Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 15	August 17 >

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!} 23:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lothian Schools Strathspey and Reel Society

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a Scottish orchestra and added two references to the article (previously unsourced, and tagged as such since 2009). Neither of them is from a reliable published source, however. This orchestra looks run-of-the-mill to me and I do not think it meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Tacyarg (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a bit of searching, and could find no news sources mentioning the topic, and the two

sources already referenced in the article in no way make the topic notable. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I managed to find a mention in a pretty solid source, but there's too brief a mention there to claim any notability: [1]. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:04, 23 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!} 05:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Pizza

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

Non-notable pizza company, only sourcing in PR sites found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything other than PR sites. Pilaz (talk) 23:23, 16 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!} 23:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, no SIRS sources available in English, barely any non-trivial independent/secondary coverage at all, no CORPDEPTH. Best I found was a short mention in a hospitality trade journal [2]. Unsure if there are non-English sources. —siro χ o 01:09, 17 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 Pacific Life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swell Investing

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

Short-lived investment company, only one or two RS used, rest is non-notable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Skynxnex (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be salvaged into Pacific Life to expand the coverage there. - Indefensible (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pacific Life seems the most practical option for this short-lived company. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 17 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!} 21:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incred Finance

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

Non-notable finance company, tagged for factual accuracy, unsure of notability. I can't find sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 10 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!} 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep See [3], [4] for the only GNG sources I found. As ATD, perhaps redirect and merge to Anshu Jain Belichickoverbrady (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, this is based entirely on a company announcement (same as this in moneycontrol.com and simalarly the India Times article also relies exclusively on an company announcement. These fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Left me with the impression of a non-notable business, given the web search. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 19:17, 23 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!} 06:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage Digital

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

Non-notable crypto firm, sourcing is largely from blogs and PR sites. The Forbes Crypto appears to be a blog-type posting. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Forbes through me for a loop at first because of the URL extension ".sites," but it appears that even staff written pieces have that extension now. This one was written by a senior reporter and senior editor and not part of any of their partner programs. The CNN article is borderline as it has a ton of quotes from the founder. However, there is this from Bloomberg written by two staff writers, San Francisco Examiner, and this from a staff writer in Fortune.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - surprised by CNMall41's evaluation of sources above in comparison to some of their other reviews, but nonetheless agree there seem to be enough references including but not exclusively those listed above to support for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:11, 11 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!} 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CNMall41 and Indefensible. Sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided meet GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 00:17, 18 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!} 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BharatPe

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing is limited to PR and funding announcements, I don't find anything further in RS we could use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur. This fails WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is this different from the second nomination which was closed as keep following HighKing's !vote - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BharatPe (2nd nomination) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD where sources (research reports by independent analysts) that meet the criteria for establishing notability were located. Oaktree b, what is wrong with those sources? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had only seen the new article when reviewing the financial category, was not aware of the prior nominations. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 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!} 23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to !vote to delete based on NPOV, as WP:ATD states If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. But given that High King already found sources, I decided to improve the article with respect to it's current state instead. I removed unverifiable information from the article, added some verifiable information from the sources currently present, and generally cleaned up some NPOV issues. I think we can keep based on High King's sources. It would be good to add those into the article to improve it more, because at the moment, we have a really basic "company did money thing" stub right now with one borderline promotional quote that had previously been unattributed close paraphrasing. —siro χ o 03:12, 17 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!} 21:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yubi

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

Non-notable finance company, sourcing is in non-RS or simply funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia does not like fundraising or interview coverage but what is there should be enough in aggregate to support in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't analyse sources "in aggregate" as per WP:SIRS which says that *each* source must meet *all* the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 23 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!} 23:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage and independence required by WP:ORGCRIT in the available sources. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:25, 23 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 withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 07:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flick of the Switch Tour

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

Article was previously redirected for WP:NTOUR. However, I believe that there may be enough notability that the article can be kept. These are a few sources that go into some detail for the article:

Perkins, Jeff (2011). AC/DC: Uncensored on the Record. Warwickshire, England: Coda Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-908538-54-3.
Masino, Susan (2015). AC/DC FAQ: All That's Left to Know about the World's True Rock 'n' Roll Band (Paperback ed.). Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-1-4803-9450-6.
Popoff, Martin (2017). AC/DC: Album by Album (Hardcover). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-5374-5.
Apter, Jeff (2018). High Voltage: The Life of Angus Young, AC/DC's Last Man Standing. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-0-89733-047-3.
Masino, Susan (2020). Let There Be Rock: The Story of AC/DC. Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-1-913172-14-5.

I think there are enough sources that in my opinion, the article is a keep. I won't object if anyone says otherwise. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Taking suggestion from Relisting comment, as sources are provided. HorrorLover555 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you want to Keep this article and you are providing sources, I have no idea why you nominated this article for Deletion. You should consider withdrawing this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 16 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 07:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Rewind

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of mentions using the phrase, nothing for a radio program found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found nothing but trivial mentions. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:21, 23 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 14:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nase Lino

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

The article is crosswiki spam, deleted on many wikis (including at the original site, on Wikipedia in Spanish). No reliable sources. Aníbal (Talk) 20:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aníbal (Talk) 20:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any reliable sources for this person.★Trekker (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. The page has a suspicious history, btw: a rejected draft that was moved to mainspace and back several times. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:27, 23 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 07:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calum Macdonald (presenter)

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

I don't think we're meeting WP:GNG here. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. On top of that, all the sources currently listed in the article are not independent of the subject. During a WP:BEFORE I saw some sources, but they turned out to be interviews. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Scotland. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:04, 10 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!} 22:49, 16 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. Despite this result, most participants were open to this article being recreated but a new version must include criteria that show what aspects justifies a film's presence on the list along with some reliable sources discussing this possible genre of movie. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-communist films

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

Largely subjective list with various WP:SYNTH issues. Much of the list is unsourced, and even looking at some of the other sources, I think it's hard to prescribe a political ideology to many films, or that it's "anti-communist", particularly with the breadth of the term "communist". Some of these are historical films that depicted particular communist regimes in a negative light, like The Killing Fields, The Lives of Others, while others are fiction that happen to use communist regimes as the villains, like From Russia with Love and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but are not necessarily political films that oppose this ideology. I mean, The Death of Stalin was an incredible satire of Soviet leadership, but I wouldn't call it "anti-communist." This list does not have objective enough inclusion criteria to be appropriate for Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The definition of "anti-communist" is indeed unclear, and WP:NOTDATABASE. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-communism exists. Some films are known to promote this ideology. Why should they not be listed? The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It is the case here, see:

Invasion USA: Essays on Anti-Communist Movies of the 1950s and 1960s. (2017). United States: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers.
https://guides.lib.uw.edu/c.php?g=341346&p=2303736
https://spyscape.com/article/10-red-scare-spy-movies-from-a-wild-era-of-anti-communist-hysteria
https://ajges.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40856-016-0009-7
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/best-anti-communist-movies-50s/
https://www.popcultureshelf.com/invasion-usa-anti-communist-movies-of-the-1950s-and-1960s-b-david-j-hogan-2017/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/hollywoods_anticommunist_movies.html

etc., etc.

What’s more, in my view, this may even be a case of a list that can prove much clearer and less prone to endless debates than a category would be, because you can organize the films in sections and explain why the films are included. If sources commenting on this ideology in the film exist for those films, obviously.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:13, 11 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!} 22:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I don't doubt that there are anti-communist films that are notable enough for Wikipedia, but so far most of those I've checked seem to be included because they villainize the Soviet Union/Russia/Russians or are otherwise Cold War films. As happens every time something like this comes up, it gets thorny trying to separate communism from an example of its implementation, but for the sake of defining a film (what we're doing here), it doesn't seem like they should be conflated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, and we actually already have a similar list that even provides context: Culture_during_the_Cold_War#Cinema. Maybe some of the items in Mushy Yank's sources can be added there. Those are decent sources but I'm still concerned about combining Cold War/Red Scare films with those about other countries or made in other eras. Reywas92^Talk 05:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing films by genre, topic or common content is completly standard.★Trekker (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The films listed are not the same genre, topic, or common content. It is a synthesized list of films with different genres, different topics, and different content. They just depict in some way different communist countries. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any valid scope or criteria to keep this article. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hopefully we don't have List of anti-capitalist films. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's a potentially notable topic, but the current article fails WP:SYNTH. I have no problem with a new article if it somehow passes LISTN and if inclusion criteria becomes clearer and justified in a column next to each film - such as comments by the director. SportingFlyer T·C 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criterion is too wide and arbitrary for a constructive list. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NLIST because the list is simply endless; conflates negative depictions of communism (eg Rambo II) with films that are ideologically anti-communist (eg Rio Bravo); SYNTH because none of the sources discuss the contents of the list as a group. Certainly Anticommunism in US film is a notable topic worthy of an article, but unfortunately this list is not. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 23 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 07:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conalep Ing. Bernardo Quintana Arrioja

