Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 08	January 10 >

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!} 23:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polina (singer)

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

Fails notability guidelines for musicians. Sources I found online appear to be about a different singer, Polina Gagarina, and the death of actress Polina Menshikh. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Russia, and United States of America. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.Delete. Poor source. RomanRaju (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just cannot find any significant coverage of her. Mach61 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Passing mention here and here, the latter is the same as this ref where she's mentioned for participating on Eminem's song "Legacy", and this primary source, other than that I could not find SIGCOV nor anything in RS. ihateneo (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero to very little WP:SIGCOV as per above. TLA (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hibaq Jama

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

I believe this page does not comply with either WP:Notability or WP:NPOL. Hibaq Jama holds only a city council position and the sources cited/available via Google Search etc mention her only in passing on grounds of her election or the milestone of her being the first Somali-born councillor within Bristol City Council- while I am sure she is a perfectly good councillor I am not convinced that keeping this article in place is warranted. Pseudoname1 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Pseudoname1 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pseudoname1 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is strictly of local importance, the residents wanted change and voted this person in. Being the first Somali woman to become a city councilor is note-worthy, I'm not sure the position itself is. We'd need a ton of at least regional or national coverage about the individual; all I see is basic reporting on the new person that got elected and the fact that they are from a minority community. Take away the Somali part, it's just routine coverage of the person that won the election. Oaktree b (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons previously stated. MJ9674 (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree: setting a president for a marginalized community in regional politics seems of lasting importance and meets basic notability requirements. Sadads (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bristol city council member clearly isn't enough to get over the SNG bar and I've seen no evidence that this is a GNG pass for an ordinary local politician. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarosi Estate

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

The vast majority of this article seem to be sourced entirely on legend. Once you remove it [the legend] and boil the text down to only the relevant facts, you get that the article is practically devoid of content.

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

13:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are mentions of a name, or sparse details, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The article definitely has content issues but the lack of indepth WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS make this a delete. // Timothy :: talk 18:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is not merely based on legend; rather, it presents historical facts detailing the history of a Taluqdari estate—an important estate in Oudh. The estate have been extensively covered in historical records found in various books by prominent historians. Moreover, the topic is was covered in British government records and books and by their writers. I have cited the relevant online books I could find. The topic meets the criteria of notability. Therefore, I vote to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrhSR (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but these records/historical books merely seem to contain retellings of some story that was told to their author. A good indicator of this is that most of the sources do not give years—let alone dates, for the events that they describe.
AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}
18:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to meet WP:NPLACE based on existing sources. Unverifiable content, if any, can be cleaned up. Owen× ☎ 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons as the nominator and Timothy. There is a village called Sarosi in Unnao district that would pass WP:NGEO, and that village has a history which some of these sources would support. However the sources that contain significant coverage of this estate start with "according to their tradition ...", and "the story of ... is thus told", which does not suggest that the associated accounts are reliable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 03:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The place is historically significant, dating back to Humayun's reign. It offers a unique historical narrative. Retaining this article on Wikipedia preserves a rich tapestry of Parihar zamindars' struggles and transitions, making it a valuable contribution to the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmtrSR (talk • contribs) 09:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom does not meet GNG.It is based on a legend which is not RS.Tame Rhino (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After the legend is removed, the article is basically devoid of content, and especially, secondary sources to back it. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 04:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 23:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with navel piercings

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

Does not seem to meet standards of notability for lists. Per talk page, was created by editor in 2008 because "I simply find that this list about navel piercings would be interesting". Kazamzam (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Been working on putting in the sources one at a time, only had a day to do so. List has been active for 16 years. Not sure why it needs to be deleted now while being worked on. There is literature on the topic - certainly as much or more than "List of people from Cleveland." ReidLark1n (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it hasn't been "active" for 16 years. It was turned into a redirect to navel piercing the same day it was created in 2008, and remained a redirect for 16 years until you changed that last week.[1] postdlf (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am going to need actual sources rather than celebrity listicles. This seems like an undefining topic for each person. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a notable characteristic for a person at all, and either feels like shaming or fetish content, which should not be an either/or for any article. Nate • (chatter) 23:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every other reason for deletion is actually valid, however, "feels like shaming or fetish content which should not be an either/or for any article" is either a silly statement or a projection of personal beliefs. There is subjectively "shameful" content on Wikipedia (WP:BLP or otherwise) and even articles on objective "fetish content". ReidLark1n (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator stated that the page 'would be interesting', and without knowing what their intent was and the tenor of en.wiki at that time, I interpreted it as something of either extreme and am allowed to do so within my vote. I can't be sure of your own intent here and am allowed to question it appropriately, and in the process you must explain your justification for the article. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is still being missed.

WP:RS can only go so far as to lists - however, as to WP:V the sources used in List of people with navel piercings are WP:RS. We need to keep in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The sources state the celebrity has a characteristic and a WP:V image displays as much, so it is certainly WP:V for the purpose of the article (that someone has that characteristic).

As to the intent of the original author certainly nobody can speak to it. As to intent as is, it appears the article was created as an offshoot of navel piercing (see Talk:Navel piercing). "I propose to the delete the sentence: "Other notable celebrities with navel piercings are [...] If people believe it should be included then perhaps a separate article is required "Celebrities with navel piercings."" If the list is deleted then surely some of the content can revert to navel piercing assuming it meets WP:V.

WP:SALAT is really the point. "When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link." Referring back to Talk:Navel piercing, the reason this list was created is because it was an "entr[y] in a category that ha[d] grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article." Under WP:SALAT, the burden is to be "prepared to explain why [I] feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." As to the study of the art of Body Piercing, who has a particular piercing meets the Four major elements of an Encyclopedia entry. Importantly, it "aim[s] to convey the "important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain" which goes to the popularization of a once taboo/fringe practice. According to navel piercing, "[t]he navel piercing is one of the most prevalent body piercings today. Pop culture has played a large role in the promotion of this piercing." If it is true that Pop culture has played a large role in the promotion of the piercing, then it is important to navel piercing that a list of pop culture idols be referenced to illustrate this point.

Long story short, it meets WP:SALAT and complements the history section in navel piercing so it "contributes to the state of human knowledge." ReidLark1n (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see the need for this, it's common enough now, to the point of being useless as a list. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable topic and the only sources are celebrity fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, and as such should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#14. A category might make sense if this is a defining characteristic for some people. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable as a topic. Let'srun (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NLIST. Svartner (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 22:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I sure hope my friends at Wikipediocracy don't hear about this one. Utter non-notable cruft. Carrite (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kepler-23. History is thereunder for a merge, if desired Star Mississippi 23:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-23d

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

Redirect to Kepler-23 as per WP:DWMP. Subject fails to meet notability for astronomical objects. Did WP:BEFORE and Kepler-23d is not the subject of significant scholarship at this time. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore original redirect to Kepler-23 per nom. SevenSpheres (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the standard for notability for astronomical objects?

Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jothefiredragon here you go WP:NASTRO and WP:DWMP. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kepler-23, which is in need of more content. Praemonitus (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto Kepler-23. Fewer but larger articles are more maintainable. Please note: this discussion should also apply to Kepler-23b and Kepler-23c as well as Kepler-23d. They all somehow got their own articles 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nahal Oz attack. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv Zohar

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

Tragic death, but Zohar is non-notable as a journalist, and his killing does not seem as if will receive sustained coverage. His death has been covered by major Israeli news outlets the same way many non-notable Israelis killed in the October 7 attack have been covered, and by outlets he was affiliated with as a photojournalist. I could not find any significant coverage before October 7. Mooonswimmer 16:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Killing of Yaniv Zohar. His killing has enough sources for an article on it, but there is not enough for a biopgraphy, and per WP:BIO1E we should cover the event instead of the person when that person is only notable in the context of a single event. Same reasoning as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samer Abu Daqqa. nableezy - 16:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the notable event is the October 7 attack in which he was killed.

If you look for a list of every Israeli killed in the attack and Google their names one by one, chances are that for each victim, you'll get an article covering them in The Times of Israel and at least one other Israeli publication. Zohar's killing received a bit of extra coverage by the outlets he was affiliated with as an employee (AP News, Israel HaYom). We will end up with a "Killing of X" article for every other victim if we consider two or three sources covering their death enough coverage. Mooonswimmer 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Israel. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nahal Oz attack: That's about all there is to it, this individual was just a working reporter that died in the context that article describes. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where this journalist is mentioned. All this as BIO1E. This destination is preferred over the List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war that comes with the article, because the list should be merged into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as well. Yet the list is also a valid destination, as right now it exists alongside. Both would be legitimate destinations. My recommendation holds unless RS/I/V previous coverage ON this journalist is found. Always hard to find sources ON journalists as blurred by materials BY a journalist. So just tag me if you have it. I apply exactly the same standards for all sides and sorts. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect Per nableezy. His death received non trivial media coverage, in multiple reliable sources, and therefore meets WP:EVENT. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply too @Nableezy above. Mooonswimmer 11:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where this journalist is mentioned. // Timothy :: talk 07:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of divided opinion and two different Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, without prejudice to that list being merged into the article Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war if someone wanted to propose that merger in the future. AFAIK there were 4 journalists killed on Oct 7; I don't see that RS cover this one journalist more or less than the others; I don't see any of them being independently notable. I don't really see that those 4 are "more notable" than all the other journalists killed during this war. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of victims, and that's an argument against having such a list at all, but that argument should be had separately from this AFD. So while the list exists, redirect to the list, which will have the most information about this topic. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep this stab as no separate notability was shown but can redirect to Nahal Oz attack. He was not killed because he was a journalist but because he was in Nahal Oz. We should still list him in List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are now 3 different Redirect/Merge target articles mentioned here which means that this discussion may close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if we redirect or merge to the list of journalists killed in the war. Oaktree b (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Nahal Oz attack - not a person or event with any real standalone

notability outside of the redirect target page. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wiki#Visual editing. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Document mode

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

Not very popular term. I think it should redirect to WYSIWIG. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one. The main place I've heard it was indeed in the context of Wikis way back when, so we could target Wiki § Characteristics (and some might even be merged there) And, if it's mentioned in such depth on c2/WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki, it's almost certainly a concept important to wikis. I've never heard it formally used to describe WYSIWIG editing but it's not too far of a stretch. It's also term in Internet Explorer, but that's probably not a great redirect. I'm not sure if dab is appropriate here. —siro χ o 03:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electronic document. As far as I can discover, this term is a neologism invented by the creators of the first wikis, but it failed to catch on. Therefore, it should be deleted as lacking lasting notability. But from what I understand the concept isn't fully congruent with WYSIWIG. One could have a wiki that isn't WYSIWIG and still is constructed so the "current version of the page is a coherent and self-contained whole, reflecting only the result of the last update". ― novov (t c) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two separate Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the wiki characteristics is fine. The article is about wiki software; to me the term means seeing how a document would look printed out from a word processor, back from the days when the program looked one way and you had to "print preview" to see the actual fonts being used and how the layout was. That is now the standard way of using word processors (WYSIWYG) but the discussion here is around wiki software. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiki#Visual_editing: I believe this is the specific subsection of Characteristics that relates to this feature. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Oulainen. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oulainen railway station

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

Delete A non-notable railway station. Cannot find any sources demonstrating WP:GNG. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Finnish article lists a few sources. Of the ones that could have SIGCOV I can access 0 of them so won't hard vote one way or another. Jumpytoo Talk 03:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ easily available sourcing (including from fi.wp) is not useful for notability purposes. The two books mentioned (but not cited) in the fi.wp article might be useful, but I'm not quite convinced they are actually independent: one appears to have been published by the local parish, and the other by the municipality's historical society. In any case, hypothetical sourcing doesn't count. That said, I'll happily reconsider if someone can either identify better sourcing or somehow vouch for the books. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would those sources not be independent? Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Being published by a minor entity with a (presumably) close connection to the location doesn't strike me as the hallmark of independence. Ljleppan (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Whether an entity is minor or not is irrelevant to independence. Being located in the same geographical area is irrelevant to independence. What matters is whether they are independent of the subject of the article (the railway station, and by extension the company/organisation the operates it). Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to Weak merge to Oulainen as an WP:ATD - Per my comment below, the Finnish Main Line article seems like a poor merge target content wise, but Oulainen sounds reasonable. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If sources can be found demonstrating notability this should be kept, if they can't it should be merged to the article about the line. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to merging in principle, but I'm not seeing what the merger to Finnish Main Line would entail in practice. A random subhead for a single sentence of "The Oulainen railway station was opened in 1886" when there is no content about any of the other stations? Merging to Oulainen sounds much more feasible to me. That, naturally, also assumes that someone locates a source for the year. Ljleppan (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Oulainen would make a better merge target, at least the way Finnish Main Line is currently structured. /Julle (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination has not discussed why the sourcing available on Finnish Wikipedia is not sufficient. Garuda3 (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fi.wp ref #1 has three hits in a report about the railway infrastructure by the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency. Two of the three mentions are in tables, and one is in a map. I.e. all passing, and the report in general is not independent for notability purposes. Ref #2 is basically the same, with this time a few more hits in tables. Ref #3 is the state railways company page for the station; not independent and very limited information. Nobody is able to confirm the two books listed in the fi.wp further reading section have any meaningful content in them about the station. Ljleppan (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Delete or Merge to Oulainen The sourcing on the finnish site is not sufficient because WP:NBUILD states that train stations are not notable unless they meet WP:GNG. The sourcing is as described above, not meeting WP:NRVJames.folsom (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: Fails WP:NBUILD due to lack of significant coverages. Sources on other language are insufficient as they are passing mentions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge validated content and redirect to Oulainen. Doesn't appear to satisfy GNG. While the line the station is on is often a good redirect/merge target, it doesn't seem to be in this case, so I also favour the town. Rupples (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Beswick

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

Local radio presenter with nothing of note. Possible self-promotion Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allan is a well known radio broadcaster, presenting shows across the UK. The article needs more verifications, but should not be deleted.
Possible self promotion from whom? Local radio presenter who is known to many across the UK. J97736 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Combined two edits from J97736 to this single comment. Skynxnex (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Missed getting sorted into lists and minimal participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skynxnex (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: There is a lot of unsourced information to go through here, and the article may be able to be rescued if someone has the time to go through it and find sources for what can be sourced (and remove what can't be) - draftify is my preference, so that any usable content is retained while the article is repaired and potentially moved back to mainspace. The presenter is well-known enough regionally that there is a chance of a viable article here. Flip Format (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is less clear-cut when compared to the AfD regarding Colin Bunyon, especially when you consider Flip Format points, and I have already removed some of the unsourced material and associated padding. Notability is satisfied due to length of time on-air but the article could do with additional references to satisfy these concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 02:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now changed my vote from weak keep to keep following the removal of unsourced material, and also due to the article having multiple independent references. Rillington (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think "possible self-promotion" is a valid reason for deletion. This ought to be discussed/ investigated first via the Talk page? The article page statistics here show that most edits have been made by named accounts. Who's being accused here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Marian Foster. There's not a clear consensus for a merge, but history remains if one evolves. Star Mississippi 23:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Mania

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

Seems like a promotion for BBC radio programmes. Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 21:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marian Foster? Geschichte (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative about radio programme and its history. J97736 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the sources would have to improve for it to be kept. Consider whether the sources are about Marian Foster or about Garden Mania. For instance, this doesn't mention Garden Mania at all and is clearly about the person. Primary sources don't count towards notability either. Secondary sources on the programme could exist, though. Geschichte (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Marian Foster. The subject does not have enough coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG and support an independent article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Skynxnex (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Missed getting sorted into deletion sorting lists and merge vs keep not clear yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skynxnex (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is no more "a promotion for BBC radio programmes" than several American DIY articles are promotions for television shows: Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, This Old House, Magnolia Network, etc, etc. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can see the arguments for a merge with Marian Foster, but for me the sources simply aren't there. The only properly sourced content states that the programme exists and Foster presents it, which warrants just a brief mention on Foster's page. Flip Format (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General lack of notability per WP:GNG, might be better to merge or add unto another page, but having its own page is not it. Noorullah (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Both in terms of notability and non-primary sources the article only just scrapes through despite four of the six sources being independent of the subject. Rillington (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of cities in the United Kingdom. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in England

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK created by copying from List of cities in the United Kingdom over the longstanding redirect and removing content perceived as not England-related. The achieved result fails WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the page should also not exist per WP:PAGEDECIDE (several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated). The vast majority of the cities are in England so this will always be heavily duplicative and reducing the prose will also not produce anything useful because the English cities can be viewed together, separated from non-English cities, simply by sorting the table.

