017 and 2020.

etc., etc. I can keep listing these, unless you'd prefer to just read the entry? Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs. The NYT article doesn't discuss predictions in depth – it reports a few opinions about Putin's health itself without thorough analysis. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and it isn't focused on predictions.

I don't think an article speculating about the health based on rumours would meet WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. As it stands, the article mainly addresses predictions, and the sources provided don't satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA in my opinion. Most publications that touch on predictions cover a handful of specific contemporaneous predictions, rather than addressing the phenomenon of predictions holistically.

Additionally, upon reviewing the linked NYT article, WP:FRINGE might be a more suitable rationale for deletion if the article in question presents rumours circulated by journalists and bloggers that contradict assessments from MI6 and the CIA as reliable expert opinions. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs." No, that's completely incorrect. Are you reading the right article?
In any case, I realize I've posted several responses so I'll limit my comments here to this one item to avoid bludgeoning: CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here. CRYSTALBALL discusses predictions of future events. This article is a historical timeline of past predictions and is about the predictions themselves as historical events, not the content of the predictions. If this article discussed predictions of Putin's death occurring in the future then it would be covered by CRYSTAL. But there isn't a single example of that (perhaps it would be better named "Past Predictions of ...). Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the four sources listed in your comment above. Sorry if this was unclear. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally had time to look at the four sources, I find they are all saying variations on what I'm saying: that the predictions themselves are insubstantial rumors. The articles refer to past instances as examples of how they are not notable because they never amounted to anything. I just don't see how this supports a keep of this article. There is clearly a place in Putin's bio for the persistence of rumors about his health, but it needs to report the substance of the references given, rather than burying the story in a mass of detail whose only relevance, according to the analysts, is that no single prediction is important because all of them are wrong. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, if the predictions or speculation are correct doesn't impact that it is something getting regular coverage.★Trekker (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I seem to have to keep reminding people, this isn't about notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are not speculations about some celebrity (although there is also an article "Paul is dead" – 35 language versions), but a dictator deciding everything important in the country with the largest area and almost 150 million inhabitants. There are also articles "Possible monorchism of Adolf Hitler" (7 language versions) and "Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death" (14 language versions). Wikipek (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, they are rumors about a dictator whom a lot of people would like to go away. Nonetheless, they are ephemeral speculations of no lasting import. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As in the three articles linked in my comment. And yet these articles and many others like them are not deleted. Wikipek (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is dead" is about the phenomenon, a specific urban legend which is documented as such. It was widely reported on at the time and later. It happened, and it was a notable rumor which got notable coverage. This is not the same.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. for the sheer entertainment value of the rumors. Yes, I believe it is in the same ballpark as "Paul is dead", and even "Elvis is alive" being turned into a humorous moment in the movie "Death Becomes Her". Putin doesn't give us much to laugh about. Let us have this. — Maile (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, while I see your point, I don't think I've ever seen the argument in an AFD that we should keep an article for its entertainment value. Wikipedia, after all, is a very serious place. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz - Ah ... well. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to concur on this. We have areas for entertainment (see WP:Department of Fun, but it's nearly always in the userspace or occasionally Wikipedia namespace (see Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-man, an older "official lunacy" and one of my personal favorites). While I would support the inclusion of this article, I don't support it for this reason, and I would recommend all humor and entertainment on Wikipedia be in userspace. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; in addition to previous arguments made regarding the impact of his death, I personally believe that we should not have to worry about CRYSTALBALL if multiple clearly reliable sources are making these predictions. If all we're doing is covering the world's theories as stated by reliable sources, then I don't think we're doing anything wrong. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously they aren't reliable if the predictions don't come true! Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 5 September 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. After 11 days, the comments are pretty evenly split between keep, delete, and redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade

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

This AfD concerns a man who is claimed to have invented first successful airplane 8 years before Wright Brothers. These non-existing claims are limited to non-RS fringe sources while the subject has received minimal coverage from actual WP:RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada. That's why I think we have a case for deletion.