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, currently under discussion at the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Conalep Ing. Bernardo Quintana Arrioja). The first and second sections are a WP:COATRACK of the engineer it is named after, Bernardo Quintana, and of the COVID pandemic, respectively. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Mexico. NoonIcarus (talk) 23:18, 9 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!} 22:37, 16 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!} 21:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ciano Joasil

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Haiti, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - all sources are primary or passing mentions. A redirect to Principal Financial Group probably wouldn't make sense either. While doing research, one should note that there's an unrelated pastor with the same name. NotAGenious (talk) 12:40, 23 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. Star Mississippi 21:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Italy football rivalry

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

A completely WP:SYNTH article - there is no actual "rivalry" between Vatreni and Italy, and it is not supported by the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Croatia, and Italy. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sources not backing up the article. Original research was clearly done. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two countries being next to each other doesn't make a rivalry. They've played 8 times ever and 0 times in the last 8 years, and so unsurprisingly, there's isn't significant coverage of this so called rivalry. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "rivalry" means a lot more than simply "series of matches between two teams", which is all this is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not realMuur (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Kante4 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as ridiculous. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:48, 23 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!} 22:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Mibuy

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Equatorial Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I tried using several combinations of her name as well. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:06, 17 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. Star Mississippi 21:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide, it's a suicide

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

WP:NOTTVTROPES and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, an article about a sample or sound bite used in a handful of hip hop songs. Source predominantly used is an answer to a reader submitted question to The A.V. Club, while others reference that KRS-ONE is "socially and politically conscious" and that a song appeared on a soundtrack. Suitable for Genius.com soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's not enough sourcing or content to even write a decent "impact" section in the article for the song it originated from, let alone to warrant an outright article split. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Theoretically, this sort of thing can be notable, but there are no good sources here. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:51, 23 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 Guatemala women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brithney Gutiérrez

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

The subject has made at least three appearances for the Guatemala women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Guatemala. JTtheOG (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers - I can find match reports and social media coverage but nothing for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 14:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as non-notable) to the aforementioned list (as the only redirect option). Suitskvarts (talk) 08:00, 23 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!} 22:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yunarys Ramírez

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good option to redirect: she's not mentioned on the relevant pages and the article is an orphan. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:55, 23 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 2020 CONCACAF Women's U-20 Championship squads. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Prats

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

The subject has made at least three appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 CONCACAF Women's U-20 Championship squads. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:57, 23 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!} 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Rizos (architect)

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

The whole article is written mostly with primary sources (personal website, blog). Generally, the online sources did not pass WP:GNG as an notable person and/or as an architect. There is minimal independent press coverage for his work. Chiserc (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Greece. Chiserc (talk) 17:47, 9 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!} 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth coverage by reliable sources. BTW the Greek WP article on him has been deleted for lacking notability (see discussion [in Greek]; the present article el:Δημήτρης Ρίζος [Dimitris Rizos] refers to another person by the same name, a former Greek MP). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 18:59, 17 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 07:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Stageberg

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG nor WP:NCOLLATH as a former collegiate gymnast. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Florida, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 2 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!} 17:38, 9 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!} 19:41, 16 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 07:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Bon, Hojai

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

The place is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and besides that, the mentioned source is also not notable. SaurabhSaha 16:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Assam. SaurabhSaha 16:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 9 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!} 19:35, 16 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 14:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi

AfDs for this article:

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

Dictionary definition preserved from deletion ages ago for spurious reasons. Solemn1 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't even agree with the NOTDICTIONARY rule, and I still can't find any value to this article. The two sources are a dictionary and an OR link to the Rig Veda. What I can't understand is that it has over 250 edits and has persisted since 2007. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 9 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!} 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wiktionary material. There are few pages linking this, but a look at the use cases only convinced me more. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:10, 23 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 07:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Ahmadian

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

Fails notability, never achieved anything anywhere, he may get a wild card to participate in Paris 2024 but that didn't happened yet. also whoever created the article used lots of fake references to makes it look better. most of Persian references are referring to his brother Amin Ahmadian who is a national team player. Sports2021 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 9 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!} 19:20, 16 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 Draftify‎. No coverage provided to indicate Brecklin is notable now, but there is a path wherein he could be, rendering this helpful. Star Mississippi 21:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kian Breckin

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

Fails GNG. Article was deprodded with the reason being "deprod, coverage looks signiticant". The only independent sourcing is routine contract coverage from the Yorkshire Post and Manchester Evening News. I couldn't find any sigcov of him. Dougal18 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage on the page already looks significant IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft If he makes his league debut, I'd say put back. But really, it's no where near enough coverage at the moment, and certainly the wrong side of WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation. I agree with Govvy above that there's a good chance this individual will become notable, perhaps even in the near future. But as of this moment, the availabe sources fail to establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Actualcpscm. Notability for WP:GNG doesn't seem to be there right now. GuardianH (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if this is an example of TOOSOON, would draftifying be appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn‘t be opposed to draftifying. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Player has now made his debut in the Football League, so would class as notable.Footballgy (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Footballgy Under what guideline does this mean they are notable? Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:03, 17 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 Theresia Gouw and Jennifer Fonstad.‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Ventures

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

Too promotional and does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Has been declined for speedy deletion multiple times. BangJan1999 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. BangJan1999 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both founder's articles. The Wall Street Journal article looks solid, but paywalled so I can't see it; rest look routine. Firm was only around for 5 yrs, so won't have much lasting coverage now. We basically have a stub, that's now a part of both of their (the founders) stories; I'd just incorporate parts in each article and call it a day. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Qcne (talk) 19:34, 16 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. Star Mississippi 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Machine Industries

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Zero non-promotional references. Maintenance tag since 2013. No significant coverage on Google at all. Qcne (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for PROMO. All I find are in industry trade publications ([5]), which don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:NCORP. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:14, 23 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. Remember that sources don't need to be in an article to contribute to establishing notability; see WP:NEXIST. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Style of the Swedish sovereign

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sweden. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too long and involved to be a BS article, but there is minimal sourcing with no inline sources. I'd be willing to give it a pass if we had some kind of coverage. I can't find anything, only articles about sovereigns in general. With one source, this could be seen as a copyvio as well. Oaktree b (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Swedish royal titulature is in fact a subject of serious scrutiny. See, e.g., "Rex Vandalorum" and "What about the Finns:". Srnec (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article needs more RSs, but it passes GNG easily and is eminently encyclopaedic. I see no COPYVIO here at all after reviewing the source. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No sensical reason to delete has been given. The titles and styles of Swedish monarchs are well covered.★Trekker (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where are they covered? I didn't found any coverage in the article!!!! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG with ease indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Kessler

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

Notability not proven. Insufficient RS. Article seems more like a resume rather than an encyclopedic overview. BEFORE found little discussion of this author in mainstream sources, mostly blogs and niche websites. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Science fiction and fantasy. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article needs more citations (which I'll work on adding in the coming days). However, the author has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies along with multiple reviews in Publishers Weekly (see examples 1, 2, is 3), is described as one of her publisher's "rising stars" in this Publishers Weekly article, and also has a number of reviews in Booklist, Library Journal, The Daily Telegraph (see Wikipedia Library for all these). All of that is enough to prove this person meets our WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once you add these, I'll be happy to withdraw the AfD. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per SouthernNights, plus other reviews in School Library Journal, VOYA (magazine), etc. LadyofShalott 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to meet WP:GNG per above comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at her Internet Speculative Fiction Database page, more reviews are listed, e.g. for her novel Rage, there is a Realms of Fantasy review [6]; for her co-authored novel Black and White, there is an Interzone review [7]; for her co-authored novel Shades of Gray, there is an Analog Science Fiction and Fact review [8]. She is also known as Jackie Morse Kessler; with this name, I found four reviews online at Kirkus Reviews [9] and a review at the NY Journal of Books. Based on existing sources identified in this discussion, WP:AUTHOR notability seems well-supported by reviews of her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews discussed above support that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:21, 19 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dope As Yola