I note that List of cities in Wales and Cities of Scotland exist, ~~but these countries were not always part of the United Kingdom.~~ [see comment below before laughing please] The latter, which is a valid article, reasonably covers the topic of Scottish cities in general and throughout history; for example it has content about historic capitals. The Welsh list seems mostly redundant however, but this AfD is not about that page. —Alalch E. 21:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. —Alalch E. 21:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E, England wasn't always part of the United Kingdom either. It's not massively unreasonable to have a list of cities in a country. Whether or not this list is actually needed, it does meet WP:CLN.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I retract that pointless remark, I honestly don't remember why I made it. The rationale here is, as I believe can be read from the sane part of the nomination: the list isn't needed, it's a redundant fork and the topic is covered better according to the longstanding organization in which England's cities are listed among the UKs cities. Edit: Oh, I remember why I made it: Because of the historical capitals content in Cities of Scotland that wouldn't fit well in List of cities in the United Kingdom. (Just a silly sentence to come up with coming from that line of thought.) —Alalch E. 21:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor interested in developing the nominated list is now updating figures (example edit). So this list will have one set of figures (presumably the better, more up-to-date, figures) and the UK list will have another. If the lists are to be harmonized it would need to be done manually. That's almost twice the work for the same result in terms of utility for the reader. (What could be done is selective table row transclusion however for automatic WP:SYNC.)—Alalch E. 22:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Scotland, England has historical capitals. Colchester under the Romans; I think I'm right in saying that Athelstan's capital was Winchester?; York, of course, in the Danelaw; then London.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same page, though. It's a different page listing all the cities in England and a bit of history on English city status. England also has historical capitals, such as York, noted on the page under history. England wasn't part of the United Kingdom until its foundation in the 1700s, like Wales and Scotland. Many of England's cities, if not most outside of industrial heartlands, were formed before this period, many in which going back to the Roman era and before.

If Wales and Scotland have pages like this, surely England can. 86.183.219.17 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect Entirely duplicative of List of cities in the United Kingdom, silly to have to keep both pages maintained so please update the populations in the primary list. Reywas92^Talk 15:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree and I don't think that makes sense. To put this in terms an American might understand better -- we have many lists of the cities in the US, such as List of United States cities by population, List of United States cities by population density, List of United States urban areas, List of United States cities by area, and so on. And on, and on, and on. We also have a List of cities in Texas, and we don't think that's duplicative, do we? Well, just as the United States are a country and Texas is a state, so too the United Kingdom is a country and England is a state.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of cities in Texas contains a table-formatted list, which exists only in that article; it does not exist in any other article. List of cities in England contains a table-formatted list, but the same list had already existed and still exists, and should keep existing, in List of cities in the United Kingdom. It is the same insofar as it contains everything from the "List of cities in England" formatted in the same way, but also contains Welsh and Scottish cities. Created this fork created duplication ergo redundant fork. This isn't about what state/country/territory is deserving of what treatment by us, it's about how to keep the content organized and up-to-date for our readers. —Alalch E. 12:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said it was about that. Both you and Reywas92 have been quite clear that you think it's about redundancy and duplication, which means we need to explain to you how England and the UK aren't redundant to each other. Hence all the explanations. :)—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean anything to say that England and UK are or aren't redundant to each other. The content is redundant because it identically overlaps. 55 cities are all the same in both list, formatted the same with the difference being that the UK list contains the eight Scottish and seven Welsh cities. There is no meaningfully England-specific prose on the page and I've already cited WP:PAGEDECIDE to state that this is a case when several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated. Or in other words, if you will, there is a reason that for 20+ years no one created a "List of cities of England" despite the relative obviousness of this name and the encycopedic suitability of this list seen out of context (of other pages) (citing you: it does meet WP:CLN). It obviously doesn't produce any benefit to readers to duplicate this content over massively overlapping pages.—Alalch E. 13:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's certainly true that in its current state the list is duplicative. But WP:POTENTIAL: we should make these decisions based not on what the list is now, but what it could be.—S Marshall T/C 15:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What could it be? Edit: I've pointed out above one thing that it could be: a source for transclusion into the UK list; for an example see Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia)#List of Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (source) and Immovable Cultural Heritage in the Kosovo District#Exceptional importance (target).

example markup

transclusion source:

...
|-<section end="SK 1366" /><section begin="SK 1367" />
|[https://nasledje.gov.rs/index.cfm/spomenici/pregled_spomenika?spomenik_id=44878 SK 1367]
|[[File:Gracanica 1.jpg|100x100px]]
| <noinclude>style="background:#add8e6;" |</noinclude>[[Gračanica monastery]]<noinclude>*</noinclude>
|[[Pristina]]
|[[Gračanica, Kosovo|Gračanica]]
|25 October 1947
|4 June 1990
|[[File:Unesco Cultural Heritage logo.svg|45px]] [[World Heritage Site]]
|-<section end="SK 1367" /><section begin="SK 1368" />
...

transclusion target

{{#lst:Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia)|SK 1367}}

Do you think it's a good idea? I'm not so sure. It will remove the need to maintain two population data sets, but it could make editing more difficult, and cities are fluid, they can lose the status and new settlements can gain the status; edits to accord for such changes could break transclusion, and few editors are familiar with H:LST. Also, more importantly, perhaps, the tables in Cities of Scotland and List of cities in Wales would need to be reformatted to match the UK list and I am not so sure about doing it boldly. Some of the information in the tables would definitely be lost, for example, the nickname column in the Scottish cities' table. The images too. Something to think about. In the long term. In the meantime, this page should be redirected back.—Alalch E. 15:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to update the page list, then feel free to do so. It doesn't mean the page should be deleted. Also, there are clear differences on both pages. Check the history section, for example. It goes into detail about English city status and the historical capitals of England. 2A00:23C7:69B4:7101:30E5:833F:ED18:44AE (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about updating, it's about synchronization. About the prose: The prose is also duplicative from what I can tell. —Alalch E. 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think these are ever so slightly two distinct topics, and it's not quite a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Transclusion may be a possible solution but I don't see why this page can't exist? SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet. I am interpreting User:S Marshall's comments as an unbolded "Keep", please correct me if I'm wrong on this. The issue of whether or not this subject warrants a standalone list seem fundamental and more opinions on this topic would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not strictly redundant to List of cities in the United Kingdom as it is a (large) subset that it is perfectly rational to consider separately. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's a 72% overlap between the two, which is not going to change, because that's how many cities are in each. One is entirely contained in the other, unlike with Texas and the US. There is no list specifically for Metropolitan France, or for the Contiguous United States, probably because of the amount of overlap.

Speaking of the France list, it has a column for subdivision (not region comma subdivision), allowing users to sort by their subset of choice. The UK list should be reworked to focus on comparability and sortability: one line per entry instead of three, split columns to contain only one type of data, etc. Then the list would only be two mouse-scrolls long. Wizmut (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as duplication of Cities in UK. It is a fixed subset, sure, but not a useful one. Carrite (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. I do think the subset is useful. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The prose and the items are all duplicated in List of cities in the United Kingdom. If someone wishes to expand the history of the subject in such a way that it ought no longer be included in List of cities in the United Kingdom, then the page can be restored—but if such an editor comes forward, I retract my vote. Until then, there is no usefulness of this page that isn't had by List of cities in the United Kingdom. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Associative array as a valid ATD and to which there has been no objection raised Star Mississippi 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented map

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

The article sources two papers: PAM and a second paper detailing geometric applications of PAM. Both papers are authored by a similar set of authors and as such should count as a single reliable independent source, which is insufficient in satisfying WP:GNG. I'm reasonably certain that the augmented map concept originated from the two aforementioned papers since they described the data structure in detail without providing references to prior work on augmented maps. Furthermore, the article's lead repeats page 3 and 4 of the second paper while the "interface" section repeats the content of the PAM article. In both cases, the article uses the same notations as those in the research papers, which signals that the article is simply parroting these two papers. The "2D range query" section essentially repeats page 12 of the PAM paper, with modified notations but essentially the same content. I could keep looking for more examples, but I think this is sufficient in justifying this AfD case: the article is rephrasing two research papers on a topic that does not satisfy GNG.

The article is salvageable if more papers contain non-trivial extensions to the two papers referenced in the article. I find this unlikely since both only received decent citation numbers and many citations come from the same group of researchers.

COI note: I work in the same research area as the authors of those two papers, but I don't know them personally. PetraMagna (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing. PetraMagna (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Associative array: can be revived if and when the term gains notability. Owen× ☎ 22:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to elaborate on your point. Since augmented maps are essentially ordered sets/trees/associative arrays that support parallel operations, a redirect to the broader concept would make sense here. I think redirects have the additional benefit of preserving the original article so that people will have access to it in case this term gains notability. PetraMagna (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions on the Redirect possibility.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TLA (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gillmore

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

Local radio presenter with no significant references Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 21:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not convinced by the nomination statement. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not agree with nomination statement. J97736 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Missed getting sorted into deletion sorting lists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skynxnex (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the same reasons given by the other respondents who both want this article kept. Rillington (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem like he's probably notable for being a prolific interviewer and well known presenter. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !votes would be made stronger by engaging with notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely who was active in local radio for 38 years would be seen as notable? Plus there is a clear consensus for this article to be kept. Rillington (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Eddie891: I respectfully disagree. When the nominator has not made a case for deletion, only thrown in an unexplained adjective, there is nothing to argue against. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the nominated says, that there are ‘no significant references’, you could discuss significant references in response. To be clear, I'm not saying that the nomination is 'better', just that the only engagement with actual notability guidelines seemed to be saying he's notable for being active in his job, which isn't particularly relevant. It's not so much about 'arguing against' someone, but about discussing what notability criteria Gillmore does or doesn't meet, imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deșteptarea (trade union)

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

I was going to PROD because i couldn't find any SIGCOV, but a previous PROD had been declined. DrowssapSMM 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Romania. DrowssapSMM 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A newspaper in Detroit [2] with the same name, but seems unrelated. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ample sourcing materials availible. Try searching societatea+tipografi+1879 on google books. --Soman (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. Single source in article is not SIGCOV, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and idndpeth. // Timothy :: talk 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Camarillo State Mental Hospital. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Dairy

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

Tagged since 2021 GnocchiFan (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with Camarillo_State_Mental_Hospital. I could see this being notable but right now it's just a stub, and it's really just one location at the mental hospital. If somebody comes along and adds a bunch info about it that makes the parent article to big, then somebody can unmerge. I'm not going to argue any policy because I think this is case where this place is really just a part of the the other place and the article creators should have added their material to which ever of the articles existed first. Given this can be easily fixed with a merger, lets do it and get back to arguing over all the piles of completely nonnotable 2 sentence articles about sand or whatever.James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, sources in article are a message board and a haunted places index. BEFORE found nothing better. Nothing in this article is properly sourced for a merge, I don't think there is a good redirect target, but if there is a consensus for Cal State or the hospital, I have no objections. // Timothy :: talk 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a redirect to Esken#Stobart_Rail_&_Civils. ‎Two votes for a redirect is a consensus in my books. Please, feel free to take some material from this article and place it into the Esken page. TLA (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ Rail & Civils

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

After researching this company and reading the sources, it fails WP:CORP etc. It's not a notable company. Devoke water 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Devoke water 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and ~~delete~~ redirect: Given that all the information in the current article is poorly sourced to non-independent places, and I can't find anything much in Google beyond job adverts and routine press-releases, delete is a reasonable option, but it would be sensible to check if anything needs merging to Esken#Stobart Rail & Civils first. The notability of XYZ, if it has any, is as an offshoot of the Stobart group, so it's better dealt with at Esken. Elemimele (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please let us know when you have finished checking what needs to be merged and what your resulting recommendations are. Thincat (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP. The nomination and sole reaction fail WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: I'm afraid it's either Merge or Delete, but not both. Per WP:COPYWITHIN, any content copied from the source must be preserved in a page history attributable to the original contributor. Why would you object to the source page remaining as a redirect to the target? Owen× ☎ 22:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What I meant was merge whatever material is useful from this article into the Stobart Rail and Civils paragraph of Esken, and replace the article we're discussing with a redirect. Of course the material should be credited. I am not a deletionist, but I think our readers are much better served by having reasonably in-depth articles on the overall subject, rather than umpteen tiny articles on little fractions of a subject. The lots-of-little articles approach rarely provides proper context and overview. It would be much better to cover this as part of the overall Stobart article. Elemimele (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. With editors arguing for a Deletion, Merge or Keep, I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the repeated cycle of insolvencies and change of ownership has generated a fair amount of routine trade press coverage, but nothing in terms of SIGCOV for this non-notable company of 127 employees and minus £4.4m in net assets. I don't know if the time it spent under the roof of the Esken/Stobart conglomerate justifies a redirect to Esken#Stobart_Rail_&_Civils, but I figure that's an acceptable outcome too. Owen× ☎ 23:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27–29 Fountain Alley

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

I'm nominating this in the hopes of getting some more experienced eyes on questions a handful of editors have about a large number of similar articles. On my read of WP:NBUILDING, being considered of historic significance does not in and of itself make a building notable, but rather it also requires signifcant coverage in third party sources. I do not believe that is met here (see below for brief source analysis). I would also note that the building is marked on the historic register as of local significance only, not state, national or international significance, as I wonder if those other categories might make a difference to the discussion. Melcous (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My brief source analysis is as follows:

nomination form for entry on the register
entry on a list
entry on a list
newspaper clipping saying the place will be built
one sentence in a book
list of tenant in the building in a directory of places to eat
news article with a short mention of the redevelopment of area, but no mention of this specific building
primary document about redevelopment project
entry on a list

I'm not seeing how any of these meet WP:SIGCOV. Melcous (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies the WP:NBUILDING guidelines as a result of its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.
27–29 Fountain Alley is already listed on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Clara County, California and is notable based third-party peer review by the National Park Service.
Clicking on the NRHP number in the infobox, will bring up the historical study that was done for the building. Long and rather extensive.
The nomination form for the building has both an in-depth history and a list of references at the end. The reason buildings on the NRHP are considered notable is that the National Park Service requires that information in order to list a property, and their standards are higher than WP:GNG.
The National Register of Historic Places is a part of Wikipedia's projects. This includes listings on the state-county-city levels. What matters with NRHP is that we get a sourced article on them, which anyone can improve. Why would want to delete all this work?

