Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 February	2 March >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manila, Arizona[edit]

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

Yet another siding. There was a schoolhouse here (now abandoned) and some trackside structures (presumably a station and outbuildings, now gone) and that's it, except for the Jack Rabbit Trading Post, whose website doesn't mention Manila. Searching is a bear due to many further opportunities for clickbait and by a visit of the battleship Arizona to the Philippines at some point,, so it's possible I've missed something. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a post office and school district (which led to a protracted court case). By the 1940s there was still a collection of houses there, although this guide is quite dismissive of the opportunities for motorists. It wasn't only railroad workers who lived there. Seems like a legally recognized populated place to me.----Pontificalibus 11:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will withdraw this one. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not entirely convinced that the railroad worker camp and associated facilities meet our notability standards, but it's not a total nothingburger like the named sidings we've been seeing. Regarding the ranch headquarters, it's just as likely that they were using the Manila name as a general landmark for the nearby ranch. –dlthewave ☎ 19:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the evidence presented by Pontificalibus. Apparently people lived there Lightburst (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maulvi Habib-ur-Rahman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V lacks a single reliable source.There were thousands of Taluqdar and not all of them are notable .Please note Taluqdar or Chakladar is not a Governor as incorrectly contested in the prod. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that this blog is the source for much of the content of the article. It provides quite a few primary and secondary sources which seem like they might establish notability. I lack sufficient expertise in the topic to adequately evaluate them, but thank the nominator for bringing the article up for discussion. Pburka (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems the person fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playing with Dolls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No SIGCOV. Rogermx (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found two sources talking about the UK DVD manufacturer retitling the film Leatherface: The Legend Lives On to confuse viewers into thinking it was another upcoming movie. This was well-reported on horror sites.
- Squires, John (January 8, 2017). "A Movie Titled 'Leatherface' Was Just Released But Don't Be Fooled". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
- Barton, Steve (January 19, 2017). "Faux Leatherface UK Debacle – The Director Speaks!". Dread Central. Retrieved 15 February 2020.

It's not much but I think it indicates some interest in the film. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources for "Leatherface": (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sources, Sadads (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles on horror film buff blogs doth not WP:SIGCOV make. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not meet the standards for quality sources per WP:BLOGS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central are WikiProject Film reliable sources websites for horror films and both have a paid staff and are not blogs, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a reason to keep the article under WP:NTEMP. and per the WP:RS. Wm335td (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Mercier[edit]

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

Biography of a municipal-level politician, not properly demonstrated as the subject of enough significant reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. Neither of his notability claims (mayor of a small suburban town, and then city councillor in the larger city it was amalgamated into) are automatic notability freebies -- Charlesbourg was not large enough to deem its mayors "inherently" notable, and Quebec City is not in the rarefied tier of major international "global cities" where city councillors are "inherently" notable either. So he does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he existed -- at this level of significance, the notability bar he would have to clear is that he could be referenced to a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks him out as much more special than the norm, by virtue of expanding significantly above and beyond just the bare minimum that every municipal politician everywhere could always show.
But the referencing here consists of a primary source that is not support for notability at all and five hits of purely local coverage in the local media, of which one is a very short blurb, one is a dead link and two are just routine obituaries. This is not enough coverage to make him more notable than the norm for this level of political office. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete seems to fail WP:NPOL and GNG. The town is big enough for some mayors to keep an article, but there should be more coverage in this case. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The person held a major position in a renowned city from 1984 to 2001. There must be some references in offline sources. Gritmem (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesbourg is not a "renowned" city — and the office he did hold in a "renowned" city is not one that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because local coverage probably existed in their local media, because every city councillor in every city always has local coverage in their own local media. City councillors become notable if they have nationalizing coverage beyond just their own local media, and are not automatically notable just because they existed. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No keeps, but some have suggested sources could exist for the nearly-two decades mayor of a modestly-sized city. Besides WP:ROUTINE has already been shown last year not to apply to people.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to expected articles in Quebec about his time as mayor, there were articles about his 2008 trip to France to trace his ancestors that made national news in Canada, including Ottawa, Edmonton and Vancouver; that doesn't happen if you're not notable. Plus who knows how much TV coverage he got. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of this "trip to France to trace his ancestors" coverage has been shown, either in the article or in this discussion — so I searched in a database, and what I found was not articles about him, but articles which just included him giving brief soundbites to journalists whose core subject was the general concept of French Canadian genealogy, not specifically his genealogy. People are not notable just because they get quoted in articles about other subjects. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's front in center in the article and it adds to his notability.[1], [2]. Not to mention the likelihood of considerable French-language coverage. Have you even checked French-language sources? —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nazmus Shakib. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do think it is likely that French language print sources from his extensive time as mayor of a large suburb of Quebec City would probably put him over the threshold at WP:NPOL. In order to do that, one would need to access the newspaper archives from that time period. Does anyone have access to those?4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of everywhere always has or had some local coverage in their local media by definition, so just showing that some such coverage existed is not automatically enough to get a mayor over WP:GNG in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Its sources the keep side needs not assertions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had significant political career with coverages from multiple sources. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barely scrapes through with a weak keep consensus. Dflaw4 has a good analysis, though BriefEdits makes a valid counter. Ultimately, the consensus that it just gets by WP:GNG narrowly eaks out the weak keep consensus.Mojo Hand (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Alvarez[edit]

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

One notable role, but doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think this article is extremely borderline. The subject starred in The Brothers Garcia and appeared in a handful of films and TV shows, but seems to have dropped off the radar since 2004. The Variety article provided is good—it's dedicated to the subject—and there are a couple of mentions with photos in https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/when-hollywood-is-your-mirror.html and www.mtv.com/news/2278834/old-nickelodeon-shows-you-forgot-about/. Apart from that, I can't really find anything else. Therefore, only a very weak case could be made for WP:GNG or WP:ENT. He was, however, nominated for an ALMA Award and Young Artist Awards, and he won a Young Artist Award, but I'm not sure if these awards are notable enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Even so, they could go towards his general notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:GNG. The awards are non-notable and not sourced. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Young Artist Awards and ALMA Awards are actually "notable". ExRat (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the multiple sources needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appeared for several years in a role on The Brothers Garcia as a main cast member, which aired on Nickelodeon -- not quite some obscure cable access station. There is also specific mention of him and the series in Austin Chronicle. ExRat (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Dflaw4. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources provided above, I found a pretty decent Spanish language reference: Martinez, Julio (July 23, 2000). LOS GARCIA: 'The Brothers Garcia' es la primera serie de comedia de television creada, producida y con un elenco estelar totalmente latino, que estrenara en Nickelodeon. Vol. 74(312). p. 1F. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help).4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided above, passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Comments have shown that it while it may pass WP:GNG (barely), this subject fails to pass the more subject specific WP:NACTOR, in which the subject must have significant roles in multiple productions. Alvarez was a child actor who was popular in 1 children's tv show in the early 2000's. His previous credits are all minor and I don't think that he'll be popping up any time soon, as his credits ended with Brothers Garcia. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PMT Dance Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG No sources that are not self-generated, no SIGCOV or reviews. Article is strictly promotional Rogermx (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability from any independent reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Can not find any notability from any reliable search engine Iceywarm2020 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a New York based company with zero coverage in The New York Times archives beyond paid advertising. That is telling. I could find no independent sources in a thorough search. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Arrambide[edit]