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

Non-notable artist. Does not have coverage under WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Recreated after draftification — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, United States of America, and California. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems to come down to if someone feels that a Forbes article is justification alone for a wikipedia page. The article is centered entirely on this content creator and Forbes is a major publication, but other than that there is little else (the "Significant Coverage" aspect of GNG has some room for interpretation here). A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No, that Forbes article is just 80% quotes from the subject — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe most journalistic interviews are "80% quotes from the subject". A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is fine, their contributor blogs are not. Frankly, between those blogs and their "branded" overseas versions that are straight up paid placement, you need to look closely at anything coming from them. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like not enough reliable sources have covered this topic to write an encyclopedia article. Every source but one is a self-published YouTube video. 17:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elspea756 (talk • contribs)
Delete The Forbes material is a disclaimed contributor blog; see WP:FORBESCON. The rest is self-published YouTube videos and primary sources. I scanned for anything that looked even remotely notable and found only blogs, scrapers, and other junk sources. Note that I moved a previous incarnation of this article to draft at Draft:Dope As Yola, and had removed many junk sources. I left a message on the author's talk page about the type of sourcing needed for BLPs, but that does not appear to have worked. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have misinterpreted the YouTube channel and stories as fake or non-reliable as many other interviews have been used as citations or that I've at least seen. I think that in a completely realistic view, most of the things about a person are from their own perspective and what they say. Only exceptions are records or second hand views that also come from a person who isn't considered reliable as everything and everyone can see things from a different perspective. It seems unjust to remove the page I've created as the person/subject is the largest cannabis YouTuber and influencer there is. Some of the points you made are valid but I see that most things that you commented on are just opinions about the creator. Many pages on Wikipedia are cited from the persons own stories but it seems like something is wrong with the citations I made when others have much looser and un verified citations. CriminalResearcherFinland (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forbes seems ok-ish, but it's an interview mostly. We'd need a few other strong sources, which we don't have. Outside of PR stuff, this one line mention in Variety is all there is (that I can find) [10]. Delete for lack of RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially WP:TOOSOON - though I'm inclined to agree that a single contributor interview does not confer enough notability. While things like subscriber counts are not supposed to be used formally to assess notability, 1.5 million is additionally not 'that many' in 2023 where it would potentially contribute some level of inherent notability. A MINOTAUR (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that notability is met per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The Forbes citation is poor for two reasons, it's basically an interview which is a primary source, the person talking about themself – we need independent , secondary reliable sources; secondly it a "generally unreliable" source per WP:RSP because it's WP:FORBESCON material. Netherzone (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a bit more than a passing mention in Variety, and in an online magazine called Herb.co, but totaling it all doesn't make me feel Araujo passes GNG. SWinxy (talk) 20:55, 19 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. Cleanup can continue outside of this discussion. Star Mississippi 21:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Europe

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

WP:OR WP:SYNTH, full of generalisations and out-of-context quote mining of contradictory definitions. Already removed a lot of bogus sources that were nothing more than googling for a term and then citing whatever comes up, ignoring context, disregarding inconsistencies in an uncritical pursuit of confirming one's own beliefs. Most additions were done by now-blocked User:Madreterra (blocked for.... "persistent addition of unsourced content)". My prod was deprodded by Necrothesp, who thought it needs to go for a full AfD, so here it is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwestern Europe now also in AfD for similar reasons. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, WP:OR WP:SYNTH are both applicable to this article. Conceptually I can see how a wiki page on Northwestern Europe could be defensible and a great page, but in its current form this isn't close to that. Vote delete WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no solid conceptual ground either, because the term is only used sparingly, in wildly different contexts, and everyone defines it ad hoc, for the purposes of whatever story they want to tell, or whatever research they want to do, or whatever graph they want to show. There is no long-term commitment to "Northwestern Europe" as an enduring concept and analytical category in the sources that I checked, and therefore no commitment to defining it consistently. In other words: everyone makes it up as they go along, and this article is an arbitrary sample of people making definitions up as they go along. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My edit summaries may help explain just how random and SYNTH it all is. As I noted, most references are a URL which is literally someone typing in the words "northwestern europe is defined as" into Google Books, clicking on whatever looks cool, copypasting the URL into this page and then thinking they've "proven" something, disregarding contradictions and context. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Regions of Europe. Reviewing the sources, it seems some don't even use the term "Northwestern Europe", and in others they use a lowercase "northwestern Europe", using simple compass directions in a brief usage without defining a specific region. Perhaps Nordic race should have more relevant geographic discussion with those sources, but I agree that this article seems like synthesis because there's not much discussion of the region as a whole and how it may be consistently described. The ethnographic definitions seem like broad generalizations that are rarely consistent with geography. One can make directional references to any place with one's own definition, but without more established meaning than pointing out the obvious of what "northwest" and "europe" mean, or finding more in-depth and universal discussion, I don't see the need for this. Reywas92^Talk 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. Looking at other Wiki articles, it appears to be quite specifically defined by the EU as a development region, in addition to its rather looser cultural definitions. So although it may be poorly sourced and written, my sense is that it definitely worth a topic as a geographical area tightly defined by a major international body and also, more loosely, but nonetheless meaningfully by historians, geographers and other specialists. Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it appears to be quite specifically defined by the EU as a development region What do you base that on? The European Union is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway, the UK (unfortunately), and Switzerland are not even in the EU. How is the EU supposed to define a set of countries a "development region" if it has no jurisdiction over half of them? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RE: [The development region] is not mentioned anywhere in the article. It is now. Guliolopez (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So "North-West Europe" is an interreg comprising "Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Netherlands and parts of France and Germany." As I suspected this excludes Iceland, Faroe Islands, Norway, UK, but also Sweden and Denmark, and "parts of France and Germany", and also Switzerland. Completely different from the given definition and map. Starting to think this should be a DP if anything. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And remove or cleanup the OR/SYNTH. Based on the sources returned in my own WP:BEFORE (some of which I've added to the article), it seems that the topic (the term) has notability and a breadth of coverage in geographic, history, military and other works. While, per the nom, the article has become a COATRACK for OR, SYNTH and editorial on ethnographic and genetic content (neither section being, to my read and per the notes in the nom, supported by the linked sources), those issues can be addressed without deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your improvements. As noted above, I'm starting to think this is going to become a list of definitions about different things rather than an article. But even if we were to make this a DP, I'm afraid all entries would fail WP:GNG.

E.g. interreg#Strand B: transnational cooperation shows these are temporary programmes. Interreg North Sea Programme is the only one with a standalone article and I'm not sure it meets GNG either. If it does, and this NWE programme as well, then this whole article must be renamed and rescoped and purged to fit the interreg project, otherwise it is still a WP:COATRACK. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed more SYNTHed and UNSOURCED stuff that were reductionist generalisations about religion and language families. Simplistic attempts to cast "Northwestern Europe" as "Germanic" and "Protestant" seem like ethnolinguistic pan-nationalist ideas, and are probably the reason why "Germanic-speaking Europe" and "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" were included in the See also section. I had already removed the latter as being too tangentially connected, but we should probably be removing the former as well. Given that the purported region is home to millions of speakers of Romance, Uralic, Celtic, Turkic, Semitic and other non-Germanic language families, as well as being home to millions of Catholics, atheists/agnostics/humanists, Muslims, and other non-Protestants, such generalisations really don't pass the pub test. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm considering either declaring this an unnecessary content fork or a valid entity discussed in academic literature. Awaiting further comments. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real geography, supported by WP:SIGCOV quality sources, just lesser used. WP should absolutely also carry and discuss these. In other cases, nominator addresses the WILD GROWTH of articles around such geographies, organizations or ethnicities, nominations I support. Here he is questioning whether we should keep the core in such cases. According to WP:NEXIST, we should. No concern here of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:COATRACK beyond minor stuff that can be removed in simple cleanup. And WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP! The concept is out there, recognized, just not that frequently used in comparison to other subdivisions of Europe. gidonb (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Europe; Volume II: the North-West: Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel. Chisholm, Geo. G. Published by Edward Stanford, London, 1902.
Monkhouse , Francis J. The Geography of Northwestern Europe. New York: Praeger, 1966. 528p.
Boesch, H., Monkhouse, F. J. (1967) The Geography of Northwestern Europe. Economic Geography, 43 (4). 369pp. doi:10.2307/143256
North Western Europe: A Systematic Approach. Morris, Joseph Acton. UK: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1973. ISBN 9780174440307

gidonb (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - indeed real geography per WP:SIGCOV quality sources.BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 20 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. Note: This page is listed as "2nd nomination", but that appears to be due to an error in creating the discussion; there is no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeez Issa Adesiji and I found no evidence of a previous AfD or proposed deletion nomination. RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azeez Issa Adesiji

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Azeez Issa Adesiji (2nd nomination)

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

I think this page should be deleted because it is not notable enough. Also, I think this page should be deleted because it is an orphan, I can't find any links using https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/Azeez_Issa_Adesiji. History6042 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article clearly fails WP:BIO. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 20:03, 17 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 speedy keep‎. now that Delete outcome has been struck. A discussion of a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night)