Greg Henderson (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I did find a mention of this specific building in the Encyclopedia of California. I'd be very surprised if an article on a building on the NRHP is deleted, but I'll do some more digging for supporting documents before weighing in. Seasider53 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Seasider53: for your comment. I agree with you! BTW, there are other buildings in this same area that are on the National Registry, which include the Hotel De Anza, Hotel Montgomery, and the The Westin San Jose. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's on the NRHP, so the nomination form will have a complete architectural analysis of the building. Give me half a second and I'll go pull it up for us. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and GregHenderson beat me too it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oaktree b, this is really the heart of my question - does being on the NRHP in and of itself suffice to meet wikipedia's notability standards (and if so it'd be great if you can point me to where that is covered as WP:NBUILDING seems to suggest otherwise). My understanding is that there are 95,000 buildings on the US NPHR, some of local significance, some of state, national or international significance. And of course most other countries have their own similar systems for recognising historic buildings. Are we saying that being designated at any of these levels automatically means notability is met here? (For a comparison from my own part of the world, there are 30,000 listings on the state heritage inventory for the Australian state of NSW alone, and I'd be quite surprised if me creating 30,000 individual articles here on each one of them would be seen as acceptable). Melcous (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it notable, but you still need sourcing for the article. Usually (at least in my experience), any listed/protected/designated building will have some sort of a study done as to why it is "special" and they prepare a report about it. I've done articles for listed buildings in Canada, the US, Sweden and the Czech Republic, they all have some sourcing behind the nomination and listing. That's generally what I've used to create the article, but as time goes on, it's gotten (I don't want to say fussier here) more strict, so you need more than that. I've had some of my recent historical building articles challenged for notability and honestly you have to pull out all the stops to find the gold-star, top notch sources. You can usually do so with some digging, but it feels more trouble than it's worth... I mean, they don't designate things just because, there's some sort of historic reason for them, backed up by evidence. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and the NRHP listing document also has bibliography with 9 sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Thanks! I just added the Bibliography to the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I mean, this isn't a one line stub. We have confirmation of the historical and architectural significance of the building, construction history and usage of the building to present times. They aren't all Eiffel Towers known around the world, but they're all documented. And for all that NBUILDING says: "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Well this has historic/social/architectural importance as shown in the NRHP nomination. I suppose "significant" coverage is up for debate, but the article now is longer than a few lines and actually gives a decent context as to the what and the why of this place. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b I realise I am being pedantic, but this is the key question here: WP:NBUILDING says Buildings may be notable as a result of their historic importance, not that they are (and then adds the requirement for WP:SIGCOV). In your comment above, you say "It makes it notable." Is that your opinion, or am I missing somewhere else where this has been determined by the wikipedia community? Thanks Melcous (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my personal opinion only; I've had some of my articles (that I've created on similar buildings) come up at AfD and it's my ego being bruised. To be blunt, I've been doing this for 20 years and I should know better; I take it personally when I should be up to snuff and I'm not. (I've always tried to use the best sourcing and create quality articles, ungh, why is it being nominated!)... It's too personal sometimes, argh! No hard feelings at all towards anyone, but I hold myself to a high standard here and feel like I've failed if it doesn't work. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melcous: The problem is that you're looking at the wrong section. The correct section for heritage-listed buildings and structures is not WP:NBUILDING but the wider WP:GEOFEAT, which says Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. I appreciate that this is not entirely clear; the order of the section has been rather messed around with recently and it hasn't been great for clarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Necrothesp, it is confusing and the two sections do seem to somewhat sit in tension. I now see WP:GEOFEAT as well, but would still ask whether the intention of that is that every building designated as of local significance should therefore automatically be presumed to be notable for a stand-alone article ... because as I noted above, that is an awful lot of articles worldwide that (unless WP:SIGCOV is also required), but I guess more significantly, it hinges on the interpretation of "on a national level". Personally, I'd argue that those are not the same thing, (i.e. local significance and national level - similar to the discussion on the talk page about UK Grades I, II* and II hence why I tagged you) but if the consensus is to read it otherwise, that's up to the community. Melcous (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is between local listing (i.e. heritage-listed by a local council) and national listing (i.e. heritage-listed by a national government, or sometimes a lower-level government if heritage listing is devolved, as it is to the German states for instance). All the latter fall under WP:GEOFEAT. There is no actual conflict. WP:NBUILDING simply applies if WP:GEOFEAT does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been looking through some of the talk archives on WP:NGEO to try to get my head around how this notability guideline has been understood, and there was some recent discussion around UK v US listings for heritage buildings that seemed to touch on the same questions, so am tagging the editors involved in that discussion in case they would like to participate here: James500; Espresso Addict; Reywas92; BilledMammal; Horse Eye's Back; Necrothesp; Dlthewave; Davidstewartharvey; Crouch, Swale; FOARP. Melcous (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG anyway as it seems to have coverage in other sources but anyway per WP:GEOFEAT as its a national heritage in terms of being on the National Register of Historic Places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly does meet WP:GEOFEAT (Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable.), and WP:GNG as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps GEOFEAT would be more relevant to Foutain Alley but since this is about a specific building, NBUILD is probably the more appropriate guidelines.

Graywalls (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the case. WP:GEOFEAT applies to heritage-listed buildings as I have pointed out above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What we have here is the classic product of just writing an article about something because it's on a list. The history section of this article is almost entirely about the street it is on. It is not clear to me why we have both this article and Fountain Alley. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's clearly enough there for an article even though none of the sources are amazing. Agree there's a couple sentences dedicated to the alley and not the building which should be merged into the other article and removed from this one as inappropriate, but there's also enough on the building that a merge is clearly improper. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer - Are we looking at the same article? The history section I'm looking at has six paragraphs, of which four are explicitly about the street, not the building. The two that aren't are the first paragraph which is really about the structure/style of the building, and the fifth which is about the businesses that have occupied parts of the building. The second and third paragraphs are about the naming of the street. The fourth paragraph is about other buildings on the same street. The sixth paragraph is about redevelopment of the street. Obviously a building can easily be covered within an article about a street. A merge here would be easy - it would be 2/3 paragraphs within a longer article. FOARP (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article has been beefed up with information on the street, but there's still been enough written directly on the building that it's eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's clear that NRHP and the persons who've done the research work know much more about why the building is significant and notable than amateurs and passersby on Planet Wikipedia, which should take the lead from them, the people in the real world make such determinations. Clearly satisfies Wikipedia policies & guidelines mentioned above. Djflem (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being on the NRHP, this passes WP:GEOFEAT; there is also quite a bit of info about the site in its NRHP nomination form. I do not think it is relevant whether the building is of local significance, rather than of state or national significance, as locally significant buildings can still be notable in the contexts of their communities. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Hall

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

Article has only two sources, and neither supports GNG. Most of the claims in the bio are unreferenced. Snopes.com has some biographical info; he is a self-published author and blogger, but not notable in either role. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks to Curbon7, I withdraw this nomination but I hope the article will be improved. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:NPOL as an American state legislator. The nominator would benefit from reading WP:NEXIST and WP:DINC. I was able to find plenty of coverage on newspapers.com. When conducting a WP:BEFORE search, check that site as well; all good-standing ECP editors have access to it through WP:The Wikipedia Library. Curbon7 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected and withdraw this AFD. I also didn't realize NPOL went down so low. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSUBPOL is a great resource for checking which subnational bodies NPOL applies to. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think Yourself / Think Now

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Youtube channel	1. "Think For Yourself/Think Now - YouTube" . www.youtube.com . Retrieved 2023-07-19 .
Interview, fails WP:IS	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f asket (2021-05-02). "Interview with Svyatoslav ("Think for yourself / Think now")". STALIN'S LINE(in Russian). Retrieved 2023-07-19 .
	3. ^ "Movie "Deadly Profitable"" (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-07-20.
Link to "studio's first video was the documentary "Deadly Profitable"", fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Настоящий Сталин/Real Stalin/True Stalin (English subs, Spanish subtitles)" (in Russian ) Retrieved 2023-07-2 _
Interview, fails WP:IS, dup of ref #2	5. ^ asket (2021-05-02). "Interview with Svyatoslav ("Think for yourself / Think now")" . STALIN'S LINE (in Russian) . Retrieved 2023-07-20 .
Primary source, fails WP:IS	6. ^ "The World we lived in. Episode 1. (Film dubbed into English. Сlass struggle for everyone)" (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-07-20.
Youtube channel	7. ^ "Stalin against Gref. Soviet education today?" (in Russian) . Retrieved 2023-07-19 .
Database record	8. ^ "Comrades - Stalin's primer" . stalins-bukvar.ru (in Russian) . Retrieved 2023-07-19 .

BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per source table above. sources from YouTube are dubious. The channel itself, which the article seems to be based on, doesn’t have many subscribers relative to YouTube-based subjects on Wikipedia. TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EOceans

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refbombed, but basically there's a single good ref: [3]. [4] is reputable but isn't WP:SIGCOV, and the rest is non-notable awards, or non-independent papers by the founder. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Software, and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Saltwire seems like a press release as well. TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Vision

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

Uncertain of notability, but the content is all WP:PROMO. PepperBeast (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Russia. PepperBeast (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mmm... yeah, I don't see any encyclopedic content on this article. Seems promotional, and the article doesn't talk about its development. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spammy commercial piece on a software product with no apparent passage of GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I couldn't redirect this article to List of The Southern Vampire Mysteries characters as that page title is also a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Lynley-Chivers

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to the List of The Southern Vampire Mysteries characters. toweli (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. toweli (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, no indication of notability. Toweli, I think List of The Southern Vampire Mysteries characters can be easily redirected as well, it is completely written from an in-universe point-of-view. Suitable for a Fandom/wikia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. czar 03:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanbara Tunnel

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches in English and in Japanese do not find additional significant sources. Source assesment:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Source 1	~	?	✘ No
Source 2	?	?	✘ No
Source 3		?	? Unknown
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}}.

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from the creator's user talk page:

Thank you for your message. My personal opinion, Kanbara Tunnel is a major railway tunnel in Japan with total length of around 5km (also based on my own measurement using google maps' measurement tools), that still operational on Tokaido shinkansen line now. It is not much known because most publications is in Japanese. I will add more on this tunnel as reliable sources are available in English. Happy New Year 2024.

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak(ish) Keep Searching through archives there are a few sources, I can't fully read any of them as they are offline but the snippets provided in "土木施工 7(8)", "土木施工 9(4)", "道路建設 (404)", and the "Aerodynamics and Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels" source in article by seem to give me some confidence enough SIGCOV exists to meet GNG. Only voting weekly because of the access issue. Jumpytoo Talk 03:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional sources added since nomination, especially this one [5]. There's also this [6] which I can't access. I think it's over the threshold. DCsansei (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source 4 in the article as a peer-reviewed study about wind currents in the tunnel, which is good for GNG. I've tried using the Japanese name and found these [7] that talk about the illumination challenges at the time. I think we're good for notability now. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annemarie Kleinert

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

Non-notable writer. Self-promo, only self-published sources provided. Search found only routine promotional sources, no independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, History, Germany, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick Google Scholar search already finds three published reviews of her books, a good start towards WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't find mention of this author, but the links shared above are French reviews of her book, brief but just enough to pass author notability requirements here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also get some English discussion of her books using the Jstor link above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After more searching I have still been unable to find more than those three reviews of one book. That's not quite enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, but if another review of any other of her books turns up we could have a weak keep instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, does not pass WP:PROF and is kind of in a grey area when it comes to WP:AUTHOR. The article was created more than a decade ago, but the creator and several other editors have no other contributions other than this article, which on top of how it currently reads, gives off a WP:PROMO vibe. But I cannot object if another editor clearly demonstrates her notability. Aintabli (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per David Epstein and Aintabli. Not meeting WP:PROF at all; looks like it falls shore of WP:AUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wholly self-sourced. No SNG Prof pass evident, nor is a GNG pass evident. Carrite (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Misophonia. czar 03:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sequent repatterning therapy for misophonia

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

Although the current article only mentions it once, as explained by source 2 this is a type of hypnotherapy:

Sequent repatterning is often referred to as sequent repatterning hypnotherapy for misophonia. It was established some time ago that traditional, suggestion-based hypnosis does not provide enduring positive change in misophonia. Hypnosis does, however, provide an ideal platform from which neuropsychotherapeutic change can be achieved [...] The therapist may also choose from a range of useful hypnotic phenomena; in sound-response misophonia, for instance, auditory hallucination can be especially effective. It has been shown that eliciting auditory hallucination in children especially and in adults

And so I believe WP:FRINGE applies more stringent notability criteria which is not met. I can find no publications independent of the author Christopher Pearson. The author has almost no edits outside the article, and it is promotional material (although ambiguous enough I do not think CSD G11 is appropriate). Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I happened to also recently edit the hypnotherapy page. It is not clear whether there is Wikipedia-level consensus on whether hypnotherapy, and hypnosis more generally is psuedoscience or not. I know those conversations can get quite long (e.g. see the 19 pages of archives at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience), but this is just an AfD nomination and I don't intend to start that discussion here. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Misophonia: not quite there in terms of independent notability. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 08:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useable bits to Misophonia per nom and OwenX, probably to the "Management" section. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anay Bombú

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP with no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. All I can find on the subject are passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Daniel (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KADT-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Redirect or merge to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; despite it being one of the first Daystar stations it really isn't notable outside of its long-term ownership by the network. Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations: its pre-Daystar history seems limited enough (and the significant coverage seemingly lacking) that this is the best available alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Ponyo per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naeim Khanjani

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

Fails GNG, no indication of notability or even significance, CEO of a non-notable company. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, and I agree it's arguably A7 too - in my view, an assertion of being a CEO of a non-notable company is not an assertion of significance. Local Variable (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for A7 at first but an editor replaced it with an AfD banner, which didn't link to an AfD, so I made a proper one and here we go. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: You should've reverted the IP and reinstated the A7 tag. Speedy deletion tags can be recovered after removal, unlike PROD tags which can only be removed once. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wasn't sure about doing it, good to know! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, a removal of the speedy tag by the creator is invalid, but technically this was not the case. I mean, sure, the IP was probably the logged-out creator, but by a strict interpretation, going to AfD next was valid. --Finngall ^talk 22:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree, speedy delete per A7, if not G11. --Finngall ^talk 22:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, eligible under criterion A7 and tagged accordingly. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Technology, Computing, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note I've deleted the article per WP:CSD#A7 and blocked the two creators as UPE socks.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll go ahead and close this discussion since the article has been deleted. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harb

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

Fails WP:GNG. Rejected at AFC but moved to mainspace my creator so bringing here for community discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I personally would have gone straight to PROD since it was moved to mainspace after being rejected at AFC. DrowssapSMM 18:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The is now the third time the creator has moved the draft to mainspace so unlikely PROD would be effective. S0091 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Middle East. Owen× ☎ 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The drafts were rejected for a reason and and a COI editor, declared or not, repeatedly trying to put an article into the mainspace without being cleared by a reviewer is a violation of policy. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing, to my knowledge, that requires an article creator to make use of the broken Articles for Creation process. This is not to say this piece should not be deleted, only that I believe you are misrepresenting policy. Carrite (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.