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

Got his opinion in lots of articles, but doesn't meet the threshold for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Promotional. Boleyn (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:CREATIVE. There are thousands of travel bloggers and vloggers, as is my partner's goddaughter, and we can't host all of them. I don't see how this one rises about the ordinary creative person, although it seems to be a good-faith effort. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rundkvist[edit]

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

Can't see how this person meets WP:NPROF – he seems to be an associate professor with an h-index of about 8 or 9. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, did you read the WP:NPROF criteria down to the bottom? Certainly, it seems unlikely that you read the deletion review, or even took a look at the edit history. Had you done so, you would have seen that at least three people (The wub, RoySmith, and Hydronium Hydroxide) found that the subject meets the eighth criterion, "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area."

Speaking of overlooked criteria, "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion" (per AfD guidelines). —Usernameunique (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, you are reading more into my DRV comment than you should. I looked at a 12-year old AfD result, a claim that the subject has done more since then, and treated it as a WP:REFUND request. I also pointed out that the onus was on your to make sure it was up to snuff before moving it back to mainspace. That's a long way from my finding that the subject met any particular criteron. I am neutral on whether he's notable or not -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: (WP:NPP reviewer here...) Notability under NACADEMIC is stronger than other SNGs, which may require GNG to also be demonstrated, or where it is presumed but rebuttable. NACADEMIC states: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable... For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major well-established one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source". The subject meets WP:NACADEMIC#8 as the journal he edited for years appears to be internationally notable, but might not meet any of the others. Given he was editor for years, I don't believe that this is a corner case where IAR should be applied to an individual article. Nor do I believe that deficient SNGs should be nullified through ad-hoc AFDs, which leads to inconsistent treatment of similar articles depending on who turns up. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Joe Roe's identification of an editor-in-chief above him means NACADEMIC#8 ("head or chief editor") is not met. Thanks and apologies. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 20:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rundkvist was the managing editor, not editor-in-chief, of Fornvännen.[3] I don't think that meets the letter or spirit of WP:PROF#C8: the idea is that editor-in-chief is a prestigious position and therefore a rough indicator of notability as an academic. Managing editor is more of a practical role and, by Rundkvist's own account, he got it when he was still very junior. Aside from that I'm not sure about notability. He has a well-known, long-running blog that might have generated some media coverage over the years (perhaps in Swedish if not English). There might also be reviews of his books that would pass WP:NAUTHOR/WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Over the last few days I've compiled secondary sources and reviews, and significantly expanded the article. Based on what's there, I think there's a strong argument in favor of notability. The best question probably is what influence Rundkvist and his work have had, and the answer seems to be "decent." A conservative count of his publications includes 7 books; combine the 3 volumes of Barshalder, which appear to represent the definitive publication on an important Iron Age cemetery, and those alone have nearly 100 identified citations. There are a substantial number of reviews in significant journals—such as Antiquity, the European Journal of Archaeology, Medieval Archaeology, and Fornvännen—and in at least five languages: English, Danish, Finnish, German, and Spanish. There are undoubtedly more (especially in Swedish), and given the language barrier, perhaps many more.

More generally, Rundkvist is clearly a "known" presence in his field; there's the long-running blog, of course, and even the Curators of Sweden gig. Joe Roe makes a good point in differentiating between editor-in-chief and managing editor, which disqualifies the eighth NPROF criterion as an automatic bestower of notability. But being the managing editor of a leading journal in one's field for two decades indicates that that person is deeply involved, and known to others, in that field—in short, it ain't nothing.

The nominator pointed to the h-index. Though this passing comment overlooked the warning that this is "of limited usefulness," "should be approached with caution," and is "discipline-dependent," there's some utility in this metric, placed in context. Scandinavian archaeology is hardly a fashionable field; fewer people means fewer articles, fewer articles means fewer citations, and fewer citations means a lower h-index. As Rundkvist indicated on his article's talk page, the chair of archaeology at the University of Stockholm has an h-index of 25, and the editor-in-chief of Fornvännen has one of 9. Against that backdrop, 9 looks perfectly respectable. And frankly, with 130 citations over the last five years, it's pretty obvious that it's going to go up.

To be sure, there are clearer cases for notability. But I don't think this one is that tenuous, and I think there's a reason that even a decade ago, the article (including its Swedish counterpart) survived two of three rounds at AfD: in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Hopefully this time will put it to rest. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is not our job to point that out. Someone else, in a reliable source, needs to say he is important. Did he win any awards in the field? Where are interviews with him? Or fellow scholars analysis of his life and achievements in form of academic articles about his influence? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, in terms of awards, there's last year's Academy's Antiquary Award in Silver from the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. And you may have missed the interviews: see references 10 & 20. Rundkvist is not deep enough into his career that a Festschrift or similar work would exist, but the dozen reviews in the article clearly show the influence of his works. And if you're still uncomfortable with Rundqvist's compatibility with NPROF, it's worth noting, as Hydronium Hydroxide did above, that "Notability under NACADEMIC is stronger than other SNGs." Rundkvist arguably (also) meets the notability standards for authors, as he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." —Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pings, but I just cannot find enough to warrant him passing. I concur with David below that he fails NAUTHOR (and NPROF), and there is nothing else for NBIO. The award is good, but seems rather minor, through I'd be open to hearing more about it. Still, as an academic myself, I'd think that one would need several minor awards like this to qualify. But I'd not be opposed to revising NPROF to make it more inclusive. Sigh. If only he played a bit of a sport, sigh, kicked the ball a few times, he would be notable with no problems. Sigh again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It pains me to vote delete, as I think he is at least as notable as most WP:SPORTBIO or such. But unless we can change WP:NPROF to be more inclusive, I don't see what makes him notable. No awards, no in-depth coverage of his achievements, etc. In the end, "he is just doing his job". And not being a sportsman or a celebrity, there is no coverage of that, sadly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only one review of his Barshalder work at doi:10.1017/S0003598X00500854. That isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, and neither is his citation record on Google Scholar nor his service as managing editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF but I do concur with Piotrus on this and want to add that the person is at least notable than many biography stubs we have. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He was during 3 years the chairman of the Swedish sceptical movement, Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning, VOF, which also is a great reason why he got his article on svwp. The deletion discussions on svwp has much been because people not liking the VOF tried to get the chairmans article deleted, or changed. (Not saying it is the same reason here on enwp! Just meaning that the deletion discussions on svwp should not affect this version). Adville (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citations are nowhere close to WP:NPROF, and managing editor isn't chief editor. We rarely keep articles on associate professors, and I don't see anything exceptional here. I don't see WP:NAUTHOR per prior comments. It's possible that there is GNG coverage of his work for the skeptics society, but I didn't find it, and it isn't in the article. The article comes across as rather autobiographical (leaning as it does on the subject's blog and similar), and if the subject later becomes notable, then the current article would need to anyway be extensively rewritten. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hibbard, Arizona[edit]