When I attempted to search details about this person from the period before propaganda wave, I could find nothing.[56] It was mainly after the release of the 2015 movie, Hawaizaada that he started receiving substantial coverage.

My research has been also confirmed by this source:-

"Among the believers of the Hindu right, this absence of evidence is attributed to British control over the media, which seemingly edited Talpade’s invention out of history. But reports of the flight that do exist began proliferating just over a century later, in the 2000s, at the beginning of the fertile, ongoing period of the expansion of the economy and the reinvention of the Indian past."[57] Editorkamran (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article accurately debunks the claims, so what's the issue here? Better keep it in it's current state and put it on watchlists than delete it and wait for some nationalist to come back, create it, and fill it with fringe-POV. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for fact-checking. The only claim for which reliable sources exist is that this person did not invent airplane. But for that we already have Hawaizaada movie article. This person is not notable and inherited little notability from that movie. Editorkamran (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the pre-movie version [58] there are sufficent pre-movie sources to establish notability. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I've delved all the way back to the beginning now and I don't see a reason to try to salvage this article even if possible. I guess it's possible that there are some sources after the movie was publicised that have researched his history, but unless those are found... and even if they are, they'd probably be better off in the movie's article. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ok, User:Vanamonde93 has convinced me about the sources he mentioned and the need to have this article. The Deccan Herald is not a fringe news outlet, WP:HISTRS is irrelevant here. Being published after the movie was released is irrelevant and not policy or guideline based. It certainly meets WP:GNG. @Editorkamran: I don't need or want a reply. I think you've made your point clear.

@Doug Weller: See my review of all of those sources:

1st source is a Deccan Herald article, it fails WP:HISTRS. It claims "As the world rightly honours the Wright Brothers for their achievements, we should think of Talpade, who utilised the ancient knowledge of Sanskrit texts, to fly an aircraft, eight years before his foreign counterparts." It is unreliable and also WP:FRINGE.
2nd source is Sentinels of the Sky. Air Headquarter, Indian Air Force p. 2, 1999, which says "Based on these instructions, a fly - worthy machine was reportedly reconstructed by a native of Maharashtra Shri Bapuji Talpade and a demonstration of manned flight was conducted in Mumbai sometime in 1895."[59] But it was unmanned right? This source also fails WP:HISTRS and it is promoting WP:FRINGE views.
3rd is Asia: Asian Quarterly of Culture and Synthesis, American Asiatic Association, Published 1942, Page 40 but I cannot find this source anywhere.
4th source is A flight over Chowpatty that made history[60] which says "In 1895 an Indian pioneer flew what is said to be the first Indian plane in the air. The centenary year of the first successful flight, by the Wright brothers, was celebrated from December 17, 2003. But our own pioneer from Mumbai, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, made an aircraft and had flown it eight years earlier." Again, the violation of WP:HISTRS and WP:FRINGE.
5th source is "Pratāpa Velakara, Pāṭhāre prabhūñcā itihāsa: nāmavanta lekhakāñcyā sas̃́odhanātmaka likhāṇāsaha", by an unreliable publisher.
6th source is "A flight over Chowpatty that made history," which I already analyzed above.
7th source is "Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Volume 69. The Institute. 1989. p. 365." but the source does not support the information.[61][62][63]
8th one is Mukunda, H.S. (1974). "A critical study of the work "Vyamanika Shastra"" but this source only says "Dr. Talpade (of Bombay) tried to make models under the guidance of Shastriji, but that he was not successful in making any of then fly."[64] This is just a passing mention.
9th and the final source is Rosen. 2010 but this source is published by far-right publisher Arktos Media. This book is merely repeating the debunked claim thus it is not reliable.[65]

None of these sources satisfy the requirement of WP:GNG. The subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Editorkamran (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawaizaada. I won't accept anything less than a few good quality history scholarly sources that have provided significant coverage to the biography of this person. At present I am not seeing that here. Dympies (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article contain substantive coverage that I believe would be undue in the article about the film; as such as I see this as a valid spinoff. The article accurately debunks the fringe claims, so I don't see why WP:FRINGE enters into this discussion at all; indeed it's interesting that the subject has, for a change, more coverage debunking the claims than endorsing them. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that when sourcing exists, we are serving our readers better by debunking fringe claims than by deleting them altogether. So what if the coverage arose after the movie? GNG is met, and we're doing better from a weight perspective by having a more detailed spinoff. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fact-checking website.