Qcne (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block the creator to enforce deletion, if needed. This is beyond disruptive. Giving them a final warning now. Star Mississippi 02:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article that simply does not support a claim of notability with reliable and verifiable sources. Perhaps this should be a draft or go back to AfC, but it's unclear that the editor behind this article understands the process of creating a proper Wikipedia article. Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did my WP:BEFORE when first draftifying this. The subject doesn't meet the relevant notability criteria, as there is a lack of in depth-coverage in secondary sourcing, and no SNG such as WP:ANYBIO appears to be fulfilled. I'll additionally note that AfC isn't mandatory and not following the AfC process and having a COI are not reasons to delete.—Alalch E. 09:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above. This subject is non-notable, and the creator may have a conflict of interest. Secondary and in depth sourcing is also absent. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 23:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above, + sources consist of press releases and self published profiles. TLA (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above, plus the article is heavily biased towards the person based on tone (hence why a close connection is plausible) and that close connection is strengthened by the person not being notable enough to have much unbiased coverage. CharlieEdited (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this truly has been through the AfD process before, feel free to Salt. Not passing the slow, arbitrary, inconsistent Articles for Creation process is no terminal first strike, however. Carrite (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossorials

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

Like most of these lists of "animals with trait X", this suffers from a lack of realization of the sheer number of entries. I don't even want to guess at how many thousands of bivalves, annelids, polychaetes, nematodes have fossorial lifestyles. And the beetles, and the ants - the ants... there might be a fighting chance with fossorial mammals only (or possibly tetrapods, if you are feeling feisty about a few hundred frogs and snakes), but anything wider is going to be in "tiny random snapshot" territory, forever. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Biology, and Lists. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the nom says, such a list is untenable, and serves no useful encyclopedic purpose. At best, we could attempt a category, but even that would have limited value. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this should be a category at best. A more specific list like fossorial mammals is maybe doable, but if it was actually complete across all mammals it would be so long as to be meaningless. The overview article at Fossorial should suffice. Steven Walling • talk 04:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no useful purpose in this list. CharlesWain (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will either be completely untenable or grossly incomplete. More specific lists would also become rapidly untenable or become a complete redit of other pages. The vast majority of terrestrial diversity is fossorial at one point or another. A list for fossorial birds might be doable, but it would need good sources to justify that an animal is fossorial, and a clear definition of what is fossorial and what isn't. Categories might prove useful, although again, what is fossorial and what isn't is still subject to debate. As a corollary, this opinion also applies to the WikiProject associated, since fossorial animals are not a category per se (at least, unless your set of reference also includes medieval bestiaries and the occasional pre-Linnean groupings, but I don't recommend that for anything serious), and you would probably have an easier time listing the lifeforms that never dig. Larrayal (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Daniel (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZCZ-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article was part of a bundled AfD last year that closed as no consensus, but there isn't anything to show this station meets the notability guidelines on its own. Let'srun (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Otherwise unnotable subfarm. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: it's either that or deletion. It's yet another run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate station started in the 2010s with the usual nothing-but-national-programming and no significant coverage. Note that in addition to technically surviving that bulk nomination, it also survived another prior AfD of its own in 2016… and the "keep" rationales back then were based on the pre-2021 NBROADCAST and probably wouldn't be deemed "policy-based" today. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: my vote in that first nom, was definitely both the policy at the time, and that the station at that point was actually competing under different management with relevant networks that hopefully would've been sold to someone that kept it so. NTD America, ShopLC and the beIN leftovers channel under HC2 management certainly aren't that today. Nate • (chatter) 01:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gibault

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

My A7 and G11 nominations were declined (I don't really see any credible claim of significance, the sales figure is what is supposedly claimed to have been gained by the company's customers, not the company's turnover). Non-notable subject, promotional. Local Variable (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: thank you for bringing this here, Local Variable. I was the one who removed the speedy tags. The article credibly asserts notability, making it ineligible for CSD:A7. As for G11, while I am now deleting all the other pages created by this author as spam, this one seemed marginal enough to justify bringing it to AfD. I still believe it fails to establish notability, but I must admit I didn't really conduct a proper WP:BEFORE. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 9 January 2024 (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/2024 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marie Rausch

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

Very short page, with only a single paragraph. Also has 2 unreliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE easily shows that this figure is notable. The article in the French Wikipedia has more sources, he has an obituary in Le Monde, he's a Knight of the Legion of Honour, etc. Clear WP:BIO pass. Jfire (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an easy WP:NPOL pass. I suggest the nominator withdraws as there’s no merit in taking up community time on this. Mccapra (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNG Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: WP:SK#3 as a completely errant nomination. The nominator would benefit from reading WP:N if they want to work in article creation/deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per WP:CSK#3. Encourage the nominee to read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry

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

Unable to find sufficient sourcing from independent sources showing this meets the WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill competitive series between schools, not a notable rivalry. Carrite (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Sardella

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

No indication of importance and a GNG fail InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Argentina. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as you said. Only competed at the Olympics; did not win a medal, so they do not pass WP:NOLYMPICS either. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lugnuts spam, fails WP:NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks highly suspicious, no reliable sources. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nicaragua–United States relations. Daniel (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Managua

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

No information about the embassy, content fork of Nicaragua–United States relations. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nicaragua–United States relations: like we've done with all the others. No independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nicaragua. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, there's not a lot of coverage, but TicoTimes, La Prensa, La Prensa 2, Miami Herald should be sufficient for meeting WP:GNG. Apparently the grounds outside the old US embassy were also the theatre of a military display of force by the Nicaraguan regime when United States invaded Panama: Deseret News, UPI. Pilaz (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you’ve presented basically attest the entirely unremarkable fact that the US embassy functions inside a routine office building from 2007.
- If you look at Category:Office buildings completed in 2007, most of those are skyscrapers, one is the distinctly shaped headquarters of FIFA, while another is designed by Frank Gehry.
- What exactly distinguishes this building and makes it fit for a standalone article? (If possible, let’s think beyond the mere existence of routine coverage; of course Central American media was going to note the opening of a new US embassy in the region.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If the US Embassy in Managua is the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources as described by the GNG, then it is presumed notable. Looking at other articles in AfD discussions is largely unhelpful as arguments tend to devolve into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think other articles need to be nominated, feel free to, but arguing for keeping/deleting articles based on the existence of other better/worse sourced articles is usually not a productive way to go. Pilaz (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few months ago, a new supermarket opened in Liverpool, an event covered by three different independent media outlets. Should that individual supermarket have its own article? This is why I argue for taking a holistic approach to the question, rather than applying GNG by rote, but I suppose we’ve both made our point. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you're right, the jury is still out on whether Liverpool supermarkets have received coverage for being surrounded by T-55s as part of a standoff related to another regional conflict! Pilaz (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the six-tank standoff in 1989 is notable, it should certainly have its own article. The event does not, however, lend notability to the building at its centre. The embassy itself does indeed receive a fair amount of coverage from reliable sources, but this coverage is routine, lacking WP:DEPTH. And in many cases, the true subject of coverage are the relations between the two nations, rather than the largely-symbolic building embodying this relationship. So when we apply GNG, I have trouble seeing standalone notability for the building or even for the political body that occupies it beyond that of the bilateral relationship. I do, however, see some verifiable, encyclopedic content that isn't in the Nicaragua–United States relations page, hence my preference for merging rather than merely redirecting. Owen× ☎ 19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DEPTH only applies to articles about events, much like WP:LASTING, so it's only the GNG that's relevant here. Pilaz (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in the article and the articles presented for GNG are routine since one is very brief, one is just about the event that a new building was opened, one isn't really on the building at all, and the last one paywalled me but looked like a press release. No additional good sources in the article. I'm fine with an AtD but don't think this should be in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nicaragua–United States relations: all the content of the article currently circles around this topic, with nothing really notable about the embassy building itself. Rehsarb (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Buckley (jurist)

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

Either completely non notable, or a hoax (in which case the creator of this autobiography needs to be blocked). The only page really supporting the claims is this, but it looks as if you just have to pay and declare that you are a justice of the peace to get listed there. Other arguments in favour of the "hoax" theory are the other hard to believe claims in the article (this 16 year old is a Colonel and "justice Buckley holds multiple Honorary Doctorates from various institutions."), and the fact that previously, the same editor tried to claim that they were a Cardinal[8]).

If people agree that this is a hoax, please speedy delete the page and block the creator. Fram (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Massachusetts. Fram (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source coverage and some of the claims fail verification. But, I don't think it's entirely a hoax (but some of the claims probably are or are exaggerations); they do seem to be on the beautification commission of Hingham [9]. Kentucky Colonels aren't a military position but an honor given by Kentucky and maybe there's some way of joining some interest group about it but I doubt he's actually a Kentucky Colonel. Looks like to perhaps verify if he actually is a justice of the peace (I can't tell if there is any age requirement but MA is a state where it's an application process instead of election) you may need to call the town and/or Commonwealth; searching more there are some MA towns that have PDFs with printouts of all the town clerks of MA and someone matching the name+middle initial is listed for Hingham as a justice of the peace.
The editor clearly needs to begin communication and stop writing articles about themself but given their apparent age I'm not sure a block is needed yet since they do have edits that are not autobiographical so perhaps there is hope (but maybe a pblock from article space if they don't communicate on either their talk page or this AFD). I'm open to me being overly optimistic. Skynxnex (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did respond on the talk page of this AfD, maintaining that they are honorary cardinal, a Kentucky Colonel (despite the age requirement of being at least 18), and so on. Fram (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no reliable source coverage, dubious unsourced contents. I'll stop short of calling it a hoax but I question whether the creator is WP:HERE. Jfire (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that any applicable notability criteria are met. The references in place do even support the text - and do not support a claim to notability. While I note that WP:MINORS and WP:CHILDPROTECT both appear to apply, the WP:COI and WP:PROMO overtones are also difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see where this man's children are named. But I am tired. Is it removed? --Hagesen 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hagesen the subject himself is claimed to be 16, so a minor. Skynxnex (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that Skynxnex. Thanks. I guess I was too tired. And thanks Liz. I thought this was his children. --Hagesen 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagesen. The subject is a child. The author is a child. Both the same person. Wikipedia has policies on the protection of the privacy of children. Including what children write about themselves. Those policies apply here. For yourself you might consider taking a quick look at WP:BLUDGEON. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON? I am not "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own". Bizarre. I thought his children needed removed (correctly). The policies on the protection of the privacy of children you write about. From WP:BLUDGEON - "Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine." Until now I am replying to the hoax call. I had civil comments with StefenTower under that. "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed." I came here to thanks Skynxnex. "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided." Bizarre. But maybe I look too quick at WP:BLUDGEON? Thanks Skynxnex (and Liz again). --Hagesen 18:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a similar accusation, but ultimately, a serious and potentially lengthy discussion of the editor's behavior and any actions that could be taken with respect to that belongs in a spot like WP:ANI rather than here. Like I said below, we're just here to find a consensus on what to do with the article. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Justice of the Peace, at any age, does not approach meeting WP:NJUDGE. BD2412 T 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Self-aggrandizing junkpile resume bordering on hoax. There's too many unproven, doubtful claims. But at least seeing "Kentucky colonel" being treated as military in an infobox gave this Kentuckian a hearty laugh. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per apparent lack of objection over several days. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a hoax for certain? I do not know. --Hagesen 22:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in WP:RS >> certainty or truth, for this encyclopedia.Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the talk page quickly. It is a possible COI - did they make the page or ask someone to make the page for them? I cannot work it out.