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

Meets GNG, but could be merged into the symphony of the night, doubt that an individual game mechanic deserves its own article. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - An unnecessary WP:SPLIT that in no way has enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. The sources that aren't just listcruft/churnalism articles that are generally not considered valid for establishing notability are reviews and coverage of the game and series as a whole, which of course mention the setting as part of that coverage, but not to the extent that there is enough to support a separate article. And, on top of the sourcing problem, this is a clear example of WP:NOPAGE, where any kind of coverage or discussion of the game's setting would make far more sense on the main article for the game rather than split out. The castle (and its inverted counterpart) are already covered as part of the main Castlevania: Symphony of the Night article, and the reception section there even has some coverage of reviewers thoughts on the castle/inverted castle. I suppose I would have no objection to Redirect, per WP:CHEAP, but I honestly don't see this title as a useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not at least merge some of the content, if we decide that this should not have a page? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I mentioned, the castle's role in the plot, the existence of the inverted castle, the development of it, and reviewers thoughts on it, are already covered on the main SotN article, so I really don't think a merge would be necessary at this point. I suppose I have no strong objections if people feel there is something worth merging, but its leaving this as a standalone article is the possibility that I definitely do not agree with. Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am honestly still not close to convinced that this subject warrants a WP:SPLIT, but as its obvious that this not going to result in anything but a Keep at this time, in no small part due to the improper rationale in the nomination, I have struck my recommendation above, to allow this to be closed early. Rorshacma (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was my first real deletion discussion, I still have a lot to learn, but I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Thank you! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could do another more competent deletion request to show how a proper deletion request is done. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator admitted that it meets GNG. A merge discussion would have been more appropriate. Even then, I do not think it should be merged. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a possible outcome of AFD. Meeting the GNG is not an auto-close scenario of an AFD. Please discuss the merits of the nomination rather than grumbling about venue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I guess I should have looked more closely at the page. Merge whatever should be merged, but this should at least stay as a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I would like to say that my !vote did discuss the merits, it just was not well-researched. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per WP:SK #1 - the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. The rationale for deletion was "doubt that an individual game mechanic deserves its own article", which is incorrect, as there are countless articles on Wikipedia about individual game mechanics. It boils down to WP:WEDONTNEEDIT but without a real explanation why we don't. The AfD gives the false impression that articles about game mechanics are banned on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For those who don't feel like checking for sources, here are the ones that prove GNG is passed: [11] [12] [13] [14] There are certainly others that one may or may not see as significant coverage, but I am confident there are enough the level can stand on its own... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, this article passes GNG. The nominator's rationale that "a video game mechanic doesn't deserve its own article" is inherently flawed, given we have articles such as the Water Temple and Rainbow Road on Wikipedia. No rationale is given as to why this should be merged beyond this reasoning, and the article itself has significant reception to the point where its existence is justified. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; the sources found by Zxcvbnm prove this locations independent notability, and a game mechanic / setting can infact justify its own article, with No Russian and Dust II being perfect examples. This nomination I feel falls under IDONTLIKEIT, even with the admission of GNG being passed? NegativeMP1 (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator does not argue any deletion or even merge rationale, instead appears to simply express their own opinion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notability is not the only reason to start a deletion discussion. But what would it be otherwise? I guess that could fall unter WP:DEL-REASON #5, being a contentfork, but that only applies "unless a merger or redirect is appropriate". So I think the deletion process should not be used to lead a merge discussion, even though merge is one possible outcome. One can discuss if this is a case of WP:NOPAGE. But I see little overlap in the current versions of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night , and we have two not-so-small stand-alone articles. So I think they should be kept separate. Daranios (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After giving it more thought, I think I will go back to Keep It is a well-written article on a notable element of a video game. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per everything said.★Trekker (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let it snow keep per ZX's sources and the lack of clear rationale from the nom. Conyo14 (talk) 21:31, 17 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. Initial participants disagreed about the standard of notability to apply, and there was no further participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krzesin Landscape Park

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

Non-notable landscape park stub with no references, even the Polish version has only 2 references with none of them being independent and one of the references doesn't even work. Fails WP:GNG Crainsaw (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Crainsaw (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find sources to establish notability — Karnataka ^talk 12:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know about you, but in my country, an 85 square km park is a big park, especially in densely populated Europe. This satellite image gives a sense of just how big it is -- is the large forested area in the middle between different villages. There's a 92 hectare area in the middle that's the Rezerwat przyrody Młodno ("Młodno Nature Reserve"), a protected peat bog.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this official government link to a page about the park is sufficient to establish notability per the special requirements of "Notability (geographic features)". It's legal recognition by the government. It does not have to be independent of the government since this is a geographic article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 9 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!*} 15:19, 16 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 Earl of Morton. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Douglas, 22nd Earl of Morton

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

Scottish landowner and nobleman who fails WP:GNG, with no claim to fame. The sources which cover the 22nd earl are either not secondary, not independent, not reliable, and/or fail to provide significant coverage. This earl also never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his title post-1999.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz**
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"The Scotsman". The Scotsman. Retrieved 3 August 2023.	1x passing mention. This obituary is about the father. Not SIGCOV.	✘ No
Mosley, Charles, ed. (2003). Burke’s Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage. Burke's Peerage. ISBN 978-0-9711966-2-9.	WP:TERTIARY source (it's a reference work), does not meet the GNG requirement of being a secondary source. Also not significant coverage, routine genealogical information (DOB, married to, children).	✘ No
"'Lady' in need of better luck". henleystandard.co.uk. Retrieved 15 July 2021.	1x passing mention. Not SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Possible redirect target: Earl of Morton. Pilaz (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Pilaz (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:1877:1728:C421:31DB (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Earl of Morton as proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Is fair. This article seems fit for deletion, as there's no real notability or aspect of interest aside from the most devoted of genealogical scholars - so a redirect is also fitting. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:31, 16 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 Descendants (2015 film)#Prequel spin-off. RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants: School of Secrets

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

Can't find any significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG; article's only citations are primary sources, WP:IMDB and a TV Guide listing (reliable but not SIGCOV). Pamzeis (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Disney, and United States of America. Pamzeis (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per Cunard, fails GNG and already covered (albeit with poor sourcing) at Descendants (2015 film)#Prequel spin-off. I'm able to find a few other mentions in potentially reliable sources, but they don't constitute SIGCOV. I'll also note that the TV Guide listing is dead and none of the IA copies seem to be usable. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Edited: 18:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Descendants (2015 film)#Prequel spin-off (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 20 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 Earl of Cavan. Other subjects can be discussed separately on their respective merits. Star Mississippi 21:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Lambart, 13th Earl of Cavan

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

Nobleman of the peerage of Ireland with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Earls are not inherently notable. Possible redirect target: Earl of Cavan. Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Ireland. Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Cavan. Per nom, the very recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Anthony Nugent, 13th Earl of Westmeath and WP:PEERAGE#Notability, people are not automatically notable by virtue of holding a hereditary title. If a subject's claim to notability arises, as it seems to here, *entirely* from the title they hold, then cover them in the article on the title. Otherwise it's a form of WP:BIO1E (where the "one event" is their birth; Or perhaps death of a relative). Otherwise, if all we can say is that the subject exists, went to school and holds a title, and the only sources (to support even that) are trivial mentions in short directory-style peerage entries, then that doesn't add up to SIGCOV or notability. My own WP:BEFORE search did not return any significant coverage. (Even a Google search seems *only* to return the related Wikipedia article(s) and mirrors.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted than Michael Lambart, 12th Earl of Cavan, Richard Lambart, 6th Earl of Cavan, Ford Lambart, 5th Earl of Cavan, Richard Lambart, 4th Earl of Cavan, and Richard Lambart, 2nd Earl of Cavan should all be deleted too. History6042 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? In the same way that notability isn't automatic/inherited, "lack of notability" isn't automatic/transferred/"contagious" either. One of those people, Richard Lambart, 2nd Earl of Cavan, seems to have been an MP for the Kilbeggan constituency, and so may meet WP:NPOL. For example. While Ford Lambart, 5th Earl of Cavan seems to have been a big deal in Masonic circles, and has been covered in works on that topic. Which might contribute to notability. There doesn't seem to be similar/other "claims to notability" in the case of the subject under discussion here. Guliolopez (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Guliolopez here, there are some which meet WP:NPOL and each should be judged on its own merits. With that being said, I see plenty of poorly-sourced articles, and if after a rigorous WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator they are seen as not compliant with the GNG, I could see them being nominated for deletion. Pilaz (talk) 22:42, 16 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adalberto Velasco

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Mexico. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I was not able to find any reliable sources. Shadow345110 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for being mayors, unsuccessful candidates for higher office are not "inherently" notable just for being candidates, and this article is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Certainly shy of meeting NPOL, being a mayor of a relatively small town, for a short period of time, and a failed electoral candidate. Found a couple of sources on his more recent work as president of the Jalisco Livestock Union,[15][16] but I'm not sure they're enough to show a pass of GNG. IceBergYYC (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced article clearly fails WP:GNG, and unlikely to bootstrap into notability. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (game)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. After searching all I could find was about the Vector (video game) not this game. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:24, 17 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. I'm concerned with the language used here in the Keep opinions ("seems to meet", "appears to pass") which shows a lack of precision and confidence about the sourcing in the article but it doesn't worry me enough to relist this discussion unless the nominator objects to this closure. This closure is also influenced by the fact that there wasn't strong support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USAF Heritage Flight