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

Another siding in the middle of nowhere; searching is a bit difficult because Hibbard is a common name in the state, but other than confirming the origin of the place name, all I see are some passing references to locate several different nearby features. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a human settlement with people living in it and is referred to as a "populated place." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears how? "Populated place" is a term from GNIS, and historically has proven to be an unreliable indicator of what is actually there. As far as people living there: no, they don't. It's just a siding with no houses around it. Mangoe (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note This has had three names: "originally Hardy, then Havre per G. M. Circular No. 197, to Hibbard in 1948" [4]. ----Pontificalibus 12:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign that there was ever a settlement here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:N Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aabove. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naason Joaquin Garcia[edit]

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

May not meet Notability guidelines. Information is already available in La Luz del Mundo article. BadHombres (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources to show notability.Jahaza (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The subject is head of his church. According to the WP page on the church, it has 1-5 million members in 58 countries in 2850 congregations. The "church" is thus a denomination and the subject of the article holds a position equivalent to an archbishop or primate. He is certainly notable, though if the accusations are true, he deserves to be notorious. If this were just about a local church pastor (which is how it looks at first sight), my vote would be the other way. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I dont see any reason why this Article should even be tagged for deletion, he is indeed a notable living person. Just because the info appears in another articles does not make it less worth. That is not even a deletion policy in Wikipedia. As far as those references and information provided in the article are concern, I strongly recommend keep. An@ss_koko^(speak)^(war) 20:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is head of a religious body with over 1 million members. Beyond this he is the clear source of theological stability, not just the elected leader of an inter-congregational body, but the true leader of a group of over 1 million. There is no way he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joaquín is a subject of this news story: California woman sues Mexican megachurch. Peter Chastain ^[¡hablá!] 21:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamar Electronics[edit]

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

Self-promotion spam. Created primarily by two accounts with conflicts of interest. Also, not notable. drt1245 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any significant coverage to show notability. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MarioGom (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ski jumping team of Bulgaria[edit]

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

The article is useless unless somebody rewrites it to include history of Bulgarian ski jumping and the current situation, like the Polish Wikipedia version. As it stands, it's just a list of athletes that hasn't been updated for 10 years. SupaHotFairy (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC) — SupaHotFairy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My question is why this page even exists to begin with as it clearly fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like I said in my nomination, I'm all for this article being deleted. But, if anything should be kept at all - I'd suggest merging the section about teammates Bogomil Pavlov and Deyan Funtarov being part of the World Cup-team in 2010/11 into the Vladimir Zografski article. Flyfairy (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Flyfairy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cibecue Creek, Arizona[edit]

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

Another exercise in bad map-reading, this is (or was) a picnic area; at least, that's what '60s-'70s topo maps say. But it sits on Cibecue Creek, and someone conflated the two and created this nonexistent "populated place" in GNIS. I couldn't tell whether there is anything there any more, but in any case a picnic area is not notable, even if it were named. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The picnic area may (but only may) merit reference on an article on a larger place but does not need a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note This title should probably be a page about the creek, which certainly satisfies WP:GNG, and also act as a kindof dab page for Cibecue, Arizona, the Battle of Cibecue Creek, and Western Apache people#Cibecue Apache. At the moment if you type "Cibecue Creek" into our search box you only get this page and the battle.----Pontificalibus 08:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article stub is written. Fails SNG and GNG. No prejudice against Pontificalibus suggestion of a new article about the creek which would pass WP:GEOLAND Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. . Lightburst (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite as Cibecue Creek (the actual creek) per Pontificalibus. GNIS cites "Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission. Recreational Site Inventory" which almost certainly refers to the picnic area, however the creek itself seems notable enough for an article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable place. A Cibecue Creek article can be written since waterways are often notable. Wm335td (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or rewrite Listed here as a locale, not a populated place. Seems like the creek has a better chance at meeting notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nature Research. Not much content to merge, and no one has explained why this journal should be mentioned in Nature Research when they have over a hundred journals. Should a list of Nature Research journals be created, the redirect should be updated. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Food[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While we may not need articles for every academic journal, it's particularly valuable for Wikipedia to have articles about the reliable sources we use in the project, and Nature journals tend accrue above-average prestige. Either merge into Nature Publishing Group, or create a List of Nature Research academic journals to aggregate the data in table form. Pburka (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete fail of WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. Article creation way WP:TOOSOON. Merging into the NPG article is undesirable, we cannot merge every journal there. At this point, basically the only information available is the title and perhaps its ISSN. WP is not here to help NPG to advertise their new journals. --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NJournals says "If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal." Stubs or lists of reliable sources are particularly useful, as they aid us in maintaining the encyclopedia itself. Pburka (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That part presumes the journal is notable to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NPG, or create a list of NPG publications, per Pburka. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nature Publishing Group. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Anthoney Wright[edit]

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

Vanity article by non-notable artist. There is no evidence that his recordings have made any impact or charted. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Couldn't find any other sources other than the BBC one and that was back in 2009. – BriefEdits (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He got a couple of introductory/promotional articles back in the early 2000s and was named in a few reviews for records that he guested on. Otherwise his own works have received no significant and reliable media coverage that I can find, and he is only found in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 21:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Ramazani Dastak[edit]