But the statement on their talk page mention hononary doctorates and 1 Guinness World Records. So we need to check that out? They are saying "give the benefit of your doubt" - so AGF probably needs be respected. It is written - at the top of AGF - "avoid accusing others of harmful motives" - so I am wanting not to call it a hoax now. Like Jfire said "I'll stop short of calling it a hoax". Maybe a mistake. --Hagesen 23:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an original editor is making claims in an article about them, particularly those that would appear extraordinary, isn't it on them to bring the WP:RS that backs it up? And WP:AGF doesn't mean we can't make a rational judgment after tripping over a number of serious problems in an article that together are suggestive of a hoax or near-hoax. There is no requirement for us to chase down proof for every last extraordinary claim. The original editor has a chance and frankly, burden, during this process to bring the sources, if they have them. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK but that was the talk page. Mix up with talk and article. The article is written in ordinary style. I guess I do not know a lot about Massachusetts Bar Association or advisory boards for state and local agencies or Plymouth County Justice of the Peace. It says Justice of the Peace is "elected or appointed by means of a commission" - so my guess is he did not get that one easy. He cannot make it on his own. Other people have to put him into Justice of the Peace. It looks like a successful career. "When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible" - I will AGF it is not a hoax. Maybe a mistake. But I can't say a hoax. Not for certain. --Hagesen 00:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my !vote says "bordering on hoax". I think it's fair to say a bunch of unsourced puffery is on that level. Good faith is where our assumptions begin but when you see someone treating "Kentucky colonel" like it's a military officer, that faith sours pretty quickly. Pap nonsense does that for me. :) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A colonel is military in lots of countries actually. But yeah looks like Kentucky does it different. Kentucky Colonel looks not too military. Is it an ambassador? Hagesen 02:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange because there is Colonel (United States). Maybe he put in the wrong link. --Hagesen 02:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's purely honorary and handed out like candy by the Kentucky governor (no matter who). There's no room for a mistake due to the other info the original author put there around it and how it displayed after being saved. Showing it like it's a military role is a deception at least by appearance. And if he had indeed received this honorary colonelcy, it would be willful deception. Sometimes a spade is a spade. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hagesen, did you miss the fact that this fellow is 16 years old and in high school? Doesn't that put all of these unsourced claims of legal experience in a different light? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Yeah Liz a lot of people saying this man is a kid now. I guess I was too tired. --Hagesen 18:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of WP:V is that every statement of fact must be verifiable. So much of this teenager's puffery isn't. The rest is threadbare. And with that, given that you state that you don't know much about how justices of the peace operate or are appointed, wouldn't you say that it's fair that you might want to avoid drawing any notability conclusions about that? (Provided that this kid is a JP at all, which I'd say is so far unproven.) Ravenswing 07:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not draw any notability conclusions. I replied to writing about a hoax. --Hagesen 18:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This may not be a hoax, but this does hit WP:BULLSHIT pretty hard. There are oodles of unsourced claims, that "official portrait" making the subject out to be a sitting judge in the shadow of the State House is outright WP:NFT -- just this side of cosplay -- and being a retired legal professional and a native of Plymouth County, pretty much what being a justice of the peace gets you are modest fees for solemnizing weddings. AGF isn't a suicide pact, and doesn't require us to give credence to this self-aggrandizement. Heck, I'm a notary public and have one of those ULC minister certificates, and that gives me all the practical powers that this kid claims to have. Ravenswing 00:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Ravenswing, maybe we should have an article on you with those credentials. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I have an essay setting forth why all the things I've done and been in my life doesn't mean at all that I'm notable. I'm a published author -- to the point that two of my works have Wikipedia articles of their own -- I've been both an elected AND appointed public official, I've been a color commentator for broadcast sports, a concert promoter, a public speaker ... and a whole lot of things that still don't qualify me for an article. Ravenswing 07:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at a previous draft article he wrote in 2022 that was CSD G13, Draft:Buckley Island, where he claimed to have created his own micronation in the Bahamas. And there was Henry Randolph Buckley, too. It seems like he is determined to be in an article on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see "Draft:Buckley Island" and "Henry Randolph Buckley". They are red on my screen. It sounds serious if claims are true. But I will AGF it is not a hoax. I cannot see anything. Will look again later. No time now. When I get a different computer. --Hagesen 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGFing this to show as not a complete hoax seems to ignore all the reasons given to delete the article in this AfD debate. This process isn't to impugn or absolve the author, or declare him a hoaxster or "not a hoaxster" - it is to see whether the article should be kept or deleted. Hunting for a salvageable proven claim in a sea of problems isn't really our job here - it is a misapplication of AGF. There is no great harm in deleting an article, including any particular harm to the subject. If this person later emerges as a notable figure with WP:RS coverage to back it up, they could have a new article. Any discussion on editor behavior is, while not banned here, shouldn't contribute to or deny a result that is based on the article content itself. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People now saying the man is a kid? I thought he looked wrinkly in the portrait. How does a kid get an official portrait like that anyway... --Hagesen 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - actually - it does look like the man might be... a kid. Spooky. --Hagesen 18:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An image, and especially a portrait, that doesn't connect to any hard information where it came from, would not be considered as evidence for this discussion at any rate. In a world of Photoshop and AI, and the author declaring themselves as the image's source, it's simply immaterial. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly fails WP:BLP. The website https://sites.google.com/view/hinghamjp/home is real, but this guys notability claims are not. Polyamorph (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability and verification are not established. Noah, AA^Talk 20:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a joke. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP. Sources from here wikitia.com/wiki/Henry_Buckley_(American_Jurist) [10] <-subject is author, [11] "volunteers were appointed to town committees" - subject is one of about 30 volunteers. This article like previous attempts is a hoax. WP:SNOW - should be speedied and COI spam author blocked. Widefox; talk 18:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that it's no big effort to manage to get appointed OR elected to these minor town positions in New England. I was an elected official in my small town in Massachusetts, on the strength of this: that my wife was running for reelection for a seat on a town board, that she'd been endorsed by the town's Democratic caucus the previous time out, that she went to the pre-election caucus meeting to thank them, and I went with her. Another seat on the board had gone vacant and was looking to be uncontested, the caucus was voting on endorsements, and I jokingly told my wife that we should both write myself in for it. We did so, and on the strength of those two votes I won -- to my significant bemusement -- the Democratic endorsement for it. In the strongly Democratic town, that endorsement led me to win the election handily, no campaigning, no nothing, no merits of mine. Vermin Supreme or Screaming Lord Sutch should have had it so good. Ravenswing 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, this seems to be a joke, although this is probably a real person. ^Queen of _Hearts 07:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely a real person behind the hoax that they are notable, beyond that they got to volunteer somewhere, and this amounts to a strengthening of the reason to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver Ocelot

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

Most of the sources at receptuon were just listicles and rankings. I have trouble of finding something substantial reliable source that talks about him significantly, not just about passing mentions and a short commentary. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of sections that are unsourced, much of the only sourced section (Reception) reads less as reception so much as sourced speculation about character details from the individual games bundled together. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I, unfortunately, cannot find much meaningful character analysis done in reliable sources. It's tough, but that's what you end up with sometimes.
A merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series § Revolver Ocelot should be sufficient rather than deletion, though. That's in line with the outcome of similar AfDs like AFD:Venom Snake, AFD:Meryl Silverburgh, and AFD:Otacon. There's still content worth porting over to the list (such as replacing the first paragraph of the list with the lead of the article since it's better written). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Revolver Ocelot per nom, no standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per MJL. There isn't enough to reach WP:SIGCOV, but some of the mentions can be WP:PRESERVEd at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is some discussion about him at least, this article on The Ringer discusses him in depth, and while I'm not sure if the site itself is reliable, the author has written for other publications. This book has a page discussing him in the context of Japan's fascination with cowboys. Fanbyte gives some analysis of the character also. I do think there are sources, possibly on the cowboy angle as a whole looking at Google Scholar, but I don't have time to do a deep dive.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kung Fu Man's sources. SnowFire (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the sources presented by Kung Fu Man would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion the reception alone shows notability, and now with Kung Fu Man's new sources (which discuss the character in depth) there is clear notability shown in the subject. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the strongest, but I feel that the examples Kung Fu Man provided help get it over the finish line. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sugartone Brass Band

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

This band article lacks in-depth sources to establish notability. There are zero citations. After searching, found passing mention news and social media websites, but unable to verify facts in the article. Article might be promotional as the page creator's only Wikipedia contribution, done on 10 April 2009. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions of the band in passing [12] or confirmation of events they've played at, but nothing for extensive coverage found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, couldn't find many sources without a POV. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Left (Ireland)

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

I don't think this group (I'm not sure to what extent it can be called a party) has sufficient notability to merit a separate page, satisfying WP:ORG. Its coverage on the page at present accounts that its councillor had left PBP, and the various details of his election, as well as that of another candidate, in more details than we would normally include in narrative. Google search results for "Independent Left" "john lyons" or "Independent Left" "ireland" don't indicate WP:SIGCOV.

To the extent that it's necessary to note anything at all, there could be a small note in the Artane–Whitehall section of the 2019 Dublin City Council election page, something similar to the note on the Waterford People's Party on the 1985 Waterford Corporation election page.

Deleting the page doesn't mean deleting the party's record on Module:Political party/I, it would retain a separate colouring from Independent politician (Ireland). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Environment, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the party is a) contesting elections, including the most recent Dáil and local elections; and b) has had someone elected to office. That would appear to make them at least as significant as other parties that, while registered, don't appear to have contested any recent elections, or have never contested elections. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORGCRIT. I was unable to find significant coverage of this political party in independent, secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails org, basically a one man band, an independent local politician with an unregistered micro party. Spleodrach (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the party regularly appears in news sources, was a founding organisation of Irish Left with Ukraine, and has been joined by Laura Broxson, founder of the National Animal Rights Association. JimHolden (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you post some examples of their regular news coverage? CeltBrowne (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dublin People; Dublin Live; Irish Mirror; Irish Times; Dublin Inquirer. JimHolden (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowbot

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

WP:NOTDICT and ~~this term isn't used anywhere~~ (I was wrong, it's used in academic literature, see discussion below). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 800+ hits on GScholar suggests that the term is, as a minimum, used in academic literature. Let's avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type arguments. Owen× ☎ 16:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point still stands, because Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well, this term is just not popular nowadays, I doubt that this article will grow into something bigger other than mere definition of the word. It's been here for 22 years after all.

Today, if you type knowbot in to the Google, you will get some random LLM bots instead of whatever this article is about. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, I would redirect it to Web crawler. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should contain a lot of things. But when an editor says something like, "this term isn't used anywhere", and is then shown that they made an incorrect statement, I expect them to correct their mistake, rather than double down with, "The point still stands". Doing a WP:BEFORE involves more than just plugging the term into Google search. We all take shortcuts occasionally, but an inability to admit a simple mistake makes it difficult to take someone's views seriously. Owen× ☎ 19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I shouldn't have included "this term isn't used anywhere" before doing proper research. Still won't change my opinion that it shouldn't have its own dedicated Wikipedia article. Let's see what others say. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; thank you. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinions here, just a note that the article Knowbot Information Service shouldn't be left out of this conversation. A merger of the two might be a good way to turn two perma-stubs into one halfway informative article. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like this idea, otherwise Knowbot Information Service could be deleted as well and it feels wrong to delete them just like that. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From a cursory glance, knowbots are "intelligent software agents designed to perform specific tasks autonomously or collaboratively" [13], while a knowbot information service "provides an interface to a variety of Internet directory services such as Whois and Finger." [14]. By tech standards both of these terms are pretty ancient, and I can see the potential appeal of merging, but they don't seem to be related in their concept. Regarding the redirect suggestion, it's clearly not the same as a web crawler (web crawlers' main purpose is search indexing). Notability is not temporary, even if no one improves this article for a while. This nomination seems overly deletionist to me; I don't see these stubs (with the KIS article possibly being a permastub) doing any harm by keeping them around personally. Darcyisverycute (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears in academic sources and several notable results when quote-searching it on google. though outdated, it seems to have been at one point notable, and as Darcy pointed out, WP:NTEMP

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridya Aulia Fatasya

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails N:BAD. Fails WP :V. Stvbastian (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as this subject isn't notable at the moment. Achievements are not convincing either, being runner-up in lower grade tournaments.zoglophie^•talk• 09:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond match reports, this quick biographical profile was about all I could find [15]. More sourcing would be needed, which doesn't appear to exist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Current sourcing is largely routine match results. Fails WP:NBAD. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley College Australia

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The vast majority of search results come up for a school in Queensland, which has the same name. The only search results that comes up for this school are primary sources, one of which is already used in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is referenced to 3 academic books including 2 published by Routledge that are used to verify 9 facts in the article so they are most likely to contain significant coverage, enabling a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have access to the books used as sources, and my only library options would be inter library loans so I did what I could with Google Books. I confirmed that the statements that these sources support are supported by them, but could not see that they provide much more coverage. They may, but at AfD it would be helpful to move beyond may, to establish GNG is met. These sources mostly meet WP:SIRS but significant coverage is note demonstrated without fuller access to the sources. However these are not the only mentions in books. A Google books search finds hundreds of mentions. Some are about the college, but this one [16] is typical of output by principals / former principals etc. That is, the book is not about the college at all, but points to its notabililty as a centre of learning and published output in the manner of Bible colleges. The books returned also contain many primary soucres, such as this mention in Hansard. [17] Primary sources do not count towards notability, yet the mention in parliament is not insignificant. All in all, while I cannot list three good sources that demonstrate SIRS and GNG are met beyond doubt, I think that the breadth of coverage and the clear evidence that it was a longstanding Bible college of some repute, takes this over the line. I also think it is likely that sources meeting SIRS do exist - I just don't have access to them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Swan505 (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nom. suggests that most hits are for Kingsley College Queensland, but this is not correct. The Queensland college is a Christian primary and secondary school, not a Bible college, so all the Bible college hits I discussed refer to this one. I think this is the more notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sirfurboy makes a compelling argument, but given there's an element of IAR-yness about it, relisting to allow others to challenge it if they wish to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Kerr

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

Fails WP:GNG. This player previously met the WP:NAFL SNG criteria of playing at least one professional match (Kerr played four), but this SNG was retired with WP:NSPORTS2022.

The article had five non-database references at time of nomination, none of which meet the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These are: a draft profile [18] (WP:YOUNGATH); one passing mention in match coverage [19] (WP:ROUTINE); one passing mention of his being delisted [20] (ROUTINE); one fan wiki reference [21]; and one piece about his familial connections to other members of his football club which covers mainly his family and a little bit about his youth career [22] (WP:INVALIDBIO/INHERIT).

A Google search of 'Pat Kerr Carlton' [23] has many hits, but mostly passing mentions in lower level match coverage. Given his professional career ended in 2019, the likelihood of future significant coverage of Pat Kerr the footballer is negligible.

Redirection to List of Carlton Football Club players is a valid alternative to deletion and would be consistent with other VFL/AFL players whose articles have been deleted. Aspirex (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, close to speedy. Nom fails to give a reason why this article should actually be deleted when a valid alternative exists. Nom also misrepresents not inherited. People aren't deemed non notable because an article mentions that they are related to someone. The Fox Sports article is good for GNG as is The Age and Herald Sun. There is also Herald Sun 1 and 2 behind a pay wall so I can't fully evaluate them. And maybe a bit in Code Sport. Plus bits like SEN. This is not as independent as we'd like but is close. Offline he's undoubtedly covered in Football annuals from 2018-19 and the like, a library search would be needed here. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is three tabloid pieces from 2016 about a WP:YOUNGATH with a lot of puffery about his familial connections (which, you are correct, I should have just called it WP:INVALIDBIO, not INHERIT), and the rest of those references are very much WP:ROUTINE. Aspirex (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm satisfied with the sources Duff has provided, I'm not sure exactly what about them would count as routine or mere coat-tail riding. Yes, Kerr's family connections are played up as an interesting angle, but the coverage stems from his own status as an AFL footballer, not merely those connections. – Teratix ₵ 16:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duff. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for further review of the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, as per first relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after reviewing the sources presented, this is a clear case of satisfying WP:GNG. Left guide (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this has been relisted so many times. – Teratix ₵ 07:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speed keep – Per all above. Consensus cleary reached. Svartner (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of states with cities larger than their capital city by population

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

Article was proposed for deletion, but the author objected. Topic violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. The list does not provide any substantial value that is not already being met by List of United States cities by population. Topic also fails WP:NLIST as it has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - also, "List of states" is incredibly US-centric; plenty of countries have 'states' that could fit this list. CoconutOctopus talk 08:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that we have a list of countries whose capital is not their largest city. That was in fact initially what I thought that the article was going to be about, from its title before I read further. If we are doing states in federal countries, without qualification, then Goa would like a word with the article's author, for starters. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This already exists at List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by population, the creator didn't do enough searching before making this. Reywas92^Talk 13:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list features 28 out of 50 U.S. states i.e. the capital city not being the largest city in a given state is very common, and doesn't seem to be specifically notable. Also, List of states and territories of the United States already lists capitals and largest cities. Cortador (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivia perhaps and the list is largely duplicated by others on wiki giving population numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already in List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by population with its own demarcation. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animas Corporation

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

Defunct corporation that spent a significant amount of its lifetime as a subsidiary of J&J, with no items of reliable secondary coverage I can find, mostly reprints of PR releases and newsblogs. The one reliable secondary source I can find is only about its ceasing of operations, and has no detailed information about the corporation as a business. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Medicine, and Pennsylvania. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Various healthcare PR items or a list of money the CEO made, nothing else found for notability or sourcing we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sources seem to be based solely on press releases, not fully WP:INDEPENDENT. TLA (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Control Equipment Ltd