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of news coverage at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22USAF+Heritage+Flight%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of it WP:SIGCOV. "Lots" implies quantity, not quality. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was as far as I could take it. I feel like it merits a mention somewhere, however there's no mention of the flight in History of the United States Air Force and United_States_Air_Force only mentions the planes. Absent a target, I guess it's weak delete. Star Mississippi 02:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that it seems to meet WP:GNG. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:05, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

URL Snooper

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 16 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. The reason for deletion in the original nomination was not clearly related to our policies. However, since at least one contributor believed the subject is not notable, I am not treating this as a "speedy keep". That said, a majority of participants did not agree with either reason for deletion. Regarding the concerns expressed by User:Belfasty in the nomination, if there are legal issues about the existence or content of the article, please follow the advice given at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects: 'If you have a genuine legal concern, tell us about it by emailing [email protected] with "Legal concern" in the subject line, and giving the exact URL of the article, and what you think is wrong.' RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Smyth (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

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

This page and the content of it may be used, along with the personal details contained within, to harass and committ criminal offences, some which could be classed as serious crime, against the named subject of this page. The continuation of this page, and the content within, can create risks including risks against the life of the individual named. A Police report to support the deletion is available if required, I need an email address to send that too just. Belfasty (talk) 14:10, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Nothing mentioned by the nominator (who has elsewhere declared a COI, if not paid editing status, with this article) is within Wikipedia's guidelines for deleting an article. Smith's appearances for the Northern Ireland international team are readily verified (as is her date of birth, which is generally relevant for athletes). —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other areas of data content are being removed. This breaches G10 and should therefore be removed in line with this. Belfasty (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other content relates to her football, and it's verifiable. There is nothing within the article that is anywhere close to being attack content. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons for the requested deletion are not reasons to delete. I don't see anything in the article that disparages, threatens, intimidates, or harasses the subject of the article G10 or some other entity and serve no other purpose. The individual qualifies under notability guidelines as being a sports figure on a national team.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Viewmont, Thank you. The content in isolation may not solely breach G10, however, the details within along with other information in legal matters not suitable for this forum(also being deleted) is leading to issues which fall under G10 so they are massively contributing to them. This is a former sports figure, not current, and the content is inaccurate in certain parts complicating it further. The person the article relates too is requesting removal. Belfasty (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. BBC source is OK, but best I can find other than this which I don't think is enough. If sources are found please ping me. NB - nomination is nonsense and OP should not be editing about this topic due to COI. Giant Snowman 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the reasoning that borders on WP:NLT alone. I would be neutral, but I believe the reasoning of the nominator is flawed enough to make me sit on the "keep" side of the line. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smyth is notable due to being a member of the Northern Ireland national football team. Also, the nominator has not provided anything which could be considered grounds for deleting the article. Geordie (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Playing for a national team no longer means a person is notable. We delete lots of articles for national team players every day. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per WP:CSK point 1. An article may be speedy kept if the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion, which is clearly the case here, as no Wikipedia policy-based grounds have been given. No objection to another editor nominating this in future if they actually invoke some relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to WP:CSK #1, as per Joseph2302. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - No reason was given in why it should be deleted. Article seems ok. Shadow345110 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per WP:CSK point 1 cited by Joseph2302. Seany91 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leep passes GNG and CSK.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:50, 21 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, per comments below and WP:G5 (Amansharma111) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yudister Narayan

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

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople. The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of various awards, but not every award that exists on earth is an automatic notability clincher -- the extent to which any award constitutes a notability claim depends on the notability of the award, meaning that the award itself also has to be able to pass GNG on reliable source coverage about the award as well.
But other than the bulletpointed award list, the only other content here is of the "he is a person who exists" variety, and that isn't referenced to GNG-worthy citations either: two of the four footnotes are duplicated repetition of his own self-published press release on two different press release distribution platforms, one is a short blurb on a WordPress blog, and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage about somebody else.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding enough on an online search to substantiate the notability per WP:NARTIST, WP:NMODEL nor buisness people per WP:GNG. What aI do find are things like social media and what looks like paid placement native advertising neither of which are relevant for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My WP:BEFORE search does not turn up reliable sources on the the subject. asianewsnetwork article throws up security warning. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 18 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beavis and Butt-Head characters

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

I don't think the idea of a list of B&B characters is inherently a bad idea. However, the overwhelming size of the list (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE) along with the lack of verification and reliable sources (WP:V) for many of the characters listed is of concern to me. I think an ideal way of doing this type of list would be similar to how List of The Simpsons characters handles it, but to get there would require a massive undertaking. I think a better idea would be to just start from scratch per WP:TNT.

~~I did post my concerns on the talk page of this article but didn't get a response after about a week.~~ Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, Lists, and United States of America. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Beavis and Butthead fan, but I agree with the nominator's rationale of TNT. There are so many characters listed that I sincerely doubt all of them need to be in this list. That being said, I'll vote Weak Keep so long as the article gets cleanup, but this should preferably be done by someone with more familiarity with the franchise than me. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with this take. It's a reasonable page that needs a lot of work. Vote weak keep as well. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nothing weak about it: deletion is not a solution for articles that suck, that's what editing--including deletion of specific content within the article that is useless or inappropriate--is for. Deletion is for things where no article should exist OR in the exceptional case where editing cannot fix the problems. Neither of those applies here. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start with editing it though? In my opinion, any list would need to include recurring characters from the show at the minimum, but all of the added detail and the guest appearances to me seems an unnecessary addition, as well as all the exposition and WP:OR. I mean, it is a massive undertaking. I think we are talking about basically overhauling the entire article anyway regardless of if this gets kept. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And...? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something to say? Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant now it's been withdrawn, but "overhauling the entire article" and it being "a massive undertaking" are not reasons for deletion. They're challenges. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs to be edited properly, not deleted. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is not cleanup. TNT might apply when something is just completely, totally, and utterly unsalvageable, which is not the case here. It just needs some added context. Not having the ability to clean it up yourself does not mean it's impossible to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, many existing articles are poorly sourced and written. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, I learned something today. I'll take a stab at fixing the article, although again, admittedly I'm not sure what can be done other than chopping off a huge portion of it. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat I know SFA about Beavis & Butthead... Suggestion would be to pick a threshold for appearances (3 episodes? 5?) and slice off anyone who doesn't meet it (they can always be recovered from page history if someone argues they're significant). There's also a fair bit of OR in there, e.g. " A parody of fitness guru Tony Little (Take a Lap)" that arguably either needs citing or chopping. It's questionable whether "Dating Service Manager" for example is even really a character. There are a lot of quotes in there, a few of which just seem to be favourite gags of whoever wrote them. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:23, 17 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. No clear reason to delete first so I have not done so. Star Mississippi 21:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Prescod May-Parker

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Is seemingly a case of WP:BLP1E. Redirecting to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems wise here. Let'srun (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect per nominator, as article creator. Safiel (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails GNG, there's just this one event. Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies.Jacona (talk) 19:21, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant, Kansas

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

GNIS permastub from a removed listing. Whereas Mount Pleasant Township is a real census area, there appears to have never been any town called Mount Pleasant; only a lone post office. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worst case something about it can be included in the article that OP mentions but as a standalone with little evidence that it actually existed, no. Darron4 (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. History of Kansas at https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof00andr/page/402/mode/2up (page 403, reference already in article) describes Mount Pleasant as "the town site of Mount Pleasant, Mount Pleasant Township", which I think means the urbanized area of the township as distinct from the surrounding rural area. This is followed by brief biographies of residents, suggesting that considerable work went into that chapter, not just scanning maps looking for place names. I looked for the coordinates included in the article, 39°26'52.0"N 95°08'16.0"W. Google Maps shows several buildings (which apparently are all part of one farm) at the intersection of Rawlins Road and 222nd Road, but no Street View images or names of occupants. There is more urbanization near https://goo.gl/maps/2eB8GVUg47KHwed36 , which is a bit to the south and which Google Maps shows as 18343 KS-74, Atchison, KS 66002. I don't think we can ignore the historical evidence of History of Kansas, but I don't know whether 18343 KS-74, Atchison, KS 66002 is Mount Pleasant or not. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Lippincott-Gazzeteer of 1880 said it had a population of around 1300 along with two churches, so WP:GEOLAND is satisfied. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and thanks to Eastmain for coming up with the definitive source via Internet Archive. I've added that source to the history section, so this should never have to come up again. — Maile (talk) 18:08, 16 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 12:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Effortel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have been a poorly sourced, promotional piece since its creation in 2010. No evidence that the company is notable. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL there doesn't seem to be any indication that this is more than just a regular non-notable company. Darron4 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Darron4 and 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 above. This article's only citations are internal, no evidence of it being noteworthy, an most substantive editing has been done by someone with a COI. RFZYNSPY ^talk 18:37, 16 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. Keep, delete, redirect, merge this way, merge that way – this had no shortage of differing opinions, but not any consensus for one of them. RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Canary (Dinah Laurel Lance)