This subject fails WP:GNG because all of the coverage constituting more than a passing mention comes from fringe unreliable sources before the movie was released. The reliable sources that have provided more than a passing mention to this subject are only focused on disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie. Historians are still unwilling to provide any coverage to this subject but this absence cannot be overlooked since this is a historical subject.

The subject can be limited to Hawaizaada, where it is already described that this subject lacks authenticity. Editorkamran (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to discount coverage of the historical events (or ahistoricity of the events) just because it's from after the movie. The movie drew attention to this narrative. The sources cover it. [66] [67] and [68] are not espousing any fringe nonsense, and provide substantive coverage of the topic; and they only tangentially refer to the movie. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, as it's one of the rare occasions we disagree; I feel the movie article cannot cover the entire narrative (including the history of its supposed discovery and debunking) in as much detail as is warranted; and we have sources, linked above. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are news sources, they don't meet WP:HISTRS as required for this historical subject. They were created in the light of the movie Hawaizaada for rejecting the false claim that the subject invented an airplane.

1st source is Business Standard which is rejecting the false claim following the news of "a film on Talpade's efforts, called Hawaizaada, directed by Vibhu Puri, will release later this month".[69] 2nd source is New Republic, which is also dedicated to debunk only the disputed claim, was also created after "Bollywood film Hawaizaada, released a few weeks after Bodas’s paper was presented".[70] 3rd source is Open The Magazine which is also rejecting the false claim and was created after the "Bollywood film on the subject, Hawaizaada, releases this week."[71] The subject is not notable and has inherited little notability from the movie. Any coverage before this movie was not more than a rejection in passing mention when it comes to coverage in reliable sources. Editorkamran (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HISTRS is an essay, and in any case refers more to contemporary news coverage; retrospective news coverage in reliable sources is quite acceptable for determining notability. The sources I presented discuss the historical (or ahistorical) narrative on its own merits; the movie may have drawn attention to it, but the myth-making existed before the movie did. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about an article on the myth itself? JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "the myth-making existed before the movie did" but the coverage to that "myth-making", apart from passing mention, was provided only by poor quality sources in violation of WP:FRINGE as already analyzed above. They cannot be used for establishing WP:GNG. Editorkamran (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we have an article on "spurious Vedic-based claims of powered flight" where the more detailed debunking would be better suited? Or even a "Hindutva science disinformation campaign" general page? JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: Not really. It exists at Hindutva#Ahistorical premises, separatism. Specific examples wouldn't be needed because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Editorkamran (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: There are some places where disinformation and pseudoscience are discussed. The issue is that for any such article to remain reasonable in scope, it cannot delve into detail into specific events; moreover, sources covering the entire topic do not investigate individual instances in detail. There is a specific ahistorical narrative here that has been debunked, and the entirety has received substantial coverage. I believe due weight is better served by a detailed article on a small topic, with summaries and passing mentioned elsewhere as necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 maybe this would be better as a page on the "event" or the myth, rather than on the person? JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: I would have no objection to such a reframing; minus a couple of biographical sentences that really aren't terribly important, it'd be the same content. Titling it as a biography is so much easier though; what would you call it? Talpade heavier-than-air flight myth? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: I think you are looking for Claims to the first powered flight. There is no mention of this subject there thus it is clearly possible to ultimately merge the needful details to that article at "Other claims" section. Editorkamran (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is another source summarizing the issue, scholarly this time. There's two entire paragraphs about this narrative. GNG is not in question here: and I believe the degree of detail included in the sources makes a merger inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this book from 2023 is among those already described in the nomination; "subject has received minimal coverage from actual WP:RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada". It is merely citing the fake invention as an example of Hindutva fake history instead of making any biographical coverage of the person. Dympies (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just one of the tons of false heroes hyped by fringe Hindutva groups but lacks any relevance among expert sources that could be used for verifying the notability. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources typically point to the movie. A lot of movies are fictional and it is a duty of political extremists to spread disinformation, while it is the job of fact-checkers to debunk them. However, Wikipedia is not a place for either. desmay (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Discuss reliability of sources on reliable sources noticeboard. BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Claims to the first powered flight. There is a meaningful issue with the notability but important content can be preserved elsewhere. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should absolutely not merge into Claims to the first powered flight; that article is for claims taken seriously by reliable sources. This is not such a claim, and it would be a serious NPOV violation to merge it there. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got to agree with that. I'm not sure whether these wild and contradictory claims meet notability standards as 'notably debunked' but they have absolutely no relevance to any article treating the history of aviation seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable source seriously states that Preston A. Watson, Richard Pearse and some more names from that article were the ones who invented the first powered flight? Dympies (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Talpade belongs on that list, and nothing to do with the notability of this article. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect or merge somewhere but don't keep standalone article. The Wright Brothers are the inventors of the plane that could be controlled by the pilot. Since every other "claim" is false, there is no distinction among the claims at the end of the day. CharlesWain (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia explicitly allows for articles about hoaxes or false narratives when they are supported by reliable sources, which is the case here. Your comment has no basis in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only fact is that Wright brothers are the inventors. Rest of the claims are false. You are saying this article on Talpade is so fringe that it does not need to be mentioned along other false claims but at the same time you are saying it needs separate article when we have articles on both his movie and alternative claims on invention of powered air flight. I don't find sense in your argument. CharlesWain (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ScriptKKiddie. Or otherwise merge it to Claims to the first powered flight per WP:ATD. Shankargb (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate having to post this many times at an AfD, I really do. But Claims to the first powered flight exists because there are a handful of claims that have grounds for legitimacy (for instance; not using a rail like the Wrights did) that aren't accepted but are taken seriously. The examples listed there are all manned, powered flights that actually happened, even if they weren't first in any sense. Merging Talpade's legend there is a flagrant violation of NPOV and FRINGE: we don't have a single reliable supporting the claim that he even flew an unmanned aircraft. If this is merged anywhere, it should be the article about the film, but I still strongly prefer a standalone. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as already evidenced from analysis of the sources. Redirect or merge it anywhere but this cannot be kept as a stand alone article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable historical figure. Though not many but source is still there.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admantine123: Not really. This is subject is just an example of Hindutva fake history and earliest mention of this subject comes from Vaimānika Shāstra (written in 1952). The coverage is limited to the claim about his fake invention. Dympies (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the movie page. I agree that stand-alone page can be too much but redirect can be still preserved. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject meets GNG with sources provided. GNG is about coverage; not about the achievement of a person. If there are false claims or disputes; this can be described in the article. 109.37.131.169 (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I understand the concerns over having separate page but this can be still merged or redirected to the articles about the claims or the movie. Azuredivay (talk) 08:46, 1 September 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. If there is a suspicion that this is a hoax article, then I think a Merge would involve a lot of investigation to see what content is accurate and what isn't which I think is beyond what we should expect from those editors handling Mergers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hue people

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

Inability to verify: while Hué exists as a city, I cannot find the people referred to as the Hue. At best, this is original research by the article's original creator. At worse, this is an intentional attempt to mislead, as an IP editor alleged early on in the page's life. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - C.Fred put a lot of work into researching this and I looked into this also. When the article was proposed for deletion, I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Proposed for deletion: Hue people. asking for input. The article says there were 1,153,795 Hue people in 2021 and that they live in Thừa Thiên-Huế province. 2 years later our article for the province said its population was 1,272,621 people. It seems like this article is conflating the inhabitants of the province with this supposed ethnic group.