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

Unable to find much independent reporting on this company, leading me to think it's not notable. Additionally, the article is very promotional, which is fishy. There is a note in the talk page that the article was part of some project on a specific topic in the wiki and notable in that context, but that note is from 2006 and there does not appear to have been any work on that since (other than edits by others to make the article more promotional). Xnyarla (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Xnyarla (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A product of the old age of Wikipedia, when notability was lax. Neither does it assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is heavy on superlative claims which would need strong references to remain. Noting the original comments on the Talk page, while sadly Anthony Appleyard cannot now comment, it may have been as Sabre Safety (later Sabre Medical) manufacturer that the present article was established. I am adding several Findsources below which may be useful (though I am just seeing product listings and announcements). AllyD (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Everything I found was either not independent, a passing mention, or routing listings, e.g. Zoominfo (goes for both the company itself and the other three corporate entities that may have owned/absorbed it, posted in the last comment). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Almost certainly WP:COI. Agreed, WeirdNAnnoyed. TLA (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Farhan Sudi

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

Being an official in a ministry of an unrecognised state doesn’t make you notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Somalia. Mccapra (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under improvement and soon it will be added valuable contents. So I suggest to not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawali Nur (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We add the categories in this page. And soon we will another confirmed data with sources. Hawali Nur (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble: Puntland is a constituent state of Somalia, it is not a breakaway entity like Somaliland. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment adding two links to Facebook and another to the homepage of a university isn’t demonstrating notability. Where is the in depth independent coverage of this individual? Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete solidly fails GNG. A Google search returns more results on the similarly named Saudi king than it does results for this subject, which are all Facebook and other social media posts anyway. RetroCosmos ^{t • c} 17:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had another look and I am unable to change my mind. With respect, Facebook is a non-starter, and a press release is something that might build upon existing notability but certainly not enough to establish notability. Hawaii Nur, I appreciate your efforts on this article. RetroCosmos ^talk 09:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Improvements were made to the article today that would be worth a look. It would help with coming to a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. The sources added are all government press releases listing all similar appointments. They verify that the subject holds the position mentioned in the article. They mention the subject but there is no in depth coverage of him specifically. At AfD routine announcements of an appointment are not regarded as evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no presumed notability available under WP:NPOL as even ministerial directors-general/first secretaries are not recognised there (although to extend Curbon7's point, Puntland is a federal state, so it's ministers would be covered by NPOL). No independent sourcing to indicate satisfies WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Hajiyev

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

BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. Individual is an administrator and second degree state advisor, not an elected official. Sources in article do not have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found routine mill news and name mentions, nothing that indicates this subject meets GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 06:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johsgun Aliyev (talk) When you open a discussion, are you looking for the person in the article?

The person is the chief of staff of the National Assembly of the Republic of Azerbaijan and is the only person in this position in Azerbaijan. He is also a second-tier state legislator, a position held by only 10 people. 10:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information and the person himself is completely encyclopedic. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Farid Hajiyev is Chief of Staff (Azerbaijan National Assembly). 1. And Mr Hajiyev is State Counsellor, 2nd rank. 2 Atakhanli (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – Subjects fairly passes WP:NPOL criterion 1, however, there are almost no reliable in depth sources. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The official website of the Milli Majlis (Azerbaijan National Assembly) is not reliable? Atakhanli (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input required from uninvolved editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As best I can tell, the subject is not a member of parliament or an elected official of some sort, but rather a staff member of Azerbaijan's parliament or a run of the mill bureaucrat appointed by the authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan. Thenightaway (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have analyzed your contributions and repeatedly felt that you have a serious grudge against Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani authorities. You violate the neutrality of Wikipedia and promote your own political interests. You have nominated mass of articles about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis for deletion and in almost every coment you have described the Azerbaijani government as a run of the mill bureaucracy and an authoritarian regime. Most of your arguments are baseless. Surə ^🗯 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to inform Wikipedia members about you, because how many times you try to delete public figures of Azerbaijan using the deletion template, probably mature people will investigate what is behind this. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a person who is important for the state and has a role in foreign policy. I think you should improve your language knowledge and read Azerbaijani, then you will see that he is a completely enscaledic person. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:GNG/SIGCOV, I think the problem with these articles is the reliable sources not being in English. There are numerous secondary sources in Azerbaijani addressing the subject directly and indepth. Also, subject fairly passes WP:NPOL and the facts are verifiable: The official website of the Milli Majlis and the Decree of the President of Azerbaijan (official copy of the decree's text) ARE the most reliable sources to proof the facts and also there are reliable secondary sources. --Surə ^🗯 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does not pass WP:NPOL because he is not a member of the legislative body, but a chief of staff. He also does not pass WP:GNG because all or most sources on the page are from his place of work. They may be reliable, but we need multiple independent 3rd party RS to pass WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All news and main sources added. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Those arguing to keep have to be specific about sources, give a link to a webpage or name a book or journal with page number. It can't just be "sources exist", you have to bring them into the discussion so others can read and evaluate them, too. And notability is not established by the opinions of editors but by reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All news and main sources added. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he’s a public servant but NPOL does not apply to him as he is not a politician. We therefore need the same sources as we require for an other BLP - sustained in depth coverage from reliable independent sources. Official announcements of appointments won’t do. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All news and main sources added. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no part of WP:NPOL, nor has there been any consensus at AfD, that high ranking bureaucrats satisfy the criteria for presumed notability. Sourcing in the article is entirely government press releases which lack independence for purposes of establishing notability; there is no evidence of compliant reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Taoyuan International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man A

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

Failure of WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is all news coverage of the event and the sentencing. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Aviation, and Taiwan. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taoyuan International Airport#Accidents and incidents expanding the existing brief sentence with the additional content here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is merged, do not redirect to Taoyuan International Airport as a surprising redirect. Placeholder name is probably the best redirect target, or just leave it red. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Stellarnelson (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Taoyuan International Airport#Accidents and incidents per WP:NOTNEWS. Redirect article to Placeholder name per A412. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge will be the best choice in this case. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Artace. I don't see how this article can be merged into a list article but then, I'm not the Merger. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan poodle moth

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

This article is about a 2009 image that went viral on the internet. I don't believe this is actually a notable topic. Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion this topic is more suitable for Know Your Meme than for Wikipedia. There is also a serious absence of reliable sources regarding this moth - just a barebones Snopes article, some entirely speculative blog posts, and a few pop culture news articles (calling them "news articles" is rather generous) talking about how the photo is going viral and how cute the moth is. In the absence of any real research, one photo of a fluffy moth just isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Ethmostigmus (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know, I know: I started the article. And, yes, some of the sources are "news" and "speculative blog posts." But, it is a term that is searched (Google Trends "Venezuelan poodle moth"; Google Trends "poodle moth"), and it should have a landing page on Wikipedia. It is in books now (Google Books "Venezuelan poodle moth"). Yes, some books are self-published, some are for kids, but even academic presses have got in on the act. See Gardening for Moths from the Ohio University Press: "Moths can be furry-some fantastically so-like the Venezuelan Poodle Moth (species not yet formally named), whose image and discovery went viral. People were understandably enamored with this moth's huge eyes and overall cuddly cuteness...."^[1] People are going to search for it. Wikipedia is the place where properly-NPOV, properly-sedate, and properly-filtered and encyclopedic information can be found about it. Hopefully, one day, it will get a scientific name and an academic article. But, it has enough notability, I reckon, to stay. I say keep (or, at the least, merge and redirect as a subsection of genus Artace). TuckerResearch (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect. I think the Atlantic and Snopes articles confer just enough notability for this not formally described species to be given a 1- or 2-sentence mention in the genus article. I don't think it has enough (rigorous) coverage for an independent article, but I also don't think Wikipedia would be improved by wiping away any mention of this interesting topic. Esculenta (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect. I agree; the page receives enough hits to suggest it's not completely forgotten, and a short entry in the Artace article would be sufficient and appropriate until and unless someone eventually obtains another specimen and gets it IDed more precisely. If the decision is to redirect, I can handle it when the time comes. Dyanega (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect per above. It's had a flash of fame but little indication of lasting attention. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ McCormac, Jim; Gottfried, Chelsea (2023). Gardening for Moths: A Regional Guide. Ohio University Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-8214-4797-0. Retrieved 2024-01-09.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of open-source programming language licensing

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

I did a before search and I was unable to find any independent sources that compare the licensing of open-source programming languages. There are some sources that discuss different open-source programming languages, but not their licensing. Therefore, this list does not pass WP:SAL. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been doing research in this ballpark for the open-source license and free license articles and have not come across any coverage of the topic. A quick search of websites and journals doesn't show anything. I think it may also be inherently misleading. Without an explanation of "implementation license", a reader could easily mistake these licenses for having some kind of impact on the generated software's license. Without sources, an explanation of "implementation license" would fall under WP:OR. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to see multiple reliable sources make this comparison but that is missing. Dympies (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted WP:G5‎

Rakul Preet Singh’s Awards and Nominations

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

This article was created in draft space and declined in AFC as already contained in the parent article, and then moved to article space by the author. The issue in this case is not notability so much as balance and undue weight. This is a split of an article that does not need to be split because it is only Class C. There do not appear to be any additional awards listed in this article that are not in the parent article, so it is not necessary to merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakul Preet Singh#Awards and nominations. Left guide (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I have tagged it for G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Rakul Preet Singh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ between keep and merge. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here, and the discussion has run a month. Further discussion, including a potential new name can continue on the Talk. Star Mississippi 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alchesay Flat

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable physical feature. Deleting it is grounded in policy. WP:GEONATURAL states:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

The sources are exclusively primary and some not even reliable like the GNIS. There is no coverage about this feature, only mentions of it. So "information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography". And so I suggest Deleting and then writing about this feature elsewhere. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND - WP is also a gazetteer, and this would fall under that aspect. It's included in The National gazetteer of the United States of America, Flyfisher's Guide to Arizona, Annual Report on the Archeological Programs of the Western Region, National Park Service (1977), as well as many atlases. It's also discussed in local newspaper articles, such as in the Arizona Republic in September 1987 and July 2003 (see this, this, which talks about it being evacuated during a forest fire, and this). Also, from the earlier AfD, "the United States Geological Survey has a named map - "USGS 1:24,000: Alchesay Flat, Arizona", here is a survey that describes the area - "Archaeological Survey of Two Housing Parcels Near Whiteriver and Alchesay Flat", this obit from the White Mountain Independent mentions that it is a settlement - "Chief Alchesay received Medal of Honor for his service in the Apache Wars" - "His granddaughter, Yvonna Redsteer, and her husband, Guy, live on the site of Chief Alchesay’s former home. She said, “All of us in Alchesay Flats are from him..."", this obit states it is a settlement - "..the family residence, 9651 N. Chief Ave, Alchesay Flats, Arizona."." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Passes WP:GEOLAND.

No, as it has no legal recognition. So it must be deleted. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First I don't think anybody thinks it's good idea to write an article on every place that was ever evacuated by a wildfire, not these days anyway. Also, WP:GEOLAND also states the following: "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. " and "A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps,". All this expressly says that having a name and being mentioned in passing a bunch of times does not make a place notable. So you are incorrect, it does not pass WP:GEOLANDJames.folsom (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND with ease. Also is the site of the grave of Chief Alchesay Baha. [24] Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another GNIS record. For 33°55′20″N 109°56′20″W / 33.92222°N 109.93889°W / 33.92222; -109.93889 (Chief Alchesay Baha Grave). Is no-one apart from Coolabahapple in the last AFD discussion capable of finding anything else other than GNIS database records? Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was able to find a note of the location from the tribal government and a history from a woman who lived there and added them to the article. It's also the burial site for Medal of Honor recipient William Alchesay. I will admit that this took a lot of digging and with sparsely populated areas like this it's hard to pin things down. For example there's a lot of information about the White River because of the fish hatchery and a lot less about the land that is around it. I think the article from the White Mountain Independent is pretty good evidence.
  - Baeza, Jo (2005-08-01). "Ceremony honors Chief Alchesay". White Mountain Independent. Retrieved 2023-12-19. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that Alchesay is buried approximately 300m from the North Fork White River, and cannot logically have been buried in a place that is supposedly named after he died. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again WP:GEOLAND is clear "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." These things you cite as notable do not transfer.James.folsom (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a piss-poor article! Falsely sourced for the derivation of the name twice, with both sources being the GNIS in various guises, and the GNIS record never stating the derivation of the name. The article's creator is pretending that The National gazetteer of the United States of America is somehow not the same thing as the GNIS, which of course it is, it being a 1986 printed paper copy of the then computer dataset. Then there's a third GNIS source.
The location of the flat from the GNIS dataset doesn't actually match the archaeological report mentioned by Coolabahapple in the last AFD discussion, which is actually the sort of source to be using here instead of trying to abuse the GNIS via multiple different routes. We don't get encyclopaedia articles by repeatedly abusing gazetteer database entries in different guises, and quandrangle names are not indicative of anything.
So that's 1 source, with some encyclopaedia content in it.
One might think that another is the Preliminary studies using syntheic polymers to reduce turbidity in a hatchery water supply paper by Olson, Chase, and Hanson in the Proceedings of the Northwest Fish Culture Conference, Volume 22, 1971 (also printed in the 1972 The Progressive Fish Culturist), which despite the title tells us a bit about the watershed, and there are other things to be found including BuSpoFisWil statements about Alchesay Spring in the Congressional Record. Also there are actual history books. We can connect Alchesay to North Fork White River through Baeza, Joan (2014). Pinetop-Lakeside. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 17–18. ISBN 9781467132169..
However, like many of these sources the real topic is not the flat, but North Fork White River, which is the actual location where the hatchery, the upstream reservoir, and Chief Alchesay's residence, all are in everything that discusses them. Alchesay "eventually became a farmer on the North Fork of the White River" says the 1978 ISBN 9780823022397, for example.
All of this focus on trying to write a gazetteer using nothing but a fairly bad other gazetteer would be better directed at writing an encyclopaedia based upon everything from history books to USDOI reports; and getting where things are right, instead of trying to extend inferences from a 1986 paper printout of the GNIS computer database.
Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The populated place seems to be called "Alchesay Flats" (plural). In addition to the sources provided by Coolabahapple in the last AFD, [25] (see p. 3), [26] (see p. 90), and [27] (among others) all seem to indicate this is a populated place with some sort of legal recognition. (The first source is from the tribal government, and the third is from the federal government). I believe GEOLAND is met. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions in government documents do not confer notability, and only having a government makes a place legally recognized.James.folsom (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there are very opposing arguments here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think this is clearly notable per our current geographic notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called "from the federal government" source cited above turns out to be a table entry for Whiteriver, Arizona. Bad research by phrase matching in Google has carefully ignored the "White River" right there at the start of the line. There is more bad research by Google phrase matching in the second source, where someone is quoted as saying that xe lives in North Fork, Arizona. "I live in North Fork" are literally the first 5 words of the sentence.
The final "from the tribal government" source is in fact organizing a dance ceremony when one actually reads it, and doesn't document an Alchesay Flat at all. Rather, buried in an itinerary, the bad research by Google phrase matching has found a dance location of "Yvonna Redsteer's cornfield". A field. Of corn. Even when prodded to do better, are Wikipedia editors this bad at reading sources?
Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The federal government source states gives the location as "White River, Alchesay Flats." If you look at the other columns, you can see that the first part of the phrase actually appears to refer to the name of the tribe, not a location. (Compare for example, "Hopi, Shepoulovi" and "Umatilla, Reservation Wide"). This seems, to me, to indicate that Alchesay Flats is a location on the reservation of the White River tribe (which I am assuming is an alternate name for the White Mountain tribe). The tribal government source indicates the location of the event as "Alchesay Flats (Yvonna Redsteer's cornfield)," i.e. "Yvonna Redsteer's cornfield" in Alchesay Flats. For the third source, the interviewee says "I live in North Fork at Alchesay Flats..." When looked at it context and not selectively quoted, all of these sources show that "Alchesay Flats" is a distinct place located on this reservation. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's definitely you that's doing the selective quoting, here, carefully missing out Whiteriver, Arizona and North Fork, Arizona and the dance itinerary until I read the sources, spotted this, and pulled you up on it. And now we have the desperate tap dancing that "Alchesay Flat is a distinct place".
    You selectively mis-read the sources to get us a corn field as a populated place. You mis-read the article, whose first sentence tells you that this is "a physical feature, named flat" (as indeed the GNIS computer database record, using the feature code "flat", did). And you mis-read the maps where the words "Alchesay Flat" run diagonally along a flat.
    This is a flat, and trying to prove something that neither the computer database record nor the article itself originally asserted, that this is a populated place just because someone mentions the flat in conjunction with Whiteriver, Arizona and North Fork, Arizona, is really putting the goal of trying to "save" an article ahead of actually having Wikipedia tell the truth.
    You are synthesising rubbish. As I said before, all of this effort would be better directed at trying to find documentation of the landform. But the problem with that is that there is very little to none of that. Hence your omissions of the context of Whiteriver, North Fork, the cornfield, and the other desperate reaches to try and falsely document a flat as something else when it is hard to document it as what it is.
    Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - trying to find documentation of the landform is what I, and other users, have done. Sources are open to interpretation, and you are free to disagree with mine. If you have sources to support your assertion it is not a populated place, I would be glad to evaluate them. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have done no such thing. Documentation of the landform would give things like its geology and physical geography, none of which you have presented. Moreover, now you are trying to avoid the burden of proof that is upon you to support your assertion, when the article and the sources contradict you. This is a flat, and it is you that needs to prove, and has not done since your sources fail verification when investigated, your repeated assertion here in this discussion that it a "populated place". You have zero documentation of the landform, and have only selectively mis-read documentation that is synthesizing a "populated place" out of a corn field and the actual populated places Whiteriver, Arizona and North Fork, Arizona that your sources stated and that you omitted when claiming that they were about something else. Uncle G (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Being a place doesn't matter for this situation because all standalone articles need to meet WP:N or be merged or deleted.James.folsom (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be good to see how this passes the use-mention distinction. Otherwise, it fails WP:N: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The use-mention distinction isn't a notability guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote use mention but I mean WP:SIGCOV बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge to Fort Apache Indian Reservation#Geography Doesn't meet WP:N and cannot be a standalone article per comments above.James.folsom (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fort Apache Indian Reservation#Geography. This is not an independently notable geographic feature, but it is likely a noteworthy feature of the reservation, considering that an Apache chief is buried there. BD2412 T 02:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BD1412, but definitely do not delete. This is just a question of how to cover named geography. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Reynolds (footballer born 1998)