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

Plot summary unnecessarily split from Black Canary where I suggest this should be merged as a SOFTDELETE option. As a stand-alone article, this fails WP:GNG. Primarily just fictional character biography and a list of media appearances. Reception consists of "IGN rated her its 81st-greatest all-time comic book hero. She was number 26 on Comics Buyer's Guide's "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list." which just confirms this as niche WP:FANCRUFTy character with no real-world impact. Black Canary is probably notable (probably - the reception at that article is as bad as here), but we certainly don't need two subarticles about her comic variants. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm wondering. Have you read Wikipedia:Summary style - jc37 07:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Including WP:AVOIDSPLIT, yes. You may want to refresh yourself on that part. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the pages need to be merged, perhaps it would be easier to insert the content from Black Canary and rename this page? (Yes, I'm new, and this may be a stupid question.) Rhishisikk (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhishisikk What content would you like to insert where, exactly, and how would you rename the current article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. It was split in order to keep the page from being overcrowded. That was one of the reasons why @Jhenderson777: split this character off from the Black Canary page among other similar split-offs. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:46, 5 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!} 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dinah Laurel Lance's origin story is very confusing, even with dedicated fans. The true Black Canary is Dinah Drake, a character developed in the 40's and a member of the Justice Society. The hero was revised in the 60's by giving her powers and enrolling her into the Justice League. But it was the same character. Not until the 80's that this supposed daughter and idiotic storyline of hers appeared, because she was "too old" to hold the mantle. Very ageist and sexist. I think the two articles covering Black Canary should be merged, because there is truly only one heroine. --Irimia florin 11:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Canary - I have pretty much the exact same thoughts as I wrote on the concurrent AFD for Black Canary (Dinah Drake). This is a clear WP:NOPAGE situation where covering the entirety of the topic of "Black Canary" in a single article just works better than splitting it out into three different articles, as it provides needed context and removes confusing navigation. Rorshacma (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. There isn't WP:SIGCOV to create three separate articles about this fiction. The sources cover this as a singular topic, not three. (Also noting support for merge among delete and keep !votes, per WP:ATD.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Delete, Redirect Merge, I still see no consensus among participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 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 Therianthropy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Animorphism

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

Wikipedia already has a page for this at therianthropy. However, I am nominating this for AfD rather than simply redirecting it because I cannot find mention of this term in the slightest outside of a TVTropes page, meaning it violates WP:NOTNEO as likely just a neologism someone made up one day. It merits a discussion on whether the term is actually a relevant one, and if it is a separate topic rather than a complete overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 9 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, Mythology, and Spirituality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ Unless I am missing something completely, I can't see how I cannot find mention of this term in the slightest outside of a TVTropes page comes about. There are non-TVTropes sources which use the term already in the article. The usual Google Books and Google Scholar searches provide numerous hits, including the Lexical Semantics for Terminology and the The Routledge Companion to Literature and Disability. So no, this is not a neologism made up by users of TVTropes or Wikipedia editors. I did not check if this is notable in it's own right or a WP:CONTENTFORK of therianthropy, but as the nominator stated, that would not be a deletion discussion then. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Hey there, i saw that you left a message on my talk page, thank you for that! I wrote the article as it was listed on the wikipedia red link, upon reading up about it i found some academic articles mentioning it.

Based on my brief interpretation of the 2 items, I believe that Therianthropy and Animorphism differ in how Animorphism is only used as a literary device and trope in fiction. However Therianthropy also contains psychiatric and psychological aspects which extends beyond the realm of fiction and can be seen in modern day as forms of hallucination or psychiatric disorders.

I've added more academic articles if you still require evidence of it's mention. But as User:Daranios mentioned, there are multiple mentions outside TVTrope. Therefore I too will dispute that this article warrants deletion on the basis of "violates WP:NOTNEO" as WP:NOTNEO mentions "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction)."

Source 4 in the article reference: "Animorphism in the anthropocene: nonhuman personhood in activist art practice" mentions the word "Animorphism" 41 times in the whole journal entry, thus it does not simply "use the term" but stretches the usage of "animorphism" to philosophy.

As of now there are currently 6 other academic sources in the Animorphism article which discusses animorphism and make mention of it as a medium for furthering the hypothesis of their academic article.Intuivo (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather unsure what "nonhuman personhood" as described in the cited thesis has to do with transforming into animals. Although it may be a moot point, since WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", and I am uncertain if that one does.

There may be uses of the term in various places but my point stands that it seems to be a neologism that is totally unlisted in dictionaries, or the article conflates different and unrelated uses of the term that mean different things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Nonhuman personhood is the point I make below: older sources often seem to understand the term as related to animism and personification. There is a danger that sources are added uncritically to this page that equivocate on what is meant. The page must not equivocate on terms or else other deletion reasons will be cited (TNT in particular). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ or redirect to therianthropy - but any redirect would have to be a "redirect with possibilities". The article could do with some attention, particularly to establish how it differs from therianthropy, but it is clear that the term is widely covered in a large array of secondary sources. Per Daranios' searches, the term is used widely, understood and appears to have an overlapping defintion with therianthropy, whilst not being a subset of it - and this particularly around the TV tropes mentioned by the nom. It is interesting that the word does not appear in the OED, nor other dictionaries I have checked. But dictionaries are, like Wikipedia, lagging indicators of the notability of a word. The fact it is used in literature and in academic contexts does suggest there is a subject here. I caveat my own remarks, however, with a recognition that in the literature where this term is being used, it is frequently used within quotes ("animorphism") suggesting the author is intending a neologism (see nom's concerns regarding WP:NOTNEO), or, and this particularly the cases more than 10 years old, it may not be used as per the description on this page. for instance Hartman (1999) defines the term to mean something much closer to personification (page 49). (c.f. animism) Despite this, I don't think the subject fails GNG, so the only real question for editors is to what extent that this is different from therianthropy, and to what extent that merits its own page.

Hartman, C O. (1999) The Long View London : Wesleyan University Press

-- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with therianthropy. Both articles seem to be about the same concept. "Animorphism is the ability of a character to transform into an animal" - "Therianthropy is the mythological ability or affliction of individuals to metamorphose into animals". Unless a source can be found that clarifies the distinction, I think this is a case of someone "reinventing" an obscure term, and coining a synonym. WP:CONTENTFORK applies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to therianthropy, as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I would be open to changing my !vote if there was significant coverage talking about how these are different. But it seems the evidence points towards these being the same, if not closely related. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to therianthropy, which is further developed and superior, but is currently missing a mention of "Animorphism". Being fictional, these two closely releated concepts have no inherent differences to justify two separate articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There won't be a Speedy Keep here but there are clearly those editors arguing that sources validate this article while others believe it should be Redirected or Merged. At least there is agreement on a Redirect/Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with therianthropy. I have struck my keep and moving to merge based on ensuing discussion and because of the relist. The topic is notable but no evidence has been presented to show it is significantly different from therianthropy to merit an article. The term can be mentioned in that article, and if any difference in focus of the terms can be shown, it could also be discussed there, without requiring its own article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any salvageable (reliably cited) materials with therianthropy, the term is probably just about worth keeping as a vaguely plausible search term (if anybody thinks like that), but the topic is identical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to therianthropy: In view of the later arguments beyond the nomination, it seems to me there is significant overlap, so a merge seems best. I did find one source relating both terms after all, though it is a bit off-handidly and in a pop-culture context, in this Wired article. Judging from a user comment at goodreads.com, the audio book Wolves and Werewolves in History and Popular Culture seems to have something to say on those terms. I guess there is noone around who can/would like to look into that one? Daranios (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marge to therianthropy as per nearly all of the above. The term "animorphism" could benefit from being mentioned in the article as a neologism or an alternate name, but other than that, as people have said above, it's a situation where you have two articles on more or less the same topic. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 16 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meitiv incidents