The photo's file history says it was taken from a provincial government website:

https://sdl.https://sdl.thuathienhue.gov.vn/?gd=4&cn=220&tc=85594/?gd=4&cn=220&tc=85594

A machine translation of the page shows it's about the "Hue people" but reading it in context, I think it really means "the people of Hue".

I went through all 31 cited references; they contain interesting about local food architecture, etc. None of them support the idea of a separate ethnic group called "Hue people". None support the idea that all these people speak the Cham language or the Khmer language and not the Vietnamese language.

Our article, List of ethnic groups in Vietnam, does not mention a "Hue people".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a muddle created by WP:OR and confusion between province and people. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thừa Thiên Huế province; a lot of this material could be used to improve coverage of its demographics and culture. I agree this article basically seems to be about the people of the province. - Indefensible (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Indefensible. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a hoax. DHN (talk) 22:55, 31 August 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 XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Satellite Radio

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG with a complete lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels, where a list of such channels already exists. A quick WP:BEFORE check finds that this will be nigh-impossible to source, especially with all the false positives. For example '80s on 8, a satellite radio channel with a similar scope, is hosted by former MTV veejays. It is noteworthy that no sourcing of any kind has been added to this article during the 16 years of its existence. StonyBrook _babble 17:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best I could find was this interview with XM's circa-2005 executive VP of programming that includes a question about why XM decided to drop this channel and a similar channel for VH1 (which, not to bring up the proverbial "other stuff [that] exists", seems equally [un]suitable for a separate article — but nonetheless, it was using the Wayback Machine to access what passed for sourcing in the Vh1 Satellite Radio article — our citation standards are just a little different now than they were in 2007, to say the least — that led me there). All that might be good for is to have some source to support a brief mention at MTV to allow for a redirect to that article — interviews are irrelevant when considering notability to start with (not that there is any separate notability to speak of here anyway), and this is effectively more of a passing mention anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest municipalities in New York

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of municipalities in New York and List of towns in New York. For some reason it excludes villages from "municipalities" but includes towns, which are minor civil divisions. Apocheir (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and New York. Apocheir (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems obvious that the purpose of this WP:POVFORK is to highlight the fact that certain towns in Long Island are larger than other municipalities in New York, such as Buffalo, Yonkers, Rochester and Syracuse. The creator of this article was either unaware or was indifferent to the fact that a List of towns in New York already exists, and that information as to which of them is the largest can be had by changing the dropdown setting under "population". Consensus seems to be that the latter article should be merged into List of municipalities in New York. Whether or not one agrees with that finding, there is still no need for a separate "largest" article, because that town information will be available in whichever article it's eventually housed in. If the model of List of municipalities in Pennsylvania is used, the Long Island towns will appear before the aforementioned cities anyway. StonyBrook _babble 02:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:POVFORK of List of municipalities in New York. Also, there seems to be towns in the list as well, so this list is unnecessary. FlutterDash344 (talk) 04:53, 28 August 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. If an editor wants to work on this, contact me or WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Kenny

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

Clare Kenny

Musician who apparently does not meet general notability or musical notability. This article was created in 2009 with no references, and was tagged as having no references until 2011, when one reference was added, which is still the only reference, so now the article is tagged as needing additional references. The one reference is a book, and Google Books shows the applicable page, which is a passing mention. After fourteen years, only one reference has been found. As it is, she is a run-of-the-mill professional musician. The Heymann criterion will be to find at least two (preferably three) good-quality references in seven days.

Draftify as nominator to provide six months for good-quality references to be found. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, and England. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or Draftify. The only coverage I've been able to find are passing mentions similar to "Kenny played the bass on this album" in articles about other things, without any significant coverage of Kenny herself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page seems to be WP:1R and not able to find much WP:RS for WP:SIGCOV Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article that's been tagged since 2011 has had time enough for ads to find refs. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMUSIC and WP:NOTINHERITED. Article is literally nothing but an unsourced list of musicians with zero content about the subject herself. After fourteen years of it being in this state, draftifying is definitely out of the question. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:37, 31 August 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.