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

An MP who actually served for 8 days before passing away due to either flu or coronavirus. Either way, he doesn't seem to be notable enough to have a standalone article. Keivan.f^Talk 20:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as creator because WP:NPOL 1 applies to legislators who were elected to office without assuming them. ミラ P 21:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But has he received international press coverage? No. Did he actually do something during the 8-day period that he was an MP other than being hospitalized? No. There are thousands of other MPs in Iran and other countries who have exercised their powers to actually do something, and even in those cases they are not necessarily notable enough to have a standalone article. Keivan.f^Talk 04:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per snowball clause . Benyamin (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable. (Gabinho^>:) 05:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, obviously, and expand, Bacus15 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. In general, the community considers meeting WP:NPOL once a candidate has their election certified and entitled to being sworn in. --Enos733 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be expanded but passes WP:NPOL. It's very likely that more sourcing is out there, just not in English. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely needs to be expanded but as an MP in his homecountry he passes WP:NPOL. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative Identity Disorder Awareness Day[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. This appears to be a couple years old, and a WP:BEFORE search gives results that are mainly blogs, social media, various attempts at promotion, etc. (Note: I had originally redirected this to the main article for the disorder per WP:ATD, but was reverted, so am nominating here instead). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained this a public awareness day to raise awareness on the dissociative identity disorder. It's not a couple of years old, it's celebrated annually. As dissociative identity disorder is a disorder that is still studied, not well known by a lot of health professionals (especially outside the English speaking world) there might not be as many sources on it as on other mental health awareness days. The days will take place on March 5th. I guess because a lot of posts will be made on that day by DID sufferers because part of the idea is that they tell their stories, there will be a lot of people searching for the term. And it would be great if they would then find an explanation for it then. I think it would be great if Wikipedia included this into their encyclopeadia. The more DID sufferers "come out" the more it'll be known and accepted anyway. I'm sure this awareness day will gain more notoriety during the next decade or two. Hope that helped. Of course it would be great if other could improve the article.

I'll give a couple of links here:

Best regards, --Woman on a mission 👶🏼👦🏼👧🏼🙅🏼🕵🏼‍♀️👩🏼 20:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find significant coverage by RS. Natureium (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Days of the year dot com is just a list of 'weird holidays' (source's wording) that occur each day. So is national day calendar. No significance established. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edison, New Jersey#Geography. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Park, New Jersey[edit]

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

A generic subdivision/housing development in incorporated Edison, New Jersey (topo map (bottom right)). No evidence of notability per WP:GEOLAND2, not a stand-alone community. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (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/2020 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edison, New Jersey#Geography per "NJDOT Graphic Information System Maps Middlesex" (PDF). New Jersey Department of Transportation. which notes it.Djflem (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edison, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Park, Edison, New Jersey[edit]

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

A generic subdivision/housing development in incorporated Edison, New Jersey (topo map (bottom right)). No evidence of notability per WP:GEOLAND2, not a stand-alone community. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edison, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edison, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lahiere, New Jersey[edit]

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

A generic subdivision/housing development in incorporated Edison, New Jersey (topo map (bottom right)). No evidence of notability per WP:GEOLAND2, not a stand-alone community. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edison, New Jersey#Geography Djflem (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(per "NJDOT Graphic Information System Maps Middlesex" (PDF). New Jersey Department of Transportation. and GEOLAND2: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.) Djflem (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edison, New Jersey#Geography. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Homes, New Jersey[edit]

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

A generic subdivision/housing development in incorporated Edison, New Jersey (topo map (bottom right)). No evidence of notability per WP:GEOLAND2, not a stand-alone community. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edison, New Jersey#Geography Djflem (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(per "NJDOT Graphic Information System Maps Middlesex" (PDF). New Jersey Department of Transportation. Retrieved March 2, 2020.Djflem (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. This AFD is frankly, a mess; it would seem to be obvious that there is the possibility of a useful article here but this one is not it; thus draftifying for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congregational Churches in Leicester[edit]

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

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

A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Congregationalism in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This was closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was reverted following a request by the nominator.Djflem (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein, a decision overturned by deletion review, but with statement that a new AFD would be fine on 29 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus

It was followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, opened 30 January, which ~~is ongoing as of 12 February~~ closed as draftify/move to draft as of February 22, 2020 (see below note).

It's worth making a note to the closing administrator that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, which bears almost identical similarities to this article, closed as draftify/move to draft for the reason(s) similarly noted below. --Dmehus, 22 February 2020

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

--Doncram (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (updated 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

NOTE:This was non-admin closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was self-reverted following a discussion about it being a BADNAC. 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

off-topic

I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but:

Having multiple AfDs simultaneously open on related but different articles is fine. The outcomes may differ due to the differences between the articles (and each article should receive sufficient individual consideration unless there is a clear-cut case to bundle). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of List of Baptist churches in Leicester and Congregational Churches in Leicester.
I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying.

Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable entries. Also WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite specific part of policy and explain how you are applying it?Djflem (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Certainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Article may be Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not really?Djflem (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only information value here is as a directory of Methodist churches. That’s not valuable or an accepted reason per WP:NOTDIR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not valuable is a Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT argument. Wikipedia:NOTDIR says that Wikipedia articles are not "Simple listings" without context information and that information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. There is room in this article for adding prose to annotated list.Djflem (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename List of Congregational churches in Leicester, per WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

So, as per the nominator and another contributor's "no notable entries", which exactly fits the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Congregationalism in Leicester or a prose Congregational churches in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.Djflem (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since quotes were requested in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, here are some from policies and guidelines.
From the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
— WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not: ... 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
— WP:NOTDIR

From the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that you already previously quoted:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
— WP:CSC

WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention directory in AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more specific considerations that pertain to this AfD than the broad sweeping statements above. The bold is mine:

From: guideline Wikipedia:LISTPURP#1The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

From: guideline Wikipedia:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.

From: policy Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.

From: essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Wikipedia has no deadline.

Any specific relevant, detailed, pertinent quotes that you feel are relevant are welcome. Keep in mind that "valuable/useful" information is subjective, there is no policy that any item on a list has to be notable, and NOT DIR provides for lists with prose explanations of its items.Djflem (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:

Sure, where we disagree on the MOS guideline LISTPURP#1 is whether this list is a valuable information source; I don’t think this list is one.
You seem to have misunderstood CSC#2: your quote from CSC#2 describes why they're created, and the guideline immediately suggests not creating the list in the following sentence.
DIR#7 is explicitly saying that all WP lists should have context, not that all lists with context should be on WP. The WP:NOT policy rules out cases, it does not say anything about inclusion.
Essays are individual editor opinions. In particular, SURMOUNTABLE is very very general.