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

I'm proposing we delete this. The last time this was discussed was 8 years ago, and at that time there was no consensus. But I don't see where there's sustained notability for this topic appropriate for an article. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge to free range parenting, very selectively. Really the only sentence from this that needs to be added to the target is the one about establishing state policy. The article as it stands is yet another argument for not writing articles immediately so we can find out if the topic has any staying power. This oen did not, as there is almost nothing about it after the event occurred. Mangoe (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have become a case study amongst academics, thereby meeting WP:PERSISTENCE / WP:EVENT. This is a non-exhaustive search to demonstrate how commonly this case is covered.
1. Academic book from 2019 (4 years after) with SIGCOV [17]
2. Journal article from 2017, a couple years after the incidents with about 700 words of SIGCOV, (Wiley journal via TWL, [18]
3. Journal from early 2016 with ~260 words, about 8 months after last incident. [19]
4. Law review journal article from 2016, more than a year after the incidents with a few hundred words (via TWL) [20]
5. Law journal article from 2018 (~3 years after) with some SIGCOV (via TWL) [21]

—siro χ o 09:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge to free range parenting, but otherwise keep. Siroxo has demonstrated an argument for notability, but a merge is probably still the best option. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:38, 2 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!} 05:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo, and I do not think that a merge to Free Range Parenting is appropriate. The article is not great, but neither is it uninformative, misleading nor NN, and there is significant room to grow it. This is notable as a case in and of itself (or, technically, set of cases/themselves), not simply as an instance of FRP. For example, the actions of the local protective services may be as significant a case study as the purported neglect they so zealously and destructively pursued. The legal waffling of the various governments both adds notability and presents another dimension in which to enhance the article. It's sad that it has been left to languish, but that seems a poor reason to delete it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This should have been mentioned in nomination statement but the previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meitiv family.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per rationales given above, this is a very notable and famous incident.★Trekker (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources listed above by Siroxo, subject passes WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:10, 18 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 Somali–Kenyan conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhamu Incident

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

There seems to be no sufficient verifiable sources proving that this incident ever happened. The only source cited states that around 30 Kenyan soldiers were killed in a border skirmsh, that's it. Overall this article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG standards. I've done a WP:BEFORE check and couldn't find anything conclusive.

Merge into Somali–Kenyan conflict. I've found some sources [22] [23] [24], so I wouldn't say it didn't happen at all, despite it being difficult finding anything of value. However, it seems a far cry from the 480 Kenyan dead claimed in the article and closer to anything between 6–30, so be careful with what you merge. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kenya, and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge. Also, please remember to sign & date your AFD nomination statements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing here worth merging. The source is weak and the subject appears to be NN at best. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:52, 6 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!} 05:11, 9 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!} 06:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now the article has enough references. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Switching from Delete to Merge - The additional sources added by Лисан аль-Гаиб (thank you!) provides enough to make a solid and valuable paragraph in Somali–Kenyan conflict. I still see no significant notability to warrant a separate article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Somali–Kenyan conflict. Per above arguments محرر البوق (talk) 19:36, 16 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 Move to Dark Beast (Marvel Comics) and redirect to Beast (Marvel Comics)‎. This is one of the more complicated closures I've handled but this seems to be the consensus view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Beast

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

Minor comic book character, plot summary with next to no reception outside the "In 2018, CBR.com ranked Dark Beast 16th in their "Age Of Apocalypse: The 30 Strongest Characters In Marvel's Coolest Alternate World" list." listicle. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to Beast (Marvel Comics)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 2 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dark Beast (Marvel Comics) and redirect to Beast (Marvel Comics). Does not seem notable and even if they were, it would need a complete rewrite. I suggest moving to create a disambiguation page as there are many characters known as "Dark Beast" or "Darkbeast" such as one form of Ganon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while retitling to "Dark Beast (Marvel Comics)" per the suggestion that was made by @Zxcvbnm: or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this a Marvel Comics character? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I got those pages mixed up. It has been corrected right now @Pokelego999:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, just double checking. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made and sources added to the article, or at worst merge per Rtkat3 and WP:PRESERVE, and noting the potential for further sources by BoomboxTestarossa below. BOZ (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @BOZ I respect you but neither you nor @Rtkat3 actually provided any rationale for keeping this. And sourcing by @BoomboxTestarossa seems to be rather theoretical at this point. I'd be happy to see this saved, as usual, if SIGCOV, non-plot coverage of the character were to be found. This hasn't happened yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had also suggested the renaming if the disambiguation link is established and the merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D in my part of the consensus. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Zxcvbnm. This article doesn't pass the WP:GNG. But there is a way to WP:PRESERVE it and even improve the coverage, if it's centralized in one article about the overall character. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 5 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!} 05:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1994 issues of Wizard have some respectable coverage of Age of Apocalypse and 1996 of Onslaught, which IIRC were major stories that featured the Dark Beast in sizeable capacity. Issues are on the Internet Archive even through they probably shouldn't be. TCJ had I think gone full sneer by then but might have some catty reception. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist when there hasn't been much commentary since the last relisting but there are several different proposals floating around in this discussion and none of them have a majority of participating editors supporting any specific one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's suggestion.★Trekker (talk) 18:59, 17 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 A. James Clark School of Engineering. This article requires some Merging as the subject isn't currently mentioned at the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering

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

BEFORE shows no independent SIGCOV; been tagged for notability for >3yrs. AviationFreak💬 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Maryland. AviationFreak💬 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after selectively merging to A. James Clark School of Engineering. This article is obviously written by the center's director if you bother to do a bit of Google search. Graywalls (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above. In my mind, the alternative would be g11 speedy deletion. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:48, 16 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!} 05:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ogebe

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

Article about a preacher that does not satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:ANYBIO. Sources are basically the routine PR for his "Kingdom Coin". No WP:SIGCOV on or for the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTPROMO/spam issues here with the crypto token. —siro χ o 06:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable and clearly satisfies the WP:NBASIC. —Mevoelo (talk)
Keep . The subject meets the WP:GNG However, it can be worked upon in order to improve its quality. Onosco23 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be appreciated if those editors advocating Keep offer sources, in the article or ones found, that supply WP:SIGCOV. Just saying that the subject "is notable" is not very persuasive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's only mentioned in RS for founding a crypto currency. Outside of that, not meeting notability. And I have my doubts about these Nigerian sources, that have a history of "pay to play" articles; crypto certainly fits the bill. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a source assessment table. —siro χ o 05:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources below, only the third source (Punch) is reliable. They are an independent newspaper company based in Nigeria and have a Wiki article [25]. The source itself is NOT independent due to the quotes. Conyo14 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ogebe only appears to be notable in the context of his crypto stuff, which is what almost all sources in the article are about. If anything, that currency should have an article instead.Cortador (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
FireClan[26]			not about subject	✘ No
Nobelie[27]	heavily sources facebook with almost no analysis thereof		not about subject	✘ No
punch[28] (listed twice)	This is almost entirely quoted from web press copy.	[29]		✘ No
guardian.ng[30]	This has no credited author, just an "Editor" byline, which seems to be paid content. It references the same press copy.	no credited author and no editorial practices	~ very little about subject	✘ No
gistmania[31]	~ seems to rely heavily on subject, eg Apostle Joel Ogebe grew up in northern Nigeria where he had his own fair share of the challenges of humanity.	seems to be a forum, while they claim a modicum editorial pratices[32], I am not even sure they do fact-checking. I don't think it can be considered generally reliable, and given the dependence on the subject this article would be no more reliable than the site	~	✘ No
The New Man[33]	seems to be paid content	[34]		✘ No
Independent.ng[35]	relies almost entirely on web press copy		very little about subject	✘ No
Crypto News BTC[36]	WP:NCRYPTO, web press copy			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per above source assessment.-KH-1 (talk) 00:10, 17 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 Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Button station

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

Insignificant railroad flag stop. Literally just a post along the tracks with no significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like other flag stop stations that are today only a signpost, this was probably a staffed building 90 years ago in an era when more people were needed to run a railway. I can't easily confirm this, but I suspect that this is a case of "Once notable, always notable". Even if the present-day appearance is unimpressive, it probably was once notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think thats likely, flag stops on VIA Rail are literally flag down the train. Jumpytoo Talk 04:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These flag stops are in the middle of goddamn nowhere in the Canadian tundra. There never were settlements or much of anything. These speculative and assumption-filled comments really aren't helpful. If it's notable, can you present even a single shred of evidence? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train as WP:ATD Jumpytoo Talk 04:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems sensible. I do understand once-notable, always notable, but sometimes an individual article isn't the best way to present information to our readers. If there is nothing to say about this stop except that it exists, we can do that more efficiently in the form of a list at the main railroad's article. I'll change my view if anyone finds interesting stuff to say about it. Elemimele (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations on this line that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep forest. It’s kilometers from any settlement. It serves the occasional hunter or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:31, 16 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 Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back station