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

fails WP:GNG; reads closer to a fan page or resume than an encyclopedia article Joeykai (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, North Carolina, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You really need to look closer at this one, on first glance, you'd think it looks like it passes GNG, but really it doesn't. There are lots of citations, but at the end of the day, they tend to be meaningless towards the article. This suffers from WP:PROMOTIONAL, and I dare say that I believe that from how the article was built, that EastLondonGooner might have an WP:COI issue here also. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An occasional bencher for ADO's first squad. When staged this was for amateur and youth squads. Most soccer players in the world would dream of this soccer resume, yet it is still at a distance from the GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have access to deleted articles, but the long dab may have circumvented a previous deletion at Johnny Reynolds (footballer). If someone has access, please share your findings! gidonb (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to check. Both were created by the same user. Should warrant a warning. gidonb (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir#Game adaptations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miraculous: Rise of the Sphinx

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

I was able to find one announcement article from a reliable source and several reviews from known unreliable sources or small websites that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources doesn't include. WayTooManyGames doesn't list any credentials for its staff, and TheXboxHub does not seem to have any information about its authors. QuietCicada - Talk 01:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. QuietCicada - Talk 01:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: French article has no links to the video game, I can't find any reviews from reliable sites listed here [28]. Tried a French Gsearch, only get links from blogs or sites to buy it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial coverage in this French public radio interview withe one of the designers [29]. This apparently is a RS, but it's minimal coverage [30]. Game Rant is a spotty source [31]. Preview of the trailer from IGN. Just not enough solid coverage to keep this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir#Game_adaptations. Excluding WP:NONENG sources out there not included in the above source analysis, there isn't sufficient significant coverage from reliable sources to substantiate the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir#Game_adaptations. Simply fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAME

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

No refs to establish notability. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The title should not have been abbreviated. There are lots of references when you search for the full name, Association of the Mediterranean Chambers of Commerce and Industry. https://www.google.com/search?q=Association+of+the+Mediterranean+Chambers+of+Commerce+and+Industry&sca_esv=593723253&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AM9HkKl3d8_i74h0oywl9RJruIPtR2m8Mg:1703580669214&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw04nF3KyDAxUDg4kEHZLPCYgQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1477&bih=849&dpr=1 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 00:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the heavy involvement of COI/UPE editors leaves me leaning towards WP:TNT. But let's tag this as a soft-delete, allowing immediate recreation by any non-COI editor armed with suitable sources. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz originally closed as no consensus, but at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 21 she noted she had erred. Re-closing as delete. Star Mississippi 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Youth Action Committee

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

Like the article about the committee's co-founder, I am not seeing SIGCOV. There is one promising source in the article, which turns out to have this line at the bottom: Mujtaba Javaid is a freelance writer. All information and facts provided are the sole responsibility of the writer. Hardly a RS. I recognize there could be some WP:SYSTEMICBIAS going on here, I am always skeptical of promotionally-worded articles about organizations. House Blaster^talk 00:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HouseBlaster, let's make edits to make it less promotional please.

It is an account of a not-for-profit that is working in some of the remotest regions of Pakistan. The Wikipedia would certainly help people to know more information about the organisation. Please correct if anything in the article is against the wikipedia guidelines. 202.141.250.250 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
202.141.250.250, the problem is that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Charities are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion, just like commercial businesses cannot use Wikipedia as a marketing platform. House Blaster^talk 06:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note if you have a conflict of interest, it is strongly recommended you disclose the connection. If you are paid by this charity, you are required to "disclose" the connection by the Terms of Use (section four, which you agree to every time you click "publish changes"). House Blaster^talk 06:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster@Shellwood I don't understand why this page is under deletion request. Is there anything specific that the page is violating? Appreciate if you can be more clear with the suggestion. Tribal Explorer (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tribal Explorer: Hi! First, I would ask that you please read and respond to this message.
With that out of the way, the problem here is that Wikipedia articles need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (plural) that are independent of the subject. This is sometimes called "Wikipedia's golden rule". To count, a source must meet all three of these criteria. Here is my assessment of a bunch of the sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:HouseBlaster
Find A Charity			Just a "trivial mention"	✘ No
How to Prevent the Next Pandemic by Bill Gates			? I don't have access to the book	? Unknown
Meet young activists making Balochistan better		At the bottom of the article, it says Mujtaba Javaid is a freelance writer. All information and facts provided are the sole responsibility of the writer (emphasis added)		✘ No
http://byac.dev	BYAC's website is not independent of BYAC			✘ No
WEF report	Was written by BYAC (see phrase We believe in, emphasis added)			✘ No
Britannica			Does not mention BYAC	✘ No
Tribune Express			Does not mention BYAC	✘ No
HRCP			Does not mention BYAC	✘ No
Bill Gates unsung heros			One paragraph is not significant coverage	✘ 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}}.

With the possible exception of the Bill Gates book, there the above table contains zero sources that demonstrate notability. To be eligible for an article, there would need to be multiple sources that receive "checks" in all three boxes. Best, House Blaster^talk 15:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable charity with no sources we can use to build the article. Source 23 is basically how to donate money to the cause, rest are primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are some unbolded "Keeps" here that make a Soft Deletion undesirable. Hoping for more participation in a relisting period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source assessment by HouseBlaster clearly demonstrates GNG is not met. LibStar (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The nominator has since been banned. However, even with significant input by other editors there isn't a consensus here especially with issues surrounding the sourcing. If further discussion around a merger is needed, please use the Talk. Star Mississippi 14:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hickory Hill, Chester County, Pennsylvania

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

GNIS spam-created article about a road called "Hickory Hill Rd". It doesn't meet the legal recognition requirement of WP:GEOLAND, which precludes any argument towards notability. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a road. It is an old 19th and 20th century post office. "HICKORY HILL, a post-office of Chester county, Pennsylvania." says Baldwin & Thomas 1854, p. 489 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBaldwinThomas1854 (help). Not a "post-village" or "post-town". A post office. USPS post office directories confirm up until at least 1889. Amusingly, if your next statement is to be "So, then, it is an undocumented post office.": It is a post office that's in the history books, as a store that doubled as a post office for a while and served Elk Township until 1932, the store lasting until 1987, on CCHS 2004, p. 23 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCCHS2004 (help).
I hope that there will not be any desperate wikilawyering gymnastics about keeping "populated place" instead of explaining to the reader that it was a store/post office for 130 years, since CCHS 2004, p. 23 tells us that it is now just a private home. The classic 1-building "populated place" GNIS rubbish. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Baldwin, Thomas; Thomas, Joseph (1854). A New and Complete Gazetteer of the United States: Giving a Full and Comprehensive Review of the Present Condition, Industry, and Resources of the American Confederacy. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company.
- The Chester County Historical Society (2004). Chester County. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738536613.
- Darby, William; Dwight, Theodore (1836). A New Gazetteer of the United States of America. Hartford: Edward Hopkins.
- @Uncle G This location was originally a village by the name of Nottinghamdale until the establishment of the Hickory Hill Post Office in 1850.(see ref box) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three of your five sources (the two hometownlocators and the histopolis) are mere GNIS regurgitators. Your Chester County Press citation just points at an entire newspaper without giving any of the headline, byline, or page number for the article that we should be looking at; and so isn't a source citation really at all.
    The extract of the 1982 source, the 1 source that you really have, copied onto a WWW page says that this was an "area" and, agreeing with what I said above and the history book already cited above, a post office. And we have a contemporary 1854 source contradicting the 1982 tricentennial anniversary coffee-table book, saying that Hickory Hill wasn't a village in 1854, as it calls such things "post-village". The 1854 source has no Nottinghamdale, either. Lippincott's does not go back much earlier, but Darby & Dwight 1836 has zero mention of any Nottinghamdale village in Pennsylvania supposedly from 1825, as well. If 19th century gazetteers that go down to the level of individual villages don't have a Nottinghamdale village in Pennsylvania (which wasn't some sparsely documented territory), that's a strong indicator that there wasn't actually a proper village.
    Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - I have found additional sources to prove this was/is a place, this location was originally a village by the name of Nottinghamdale until the establishment of the Hickory Hill Post Office in 1850.(see ref box) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do see a Hickory Hill Road on the map, I see no indication this is a notable place more than an generic community that lives on the same street. There also being a post office in the area with the same name does not necessarily mean it was notable or needs an article. Reywas92^Talk 04:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing found by PaulGamerBoy360.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. They are all GNIS regurgitators (sites which format information from the GNIS database) and none provide WP:SIGCOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References
^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] ^[5]

^ "Hickory Hill (in Chester County, PA) Populated Place Profile". PA Hometown Locator. Retrieved December 9, 2015.
^ "History – Elk Township". elktownship.org. Retrieved 2023-12-25.
^ "Chester County Press 09-28-2022 Edition by Ad Pro Inc. - Issuu". issuu.com. 2022-09-27. Retrieved 2023-12-25.
^ "Hickory Hill Populated Place Profile / Chester County, Pennsylvania Data". pennsylvania.hometownlocator.com. Retrieved 2023-12-25.
^ ^a ^b "Hickory Hill, Elk Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, United States - Overview - Histopolis". www.histopolis.com. Retrieved 2023-12-25.

Comment - Was some type of populated area in the 1800s and early 1900s, as attested to by its mentions in dozens of newspaper articles of the period, such as this, this, this, this, this, [32], this, this, this,and this, and was featured as part of story published in 1892, "The Postmistress of Laurel Run". It seems that the postal service was discontinued in 1904.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the new sources brought up, I change my vote to merge to Elk Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. https://elktownship.org/about/history/ is the main reliable source for this topic and contains a single paragraph about it. It would not make sense to keep a permastub of "Hickory Hill" given that the main page is quite small and that "Hickory Hill" was just a neighborhood of Elk Township.