The clear superseding uncontested fact is that the article is explicitly ruled out by policy NOTDIR#6. Unless new sources demonstrate that the intersection of “Congregational churches” and “churches in Leicester” is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs) 02:07, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on WP:CSC#2

WP:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example...Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

Where does it suggest, as you claim, that these article should not be created? It doesn't. FYI, this is an example of the situation being referred to:Mayor of London, which is a parent article & subsequent list.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify the parent article into which this list better placed? Because that is what the the guideline says, NOT that stand-alone lists shouldn't be created.Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this list should exist at all by WP:NOTDIR#6. But supposing it didn't violate that policy, notice that there are multiple parent articles. Pick the closest one. If Congregational churches in Leicester was a prose article, then that could contain a list. If not, then Leicester. If neither of these two exist, then Leicestershire. And so on. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the multiple parent articles, or simply the best one and explain why you think this list should be merged into it. Thank-you. (WP:DIR#6 is discussed below).Djflem (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment. You'll see three of them and you'll see that I don't think the list should be merged into any of them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So then we agree, carefully considering whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article, there is no appropriate parent article. Therefore, as the policy clearly states, the stand-alone list is appropriate.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence is entirely false unless you choose to misread non-violation as acceptance, ignore that WP:CSC is not a policy, and ignore that the stand-alone list is inappropriate by the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#7

WP:DIR#7: A thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted. Otherwise descriptions with RS about the items in the list would have been added making it a annotated list. The policy cited says simple lists are not Wikipedia, but that annotated lists are Wikipedia. This has been clearly demonstrated at a similar AfD for Methodist churches in Leicester, where, indeed, information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information as sourced prose has been included.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, DIR#7 excludes simple lists but does not say that all annotated lists are acceptable. Not violating DIR#7 but violating DIR#6 is still a problem. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss what a guideline does say, not what it does not say. See below for DR#6:Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so talking about DIR#7 is pointless. It doesn't say that this article belongs as you seem to suggest. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#6

WP:DIR#6: Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization to which you make reference when citing WP:DIR#6:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. You seem to be suggesting that the following lists, similar in title & scope, and other like, should be deleted. They appear to be very encyclopedic:

Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it?Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed culturally significant phenomenon as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either. Drawing up a list of other cross-categorizations and asking for comparisons is an exercise in futility. AfD is not the place for “oh but this other article exists!” As you also point out, NOTDIR#6 allows for encyclopedic cross-categorization. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.

There’s nothing more to really debate if one can’t demonstrate that this particular class of churches in Leicester is culturally significant.

An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification to An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine: such an article could certainly exist if it was a properly sourced prose article. There's no properly referenced material here worth merging anywhere though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to produce a target article for this list, which actually is a basis for it, should you decide to do so. A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE would have demonstrated that there are RS, some of which are in the list itself.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sure you are aware that User:MarkH21 does not get to decide what is culturally significant. See: WP:LISTN, which states:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get to decide, but that's irrelevant. There needs to be evidence given here that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is a culturally significant cross-categorization. Might I remind you that Wikipedia policies supersede Wikipedia guidelines. Plus LISTN literally mentions and defers to NOTDIR#6 for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was simple responding to your claim Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed "culturally significant phenomenon" as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either., in which you are deciding what is culturally significant. Let's leave it to this RS: "The ancient borough: Protestant Nonconformity: A History of the County of Leicester: Volume 4". Victoria County History. 1958. pp. 390–394. Retrieved January 11, 2020. The Congregational chapel in Bond Street was founded in 1800...., which incidentally, brings the the list over the the general notability guidelines, making this AfD moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

I can't have an opinion on what is or isn't culturally significant? Re GNG, I don't see how giving one reliable listing of Congregational churches demonstrates significant coverage from multiple reliable sources of the topic "Congregational churches in Leicester". GNG (a guideline) also does absolutely nothing to dispel any concerns about violating DIR#6 (a policy). — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one hopes you are fully aware (otherwise I would suggest recusing yourself) Wikipedia:GNG are the basis for deciding many AfDs. And yes, you are welcome to your opinion about cultural significance, but it's just that, an opinion, based in Wikipedia:I just don't like it, a non-valid argument, which so far is your claim about DIR#6. If you would like to brush off arguments because they come from guidelines and are not policies, I would suggest that you confine your comments to strict policy-based ones and not your POV interpretations.Djflem (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfying WP:GNG is generally suitable for inclusion only when policies are not violated. Anyone can judge here that the arguments presented for how "Congregational Churches in Leicester" is exactly in the same vein as the explicit example from WP:NOTDIR#6 of "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". However, your accusations of POV editing and ignoring policy is now firmly in the realm of unfounded accusations and personal attacks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN states: (bold mine)

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

Please be mindful that Wikipedia:Consensus is not only a policy it is a pillar.Djflem (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Congregational churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Surely some of these are list-item notable. It does not require an AFD (and I think opening an AFD is unhelpful, especially without giving notice elsewhere) to propose a merge. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE ITEMS ARE NOTABLE OR LIST-ITEM-NOTABLE. I also do not believe that religion is "special" in Leicester and oppose creating a merged article about all types of churches in Leicester. --Doncram (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Congregational ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Congregational churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Congregational churches have more commonality with the Congregational churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Congregational churches are sensibly discussed together, not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[In the parallel Baptist AFD, MarkH21 replied as follows, and I gave further reply below. The duplication is aggravating, but I think the deletion nominator wants us to copy over the same stuff to each AFD, but with emphasis not to copy selective passages, but rather to copy over entire exchanges. [Update: I am notified they did not want stuff copied over; i misunderstood their objection to stuff copied which did not include back-and-forth, as worse. Anyhow, points made here are relevant for this AFD. Don't edit my comments.] --Doncram (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)] --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC):[reply]

Other's comment:

Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My reply:

You're agreeing that some of these are likely to be notable. I and others are not wanting to play game now of pulling up info right now for you in multiple AFDs, and actually sources brought up in some of the other AFDs probably provide info about some of the Baptist [or Congregational] ones. As we've discussed elsewhere wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP but you are explicitly acting like it is for cleanup. You're ignoring fact that outright deletion would remove the candidate list of churches which might be notable (individually, or list-item-wise), that some other editor thought were notable, and would maybe delete some sources and some context. The existence/closure of the AFD should be noted at the merger target article, and future editors can find their way to the candidate list even if it is merged/redirected. We are obligated to consider alternatives for deletion and there is this good one here, so there is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My comment here was deleted and I have now restored it; it is relevant to this AFD too. --Doncram (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you copied my comment without quotes before, as if I made the comment here myself, I reverted it. You insist on me repeating myself. My arguments have nothing to do with AFDISFORCLEANUP which I agree would be wrong. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course, a BEFORE search and referenced material not in the article is the basis of "keep" vs "not keep". My point was that if a topic is already deemed "not keep" then the debate between "delete" and "merge" is about whether there is referenced merge-able material in the existing article. In these particular cases, I do not agree that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is ~~not~~ a notable subject – that's why I then focused on merge-able content in the article. You seemed to agree that you misunderstood on your talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete/partial merge~~ Wikipedia is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have (temporarily) struck the above by Reywas92 as double-dipping is not permitted in AfD discussions. Please self-edit: strike as you see fit.Djflem (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to strike the entire comment. Pinging @Reywas92:. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, there are three of these lists up and I missed that I already voted here after commenting on the others. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to to the discussion and specify your policy based reasons, otherwise the comment is Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE & Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE Djflem (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and this group is not itself notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTN One of the accepted reasons (not a requirement: meaning there are more accepted reasons), why a list topic is considered notable is that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source, as this list and its entries have.Djflem (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the debate on this page seems to be whether the page meets WP:LIST. I consider that it does - the sources currently in the aritcle indicate there have been plenty of books, etc. written on congregational churches in Leicester itself that contitute reliable sources, and this meets the criteria in WP:LISTN - ie.:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

And to satisfy those who think there hasn't been enough discussion of reliable sources, there are plenty in the notes to the article already (even though they need to be better incorporated into the article itself), and a quick check of sources indicates that there is likely to be other sources discusisng congregational churches in Leicester itself and their effect on society, e.g. Rimmington's helpful set of historical articles such as this one.