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

Insignificant railroad flag stop. Literally just a post along the tracks with no significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train as WP:ATD Jumpytoo Talk 04:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like other flag stop stations that are today only a signpost, this was probably a staffed building 90 years ago in an era when more people were needed to run a railway. I can't easily confirm this, but I suspect that this is a case of "Once notable, always notable". Even if the present-day appearance is unimpressive, it probably was once notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations on this line that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest and bogs. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. It serves the occasional canoeist or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:24, 16 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 Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arnot station

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

Insignificant railroad flag stop. Literally just a post along the tracks with no significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train as WP:ATD Jumpytoo Talk 04:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like other flag stop stations that are today only a signpost, this was probably a staffed building 90 years ago in an era when more people were needed to run a railway. I can't easily confirm this, but I suspect that this is a case of "Once notable, always notable". Even if the present-day appearance is unimpressive, it probably was once notable. Googling Arnot station is difficult because there's an Arnot Power Station in South Africa. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations on this line that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. It serves the occasional hunter or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:25, 16 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 Bane in other media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bane (Antonio Diego)

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

Fails to meet either criteria of WP:NFILMCHAR. If not deleted, I think this article can also be merged to the "Film" section of Bane in other media. WuTang94 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WuTang94 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an AfD outcome. GNG is presumably met by NYT and MSN coverage already in the article, and the nom fails to articulate BEFORE results or do a source analysis of these existing references. Having said that, a non-AfD merge discussion is entirely reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bane in other media. The MSM article could count for GNG, but the NY Times looks to be just the film review. Agree that a merge is more appropriate than deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bane in other media. There just isn't enough here to justify a separate article here. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Keep, meets GNG as detailed above (and hopefully below). As to character importance in Wikipedia's Batman collection, please note that Bane is the only villain to defeat Batman, and (Gasp! Holy hotcakes Batman!) that Bane killed Alfred! As for merge (another name for 'delete') also note List of Batman family enemies for a summary. My point of many Wikipedians running out of things to do may apply here, AfD should close down for most of the year, way too many daily nominations and way too many of them like this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying that Bane isn't notable, as he most certainly is. We're saying that this specific incarnation of Bane by himself is not. Whatever is covered here can easily be covered by Bane in other media. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, above you said There just isn't enough here to justify a separate article here. which means he's non-notable. If he's notable, there's enough for an article--that's the definition of notable. So which is it? Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there is some confusion going on here - this is not an AFD for Bane (DC Comics), this is an AFD for the specific version of Bane that only ever appeared in Batman & Robin (film).Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bane, the character, is notable. Bane, from Batman & Robin, is not individually notable from the original Bane character. Bane is a character who is notable, but this incarnation has only appeared in one film and doesn't appear to be individually notable enough to warrant a separate article from the original character. I hope that makes sense, because I understand the confusion with the phrasing here. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The NYT article is about the film, and it doesn't even cite the character. This iteration of Bane is not so notable to have a separate page. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bane in other media. Not independently notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bane in other media per others, though I'm not exactly convinced that article in itself is notable either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete as redundant to the main character article. Not separately notable in how it's treated by sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging to Bane in other media is just a fool's errand since there is currently a major tendency to delete "in other media" articles for characters, much like "move to draft space" it seems to be an option that is just a delayed deletion.★Trekker (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this iteration of the character so notable to justify a separate page? Redjedi23 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge Nothing in either searching this character or the article itself shows that this version of Bane is notable enough for his own article. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bane in other media for now, though honestly, that page itself should be trimmed and merged back to the main Bane (DC Comics). There are no sources that actually show that the particular version that made the singular appearance in Batman and Robin passes the WP:GNG. Of the two sources already in the article that are being cited above as demonstrating notability, the NYT source appears to simply be a review of the movie as a whole, and the MSN article is nothing but a reposting of a ScreenRant article that, itself, is just summarizing an article posted on the official DC Comics website. Searches do not turn up any additional significant coverage in reliable sources that would indicate any kind of notability for this specific version of the character. This version is already included in the target list, and there really is not anything here that would need to be merged over.Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bane (DC Comics). I have concerns that Bane in other media is not notable topic in itself and will follow suit eventually. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 23 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, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential primary campaign

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

Delete It seems that all of this is covered in the main article. These should clearly be combined. I see no reason at all why these have remained separate for so long. PickleG13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 15 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG and WP:EVENT. Potential merges can be discussed on relevant talk pages. —siro χ o 02:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As expected, it has extensive coverage in reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT + AfD isn't really meant for merge requests, which is what I presume the nominator wants. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Events, Politics, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Wrong venue to discuss merging. pburka (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Start a merge discussion to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Her 2008 presidential campaign was only a primary campaign so I don't see why there are two articles. I would encourage PickleG13 to start a talk discussion if folks are going to get procedural here. Reywas92^Talk 13:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether procedural or not, AfD really isn't the best forum for this type of merge discussion. AfDs are fixed-length, general discussions about whether an article should be deleted based on policies and guidelines, and if alternatives can be found. For the type of merge being proposed, if a discussion is needed, it should give chance for editors who have worked on the article to participate, often taking longer than an AFD, but sometimes being much quicker when consensus develops rapidly. There's also the option for a WP:BOLD merge, with the understanding that it might get reverted if there's disagreement and a discussion ends up being needed anyways. Honestly, for actual article editing, I prefer any of these "less procedural" options than AfD. —siro χ o 16:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise there were two articles, but they're both lengthy and cover different topics. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Siroxo and Pburka. Clearly meets WP:EVENT, and any merge discussions can and should take place on the relevant talk page(s). Sal2100 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Notable subject and as others have already noted, this is the wrong forum to discuss a merge User:Let'srun 01:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. If a merge is warranted discuss then discuss that at the proper place. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, as others have explained. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article is nearly as big as main article on Hillary Clinton. Editorkamran (talk) 12:03, 19 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Eric López

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

Subject lacks sustained secondary coverage to meet any notability guideline. Falls into WP:BLP1E. I have no issues with a redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies.Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies which already has a table entry on this subject, as we're tend to do with these now. —siro χ o 03:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to suggested target per other similar candidates. - Indefensible (talk) 05:34, 16 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5. I'm closing this as a speedy delete CSD G5 despite the opinion to Keep this article as it just quotes policy without emphasizing what specific content in this article is relevant to notability criterion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanu Singh Rajput

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

Non-notable film person, sourcing is largely cast lists/projects worked on, nothing for notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the following criterion (3) for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:02, 9 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!} 02:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G5. Author was the sock. A confirmed account was globally locked for spamming back in May, and I expect there are older accounts going back before then that are stale to the CU tool, but certainly any creations since May should be speedy deleted. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:06, 19 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Marie Sweet

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a failed judicial nominee. A redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems reasonable. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You will find several Google hits when you search for "Kathleen M Sweet" rather than the full name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies per nom (thanks for unbundling this from the rest, makes things a lot easier). There is a noticeable lack of sources on this person (no matter what version of the name is entered) outside of the WP:BLP1E failed judicial nomination. Take the paragraph on that nomination out of the article, and all we're left with is a WP:RESUME. The target article retains the basic info just fine. StonyBrook _babble 03:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you just going to keep nominating each judicial article individually until you get you desired result? Because that's how it's starting to come off. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these people appear notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources in the article don't demonstrate she passes WP:GNG. No problem with an AtD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies per nom and StonyBrook. Sal2100 (talk) 21:57, 17 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 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Sarhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be any more notable since the last deletion discussion. BangJan1999 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Egypt. BangJan1999 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the last discussion, less than a month ago: ""Les sources ne montrent pas qu'il aurait reçu des prix. Notoriété à vérifier sérieusement. Canular ?" The sources do not indicate that he's won prizes. Notoriety needs serious verification. Hoax/prank? was the reason given in the Fr wiki deletion discussion. I'm going to say it's not notable here either. They tag it and if it doesn't get updated, it gets auto deleted after a year (since) ~~that~~ it's been tagged, which is different than what we use here." Hoax prizes, non-useful sourcing. SALT. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also: " No sourcing find for this person. Not sure what sourcing we're using as notability, I can't find anything. The Fr wiki template searches the BnF (nothing turns up), Persee (nothing turns up) and other sites. If this person was this well-known, I'd expect something in French-African sources. Another drapeau rouge red flag. Zut alors!" Lack of sources/appears to be a hoax prize. Deleted in the Fr wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion. Alaa Sarhan is no more notable than he was the last time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If you can't notice, the article is a mess, its like, He was born in Mansoura, Egypt, other than IMDb, which is generally unreliable, the first source states that he was born in a non existent city, based on the governorate Mansoura is in. Nevertheless, there aren't any related articles for the Arabic and Egyptian Arabic Wikis, where such content would be at. The creator also messed with sources, poorly citing material in text and otherwise there aren't much sources other than Arabic ones. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is not very notable. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion. --Karim talk to me :)..! 10:33, 21 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.