Comment: I wrung my hands over this for an hour or so and checked the references and maps. I believe what we have here is a situation where the name of a geological feature was generally used to refer to the populace that lived on it. In this case it's a large, maybe relative flat top Ridge, probably formed by the nearby water feature as it flowed over the millennia. Have a look at the topo of this place. I'd even bet my bottom dollar it had a bunch hickory trees on it too. I've seen this in Alabama and all over Georgia. It's just a place where people farmed and they would go to the city when they needed something. And, when anybody ever met them on the street and asked them where they were from or headed the response was probably "OHH just out by Hickory Hill you know." I think everyone over analyzes these things, and we shouldn't have an article for every hill, field and crooked tree that ever had someone live nearby it. Also, the thing about post offices is they put them where they are convenient, and they just don't want to make people walk too far so they spread them around a little bit. This is just a practical and reasonable thing to do that doesn't anoint a place with importance. Far enough back in time, it doesn't even mean there was even a building. It could just be the place where a guy on a horse waited at an appointed time for people to bring their mail to him. This is why they were often in general stores too. The postmaster would just hang out at the general store drink some coffee and maybe see if anybody had brought in some eggs to sell. I read one case where the postmaster carried the letters around in his hat band until he ran into the recipient. Sorry, I've read one too many issues of 19th century newspapersJames.folsom (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE/MERGE It's been my experience that if anything important happened somewhere or if someplace is really important; you won't be able to swing a cat without hitting information about this important thing. This is not the case with this place. There is not enough source material to satisfy WP:NRV and even presumed notable places still have to meet WP:N when they are eventually challenged.James.folsom (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the ample discussions above, sure the place exists, but there just isn't enough coverage about it to keep the article. I couldn't even find mention of this place we'd use, so what's above is better than I had found. Oaktree b (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to summarize, all the keep arguments are about the fact that it existed. And, it may have. But the policies are clear that Existence is not notability.James.folsom (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elk Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania as I'm not seeing evidence of independent notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sourcing, and because it should never be deleted over merging to Elk Township, and so it should not come to AfD at all. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classical yoga and transformation of consciousness

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

The content seems like an essay redundant to what content is present at the yoga article, and the title does not seem plausible as a redirect target. The sources seem to be used as a list rather than to support specific claims. Note the title itself was changed when moved to mainspace, which was originally titled "Yoga and Consciousness". Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the content is not even redundant to properly-cited articles like yoga; the sources are wobbly, the article poorly-written and inadequately structured. The whole premise of the article is to prove a thesis, which is not Wikipedia's function. The structure, such as it is, consists of assembling various statements in an area in the hope of convincing readers that the claims are connected and add up to something. This could be called essay-like (whatever that means), but basically it isn't an encyclopedia article describing a known subject and conveying well-established facts about it from reliable sources. The old title, by the way, was bad enough (prove that these two things are connected); the new title is worse (prove that this thing has a transformative effect on that thing). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - Hi Darcyisverycute and Chiswick Chap. Hope you had a good new year 2024. I value your inputs and thank both of you for inputs and suggestion. However many books from long time were written and proved the concept. The subject was also proved in some medical research and more are happening. I wrote this article after thorough study and research and also seeing the interest of people worldwide. As this subject is widely followed in Google by people worldwide and chances of improving the article by many editors are there,I request this article to be retained. It is very easy to move articles here and get it deleted. Gardenkur (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gardenkur, I recommend reading Wikipedia:How to save an article nominated for deletion. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darcyisverycute.Kindly guide me how to save the article from deletion. I read the link you sent on saving the article from deletion and want to follow Wikipedia policies on retaining it.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading it. The concerns I and Chiswick Chap have raised is mainly about verifiability. For me, can you explain clearly why you think the article and its contents is not redundant to what is at yoga and specifically, Yoga#Classical era (200 BCE – 500 CE)? This is my main concern. Regarding scientific efficacy for therapies, reliable sources are held to a more strict criteria called WP:MEDRS. The article topic needs to be both distinct from what is covered at the yoga article, and it needs to be backed up by sources ideally meeting MEDRS. It's also important to not include original research, for example the first sentence reads Classical yoga and transformation of consciousness elaborates practice of yoga in transformation of human consciousness. The meaning of this sentence is unclear and it is not supported by a citation to a reliable source. I hope this gives a starting point and a general idea on what could be improved. If you have not already, please also read WP:NOTESSAY and seriously consider if the policy may apply to the article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darcyisverycute. Thanks a lot for replying to my query. While the article Yoga deals about the practice of yoga this subject goes a step further in highlighting the practice of yoga in raising our consciousness level. This article will be more elaborated in coming days about the subject. Also yoga in modern terms has been coined with many practices,but classical yoga as per patanjali is different. You can check some of the references by established practitioners and than gauge for deletion. There are not only scientific evidences but proven theory on the effect of traditional yoga practices. Both the articles are different. Kindly give your thought before the remark. I can understand Chiswick Chap comments too but if given slight deeper thought the concept becomes clear though its very vast as subject. In Yoga as article, I dont see its affect on Transformation of our Consciousness. Thank you. Gardenkur (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darcyisverycute.Sorry forgot to add I would be in travel from tommorrow for a week and could not be able to reply so will loose this work. Kindly consider. Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an OR content fork. Owen× ☎ 01:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is personal essay not an encyclopedia article. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors showed consensus to keep, in conjunction with the previous nomination of a WP:SNOWBALL keep. Editors noted that renaming/changing the page to Museum of the Game would be appropriate. I agree. I will do that now, please feel free to contributeHDMI#Licensing‎. TLA (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killer List of Videogames

AfDs for this article:

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

The site got a ton of brief mentions from reliable sources (1 2 3 4 5), but no significant coverage. QuietCicada - Talk 15:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. QuietCicada - Talk 15:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's likely that Museum of the Game is notable even if this site isn't. I found a full article on it in this magazine, would not be surprised if there were more. This could be a case of "make a separate article and merge this into it". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredibly Weak Keep That would be more in the scope of splitting which is not covered by afd. Mabye page could be reworked into what you are describing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ideally, rename to "Museum of the Game". Sources I found: maybe sigcov: [33] non sigcov: [34] [35]. According to [36]: "The International Arcade Museum® (IAM) of the Museum of the Game™ is the world's largest museum [...] The KLOV®; (Killer List of Videogames) and Museum of the Video Game™, its video-game divisions" so it seems the "Museum of the Video Game" is just a branch of the main company. I found two other brief mentions in sources looking through internet archive: [37] [38] While WP:INHERITORG applies, there are almost certainly more offline sources, and the nominated article's content can easily be put into a relevant section. As a bonus, having a page about the museum will enable its inclusion on List of video game museums. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources. Renaming from the website to the organization is also fine. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haikubox

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

Promotional article. Only about 42 Google results for this product. There's a source cited which looks like an academic source here [39] that doesn't appear to mention Haikubox at all. Nor does this [40] so the appearance of being well-referenced is somewhat misleading. The WIRED review is real, but somewhat WP:ROUTINE versus a WP:SIGCOV. Also has cite links to a github page and other stuff so basically a WP:REFBOMB. Andre🚐 09:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 09:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

We agree that the two articles mentioned by the editor do not reference Haikubox, but did not mean to suggest that they did. Our intention in including them was to show that passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) and the inclusion of machine learning with PAM is becoming a more well-established scientific method for studying animals without impacting their behavior, and can be done in a low-cost, scalable way. This provides an introduction to the bioGraphic article and how the author believed Haikubox fits with these efforts. We would be happy to fix the wording if it is found to be misleading.

We included the Github page for anyone wishing to check the open source BirdNET project.

We listed the unbiased Haikubox reviews that were posted in birding magazines (Audubon Magazine, Birdwatching Magazine), news stories about Haikubox (Axios, Sarasota Herald Tribune), and WIRED articles which included Haikubox. The original WIRED review was in no way routine coverage -- it was selected for review by the reporter who then independently tested it. In the huge consumer electronics market, very few products are selected for testing by WIRED, so we believe it is notable that it was not only selected, but received a high rating, something we did not tout in the Wikipedia article. We also believe that it is not routine to be included in an even more selective group of products that were so highly considered, they were endorsed for their annual Wish List.

Please note that we had no input into the content of any of these reviews or news articles.

We chose not to include articles, blogs, mention in a recent book about bird conservation, or reviews posted by individual Haikubox customers, feeling that they did not meet Wikipedia's standards. Had we included them, the REFBOMB notation would have been justified. Instead, we included only those in notable, reputable, independent sources.

We again thank you for considering this during the deletion review process, and would be happy to answer any additional questions. We are committed to improving our Wikipedia entry and will update it with notable new information and publications as they are released. Dascyllus (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
their user page has a disclosed COI Andre🚐 02:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wired and the USA Today sources seem fine, the rest helps. Looks like it's at GNG already. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs cleanup but not unfixable. Also I don't think it's WP:REFBOMB otherwise Not Just Bikes would appear in WP:AFD by now.

Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Senior Hockey League (1965–1978)

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

I couldn't establish that this topic, on amateur ice hockey, meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Owen× ☎ 09:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - over 1700 references on newspapers.com in this timeframe. The league received significant coverage in contemporary newspapers. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockeyben Could you please add some of the sources you have found to the article &/or list some here for a source analysis? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The league easily passes GNG. I have added some newspapers citations to the article. There are many thousands more mentions in newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com if somebody has the time to make the improvements. Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sourcing that has been added into the article during this discussion vs GNG etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - per sources found by Hockeyben & Flibirigit. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Enough significant coverage to justify. The Kip 08:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While the Keep arguments might be weak, I see no support for deleting this article either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gogglebox episodes

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

I don't believe this routine list of episodes is notable in its own right. --wooden superman 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Popular culture. --wooden superman 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MOS:TVSPLIT, I think it is reasonable to have a separate article for a series with this many episodes. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that we don't really need the list at all, it's not like there's a narrative running through the episodes, or any particular analysis on the episodes. This is WP:ROTM stuff not worthy of an encyclopedia. --wooden superman 16:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reality shows like this generally do have episode lists, even without a continuous narrative. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it's very useful to be able to keep track of the different series and individual episodes, as there are so many of them. This page is a well organised and helpful resource, and I see absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. 173.95.86.243 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gogglebox (or delete outright): indiscriminate information without substantial sourcing. The summaries do not replicate the major facets of the series, which is about the individual/groups' reactions rather than the list of shows discussed (and indeed it would be impossible to summarise these reactions unless secondary sources exist describing recurring personalities/themes/tropes). The show is in the reality genre but the reason for or against a "List of episodes" page is more akin to a news/chat show/morning programme like The One Show. The information may be of interest to some but there are other websites for that (like Fandom). — Bilorv (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list of shows discussed is a very helpful tool for the individual to easily and quickly ascertain whether or not they have watched each individual episode, and is in fact the only reasonable way to do so. 170.249.178.147 (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is, which is why you're welcome to create a Gogglebox Wiki on Fandom or host the material elsewhere that fans can see (giving attribution as required by our license). It's not a reason to host the material on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a very popular TV show and very popular shows have their episode lists on Wikipedia, doesn’t matter if there is any plot ot not.
Ambiroz (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful and the series is very popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.252.228 (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's deletion policy states "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it."

Therefore I trust that in this case the page will not be deleted, as several different contributors have spoken in favour of keeping it. 173.95.86.243 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on policy. So far, no policy based arguments have been made. The argument that "it's popular, so it should have an episode page" is invalid. So are "It's useful", and "Well other articles do it". Industrial Insect (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So does your "I don't believe" fall into the same category. You don't believe this is notable, others believe it is. This isn't WP:ROTM. There's plenty of episode lists on Wikipedia and this isn't less notable than an average one. 188.146.248.59 (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: Most of the "keep" !votes are little more than WP:OTHERSTUFF; WP:ILIKEIT; WP:USEFUL. --wooden superman 09:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Herlong, California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herlong Junction, California

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable location; just an intersection as far as I can tell from a satellite pic. Was AfD'd once before and kept; but as it stands the article is a two-sentence stub with two unreliable sources (GNIS and Durham's Place Names Gazetteer) and no other information available. I can only find passing mentions in the media: [41], for instance, suggests there was once a VFW hall there. But the Herlong VFW building their hall at this particular intersection does not confer notability, and without further evidence this was a legally-recognized place, it's a failure of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before anyone points to the news articles in the previous AfD, yes, I saw them, and all they say is that there were a couple of apartments behind the restaurant (which seems to be gone now). An apartment building is not a "community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not appear on the current list of towns within that county. https://www.lcoe.org/Events/3rd-Grade---History-Day/Curriculum-Resources/Present-Day-Towns-of-Lassen-County/index.html . This link describes it's origins and current status. https://tipurdy.org/herlong-junction/. I think what happened was the military opened sierra army depot near there (where Herlong is now), resulting in a brief settlement at this location when soldiers starting building houses at Herlong Junction. But later the activity drifted closer to the base resulting in the town Herlong which didn't exist prior. Herlong, California I think given a choice of living next to the depot or 6 miles away, I know what I would have chose. Maybe merge or redirect to Herlong? thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 2024-01-02T02:49:09 (UTC)
Comment There is a brief mention that this is a place in a newspaper from the area but I wasn't really able to find anything else. [42] Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at the research-by-phrase-matching sources from the previous discussion. Not a single one of them actually said what Herlong Junction is. There's "at Herlong Junction" and "between Herlong Junction and" there and elsewhere. Nothing else turns up, when I went looking.
Moreover: When I pulled up the source purportedly calling it "a small community", a bare URL handwave at a newspaper with no headline or byline supplied, newspapers.com said that there were zero occurrences of "junction" on the page pointed to. And the single occurrence of "community" was talking about Nevada apparently. That source from the prior AFD discussion turned out to fail verification outright.
Presumably it is a road junction, but I have zero sources even confirming that one foundational fact of what the subject is. The people recounting their vague memories from years ago in comments on a 'blog on the WWW are not a reliable source, and even they do not come out and say what it is, anyway. There is no way to give even a verifiable stub with context for expansion saying what this subject is. The article at hand currently does not. None of the sources from the prior AFD discussion, or that I can find, do.
Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is quite jarring on Streetview to take the turn onto "Herlong Access Road" and have the building suddenly spring into existence (the image is from 2007, whereas the main road was last shot just two months back). It's reasonable to guess that the "apartments" weren't in a separate building, but were just a couple of rooms in the back. I could not get Durham to show up in searching, but Gudde only describes Herlong itself, and I think it's safe to say that Durham probably does the same (we've found many instances where these articles misrepresent his text). I get various hits in documents about the main highway and I suspect it has a name simply for the convenience of locating things. I could only get back into the mid-1950s on topos and only the 1980s on aerials, but besides the recent destruction of the restaurant they are all the same. Given that the place is named after "the first American ordinance officer to lose his life in World War II" (Gudde) it's hard to imagine that the 1940s showed anything significant here unless it was wooden barracks or something else without foundations which could be easily erased. It's just not a settlement, and there's not enough else about it to justify an article. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is pretty obviously not suitable as an article but does a redirect to Herlong, California make sense? I found some recent news articles mentioning the name as location marker so it might be a search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herlong. I wouldn't object to Deletion either. The discussion has not found enough information to establish notability.James.folsom (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion to assess Redirect suggestion. Lots of comments here but few opinions on what should be done with this article. Has anyone checked the sources offered in the previous AFD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both WeirdNAnnoyed and I did, and we both said so above. Uncle G (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Bizenjo

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

I am sensitive to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and take no pleasure in nominating this page for deletion. However, I am just not finding SIGCOV; I was unable to find any sources of note not already in the article. I also am suspicious of an article with this "awards and recognitions" section. There are two alumni awards, but schools love to hype up their alumni accomplishments. The Global Gurus do not have a Wikipedia page. House Blaster^talk 00:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. House Blaster^talk 00:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one article links to this which is up for deletion. This article created by a WP:SPA and reeks of promotion or self promotion. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Nation reference is perhaps the only one of use here, which doesn't convince me that WP:GNG is met. Uhooep (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Feels like WP:PROMO. The Nation is okay, but the content seems a bit promotional as well – guessing it's based on an interview. TLA (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] McCormac, Jim; Gottfried, Chelsea (2023). Gardening for Moths: A Regional Guide. Ohio University Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-8214-4797-0. Retrieved 2024-01-09.

[2] "Hickory Hill (in Chester County, PA) Populated Place Profile". PA Hometown Locator. Retrieved December 9, 2015.

[:0-3] "History – Elk Township". elktownship.org. Retrieved 2023-12-25.

[:1-4] "Chester County Press 09-28-2022 Edition by Ad Pro Inc. - Issuu". issuu.com. 2022-09-27. Retrieved 2023-12-25.

[5] "Hickory Hill Populated Place Profile / Chester County, Pennsylvania Data". pennsylvania.hometownlocator.com. Retrieved 2023-12-25.

[:2-6] "Hickory Hill, Elk Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, United States - Overview - Histopolis". www.histopolis.com. Retrieved 2023-12-25.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]