Yes, the article is a mess and needs significant cleanup, but that is not a reason to delete. It should be kept in good faith to allow improvement. At worst, the article should be draftified and it should be specifically noted in the closure that the editor is allowed to redraft. Bookscale (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are plenty of reliable sources covering this topic as shown in the sources section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the relevant volume of the Victoria County History. As the list provides both information and a basis for future development, it satisfies WP:LISTPURP too and the nomination's contrary claim is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, this is the one source that has significant coverage on "Baptist churches in Leicester" as a whole. The other sources presented are for individual churches and not the group as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came here from the other two lists. This list fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lightburst, you can't just apply the same reasoning without properly considering the article and the sources that are available. The consensus on this one seems to be this is more easily fixed and there are even more sources than the Methodist churches one. Bookscale (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I don’t see such a consensus here, but NOTDIR is independent of that anyways. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - that's nonsense. You've really got it in for these articles don't you? Bookscale (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing DIR#6 is vague because it in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the policy Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another clear one is cognitive dissonance. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which is filled with exactly the same type of lists.Djflem (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been more activity at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester. About Congregational churches, someone asserted above that more sourcing is available than for Methodist ones (despite 2 Rimington articles available there), but I don't see any online source that is at all helpful here, beyond providing trivial info of address or random useless facts. This remains a wp:NOTDIR-violating list-article. I don't see any assertion that any single Congregational church has a listed building or otherwise has any merit to be mentioned in List of Congregational churches (which I probably argued should be a merge target above). Now I lean towards outright "Delete". I can't directly evaluate the stated off-line sources, but can only note: if there was any source that had anything useful, it should have been used to improve this article by now.

I think any potential closer should close the Methodist one first, or maybe wait for someone else to close it. If that AFD is closed "delete" or "draftify" or "merge", then this AFD about Baptist ones should be closed similarly. The case for "Keep" is way less strong here AFAICT. I see no serious evidence that any source is helpful at all; there has been nothing added to change this article from being a list of random places violating wp:NOTDIR. By the way, the "Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place" source is just literally a catalog, a directory, of no help. --Doncram (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doncram wrote in screaming capitals that other editors should not comment here but appears to have taken special dispensation to do in order to entangle the destiny of three distinct AfDs, and suggest what happens at one somehow be applied here and elsewhere. The well-known fact is that all unbundled AfDs (as was pointed out earlier) are separate and can and should have their own outcomes and that any closer must abide by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Is that a personal attack against me? Originally, there were 3 parallel AFDs, to which I objected. Then I thought they were all closed. Then I saw a new one on the Methodist article. There, in caps, yes, I was asking people not to start another set of parallel AFDs. However in fact the the Congregrational and Baptist ones never closed (or maybe they were closed and were reopened, like happened to the Methodist one before it was re-closed, before a new one was opened about it, i don't know.) Whatever, this has been a long dragged out mess. The fact that 3 of these are open still re-affirms my original belief that opening multiple parallel AFDs was not helpful. --Doncram (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not, no offense. I will point out that that your edit was placed immediately under notifications and links that were available at the time you made it, so the information as to the status of the AfDs was available. It's a close call, but they were not bundled (and don't believe they should have been). I do believe that entangling the three will only further drag the matter & suggest you don't if avoiding making a more of a mess is your legitimate concern.Djflem (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic now. But your point is that I should have checked further and not made the mistake of misunderstanding the status of the other AFDs, when I wrote that at the Methodist AFD. Okay, whatever, my bad, and I already acknowledged that I misunderstood that. Just to be clear, though, I did NOT write anywhere that "that other editors should not comment here", as I have been accused of, here. These AFDs are linked, anyhow, including by comments here complaining about comments made elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Despite the claim and attempt to disparage, this list and NOT RANDOM or indiscriminate. It is tightly focused and finite.

There are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the Wikipedia:Verifiability they provided to page. Several editors believe satisfies. :Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Currently only those sources which are online are given used. Since such coverage exists online, it can be presumed that there are more sources which are not digitalized including those are offered in source list.

Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place is indeed a database created by the University of Leicester (Archeology Department) as the result of a broader project to record all (types of) churches in Leicester, which clearly establishes the interest making it academic, encyclopedic, and notable.

As per criteria, Wikipedia should not contain indiscriminate lists and only certain types of list should be exhaustive. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. This list is exhaustive, and common sense is keeping the complete list, which is not likely to change.

Though it not necessary that there be any blue links, a common standard used for lists on Wikipedia is that when a list has at least one blue link the whole list is kept, a practice not being applied here. There are entries which would merit their own article (not shown as red links, but could be).

Wikipedia:NOTPAPER and inclusion of this material not in any way undermine Wikipedia's goal to document human knowledge, but rather supports it.

Citing DIR violation without a explanation is vague and frankly useless to the discussion because this list is NOT a list or repository of loosely associated topics; is not genealogical entry; a telephone directory; a directories, directory entry, electronic program guide, or resources for conducting business; a sales catalogue, a simple listing without context. DIR#6 is in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the Wikipedia:GNG, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another very clear guideline is disingenuous. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which contains exactly the same type of lists, despite what appears to be willful attempts to ignore them. (Any comparison of this list with something like Chinese restaurants in Atlanta is nonsensical garble.)

Wikipedia:Merging into an article List of Churches in Leicester or Churches in Leicester (currently a re-direct) (which would dispel any concerns about DIR#6) would produce a page with over 350 entries, which would then lead to Wikipedia:SPLIT. There is no reason to go through that process, when the split has already taken place.

NOT KEEP is not a AfD discussion option and does not, should not, and cannot be taken to mean DELETE.

Community consensus per Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES states that a list such this is kept because it is limited in scope, based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, has verifiable content, and has a logical reason for its construction.Djflem (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To dispell further misunderstandings in the above comment:

Finite is irrelevant here, indiscriminate doesn’t mean infinite...
Not violating NOTDIR 1-5 and 7-8 doesn't mean anything for a keep argument when the other arguments are about NOTDIR6
This article is a clear application of NOTDIR6 (a policy that supersedes LISTN and GNG which are guidelines) which says Wikipedia articles are not: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". This is the same type of article as those examples.
Nobody says “Not keep” = “delete”, and “not keep” certainly doesn’t mean “keep”.

The repeated mischaracterization of another editor’s actions is also getting tiring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. Finite is relevant in that does indeed contribute to the fact that the list is "well-defined" and yes, "indiscriminate" doesn’t mean infinite, it means done at random or without careful judgement, which is not the case with this list.
Slapping a random NOTDIR on a page doesn't mean anything for a delete argument when it is indiscriminate.
.Real or feigned ignorance of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines strikes me as being ill-formed, and demonstrates an unawareness of the how policies and guidelines (rules and their application, theories and their practices, laws and jurisprudence, etc) interact/are intertwined at Wikipedia and in the real world. That is tiring and tedious.
. KEEP is an AfD option, NOT KEEP is not an AfD option.Djflem (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Delete as failing WP:NOTDIR, specifically, criterion #6, WP:AOAL, and WP:CLN. This is, for all intents and purposes, a list, not an article, so the WP:GNG arguments simply don't apply. Draftification would allow those favouring "keep" or "merge" to decide on a potential merger target and initiate merger discussions on the destination talk page. Or, alternatively, to decide to refocus the scope of this list into an article to which WP:GNG would thus apply instead of ultra-short stub-class/sub-stub-class list, which this is. As such, it fails the above, as others have noted. Doug Mehus T·C 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At least read the most basic part of GNG when referring to it: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Also—to everyone in this discussion—when possible please adhere to MOS:LISTGAP. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  It is a good observation to note that a page tagged as a Wikipedia:List-class article is indeed an list and not article. One would be wise to also note that at WP:DIR that #6 , like all target points, is clearly proceed by Wikipedia articles are not: and does not speak to lists at all is in and of itself mute on the point and does NOT preclude lists of this type. It would also be wise to consider Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which provides the information as to how to proceed with lists, which WP#6 does not. As clearly stated the at the incorrectly dismissed Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. DIR#6 merely touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to disregard the guidance offered is not wise and does not appear to demonstrate a clear understanding of the purpose of policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
  J947, But this is a list; the crucial criterion here is WP:CLN/WP:LISTN and WP:AOAL, which this list fails miserably. It should be draftified. Doug Mehus T·C 12:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how WP:CLN (and its component)WP:AOAL, which discuss the synergies.between the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is relevant here (particularly since there is no correpondent cat or navtemplate). This list does not contravene Wikipedia:LISTN in any way.Djflem (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled that this has created such a wide discussion. All that is needed, as is the case for many other places, is that there is an article Churches in Leicester that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article. --Bduke (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: There are no churches in this list (or the others at the time of nomination) with their own article, so deletion makes sense. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Cathedral, but I agree that is not enough. So, OK, delete, but if there comes a time when there are a few more, such a list would be OK. --Bduke (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Cathedral is in Anglican churches in Leicester, not this list (Congregational Churches in Leicester). There are also others like a few notable entries in List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester that could be merged into a Churches in Leicester, but there are no churches in this list (Congregational Churches in Leicester) with their own articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are others in Anglican churches in Leicester. There should just be one article (Churches in Leicester) listing churches that have an article. Congregational Churches in Leicester, Anglican churches in Leicester and any similar ones should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out above, lists containing "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list. While such bluelinks are not a required by Wikipedia:SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, or Wikipedia:LISTN, it is correctly observed that it does follow Wikipedia's common practice to keep those lists which do have blue-links (as opposed to frowned-upon red links), as is the case with the aforementioned pages. This now contains the independently notable, blue-linked Clarendon Park Congregational Church, thus bringing in line with other list-articles and thus negating original claim of the nominator (who stated that this is "a list with no notable entries") and the concern/rationale expressed above. Djflem (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the article hasn’t negated any deletion argument. It just means that a potential Churches of Leicester article should have one more entry. If lists containing "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list was remotely true, we should have tons of singleton lists with one notable entry, like say Churches dedicated to Saint Peter in the Vatican City. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it was important enough to state in the nomination: "a list with no notable entries" as an argument. That has been negated. ~~Please see the guidelines regarding lists for you other claim.~~ Djflem (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC) (07:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

It was an observation to highlight the situation of the article, not an argument. Your creation of a single entry, seemingly motivated to invalidate that initial observation, doesn’t affect any of the previous arguments made here nor Bduke‘s argument which clearly calls for deletion even with the presence of a notable entry.

Any fixation or wikilawyering of the original nomination wording is pointless because there are plenty of other rationales and arguments raised and clearly explained during the course of discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no essential difference between a List, where the items get some information added as well as a mere name, and a combination article, which is usually written in paragraph form. It's just a question of format. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, which is why WP:NOTDIR applying to articles obviously includes list articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipefdia's policies and guidelines and the above discussion before repeating your claim.Djflem (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I concur completely with @MarkH21 and DGG:. Hopefully a closing administrator can put this AfD out of its misery and draftify, failing deletion, this list article as there is no consensus for retaining it as-is in Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 21:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a different tune than the claim made on 20 Feb: "This is, for all intents and purposes, a list, not an article, so the WP:GNG arguments simply don't apply.", isn't it? Djflem (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester I would argue that AOAL#8 might be satisfied but as noted unlike parish churches, congregation churches are probably less likely to be notable. Again putting all the churches in List of churches in Leicester might be a good idea but such articles might be too long and the lists have good sourcing as is (noting that this doesn't appear to be a standard list article). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist, if only to fix something borked with the original NAC close and re-open. No prejudice given to closing this "early" due to the age.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with the other nomination, this seems like a clear NOTDIRECTORY matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' because it needs improvements. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baptist churches in Leicester[edit]

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

A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Baptists in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This was closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was reverted following a request to do so. Djflem (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NAC was self-reverted by the non-admin closer after a discussion about it being a BADNAC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein, a decision overturned but allow new AFD by deletion review on 22 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus

But new AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester was opened 30 January, was continuing as of 12 February, was closed 22 February. --Doncram, 8 March 2020

It's worth making a note to the closing administrator that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, which bears almost identical similarities to this article, closed as draftify/move to draft for the reason(s) similarly noted below. --Dmehus, 22 February 2020

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

off-topic

I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but:

Having multiple AfDs simultaneously open on related but different articles is fine. The outcomes may differ due to the differences between the articles (and each article should receive sufficient individual consideration unless there is a clear-cut case to bundle). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of List of Baptist churches in Leicester and Congregational Churches in Leicester.
I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying.

Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the topic is referenced in the article.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Article may be Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved.Djflem (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

So, as per the nominator mention on "no notable churches" and the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Baptists in Leicester or a prose Baptist churches in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist.

Are you going to continue copying every comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester to here even after I respond to them over there? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am following your lead about copying & doing exactly as you are with regard to that AfD, which is a similar, but different AFD. It's about the AfD not about you. I mentioned the essay because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Sure, but not acknowledging the responses when reposting comments suggests that you are ignoring or dismissing the responses.

Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring or dismissing, I'm contesting the arguments being put forth and providing links and insight guidelines and policies that suggest this list should exist. Therefore, I quote the specific part of it, rather than just add a link. Can you address them and/or do the same? Doing so can make the discussion more productive.Djflem (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you're copying the comments from the other AfD, after responses were made to it there, without acknowledging those responses forcing me to copy them here. It's not important, just a procedural thing.

I don't know why you think I haven't been addressing your arguments, which are based on Wikipedia essays rather than policies or guidelines. Here are pertinent quotes from policies and guidelines. From the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
— WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not: ... 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
— WP:NOTDIR

From the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that you already previously quoted:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
— WP:CSC

WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention directory in AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more specific things than the sweeping statements above which pertain to this AfD. The bold is mine:

From:guidline Wikipedia:LISTPURP#1The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

From: guidline Wikipedia:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.

From: policy Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.

From: essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Wikipedia has no deadline.

Djflem (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:

Where we disagree on LISTPURP#1 is whether this list is a valuable information source; I don’t think this list is one.
You seem to have misunderstood CSC#2: your quote from CSC#2 describes why they're created, and the guideline immediately suggests not creating the list in the following sentence.
DIR#7 is explicitly saying that all WP lists should have context, not that all lists with context should be on WP. The WP:NOT policy rules out cases, it does not say anything about inclusion.
Essays are individual editor opinions. In particular, SURMOUNTABLE is very very general.

The clear superseding uncontested fact is that the article is explicitly ruled out by policy NOTDIR#6. Unless new sources demonstrate that the intersection of “Baptist churches” and “churches in Leicester” is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another directory of non-notable churches in one particular British city. Ajf773 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policy? Wikpedia provides for themed lists of items that would not necessarily garner a stand-alone article.Djflem (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy that covers this WP:NOT#DIR. A really loose list of article-less churches with their rough location included. Ajf773 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted. Otherwise descriptions with RS about the items in the list would have been added making it a annotated list. The policy cited says simple lists are not Wikipedia, but that annotated lists are Wikipedia. This has been clearly demonstrated at a similar AfD for Methodist churches in Leicester, where, indeed, information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information as sourced prose has been included.Djflem (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point. Just because it wouldn't violate NOTDIR#7 does not mean that it does not violate NOTDIR#6. It's still a cross-categorization that is not a culturally significant phenomenon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we do agree that it does not violate NOTDIR#7. It does not violate #6 either: There is no Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Even if there were a Category:Congregational churches in Leicester, that would not apply since a list of List Congregational churches in Leicester would be more than than appropriate for inclusion along with any individual item that had its own article, as is precedent and common practice, and would be included in Category:Lists of churches in England and by extension its parents. (e.g. List of GS1 country codes>Category:Lists of country codes>Category:Country codes) Djflem (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? NOTDIR#6 absolutely applies. This is almost identical to the situation described.

NOTDIR#6 is clearly about articles, since it says Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article (bolding is mine). This article is the intersection of Category:Churches in Leicester and Category:Baptist churches. It's almost identical to the given example "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" in NOTDIR#6. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization to which you make reference when citing WP:DIR#6:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. You seem to be suggesting that the following lists, similar in title & scope, and other like, should be deleted. They appear to be very encyclopedic:

Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it? Djflem (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed culturally significant phenomenon as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either. Drawing up a list of other cross-categorizations and asking for comparisons is an exercise in futility. AfD is not the place for “oh but this other article exists!” As you also point out, NOTDIR#6 allows for encyclopedic cross-categorization. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.

There’s nothing more to really debate if one can’t demonstrate that this particular class of churches in Leicester is culturally significant.

An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian lists are directories like this one and should also be deleted. The rest are limited to churches that are either notable enough to have articles or are designated historic buildings. We should definitely have lists for notable and historic churches, we should not have lists merely to be a directory of all places of worship. A Churches in Leicester article should be limited to notable ones. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no requirement that items on a list be notable.WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles...Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. As there is no parent article, this list should stand as is.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a useful encyclopedic list and meets WP:LISTPURP. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But it also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion above and explain what particular part of the policy to which you are referring, because your claim seems to be invalid.Djflem (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:NOTDIR#6 once again: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories. Pinging: @Reywas92:. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that per MarkH, as well as "Simple listings without context information" and WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These generic facilities do not need to be listed merely because they exist. There are more than 40,000 churches in the UK, more than there are pubs, and it is not Wikipedia's place to list them all, even when split into articles by city and denomination. Reywas92^Talk 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Was "Merge" to List of Baptist churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Changed to "delete" because I have already merged the 4 Grade II listed ones, and the rest seems to include outrageous errors and is just shite. So "Delete" is my !vote to emphasize how "shite"-y it is. --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)] Surely some of these are list-item notable. It does not require an AFD (and I think opening an AFD is unhelpful, especially without giving notice elsewhere) to propose a merge. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE ITEMS ARE NOTABLE OR LIST-ITEM-NOTABLE. I also do not believe that religion is "special" in Leicester and oppose creating a merged article about all types of churches in Leicester. (This is a copy of my comment at the Congregational churches AFD. This is stupid, having 3 AFDs, rather than letting one conclude and take your cue from that. The Methodist one is heading towards Merge, I think.) --Doncram (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, IMO you have not understood the discussion at the Methodist one. Right, you are not proposing merge yourself, but there is no way this should be outright deleted because there is good alternative to deletion available (merge). If you would have let it conclude, there would be no need for other AFDs. Further general discussion about AFD behavior, not above content, should be done at Talk page of one of these AFDs with notice given at the other Talk pages. Discussion between MarkH21 and myself can occur at my Talk page, where MarkH21 did open a section, expressing their objection to my bolded notice towards top of this AFD. Happy to discuss it further there. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I argued for a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, which has properly referenced material worth merging. I do think that outright deletion is the correct outcome for this article because there is no properly referenced material worth merging. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sez you. The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Baptist ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Baptist churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Baptist churches have more commonality with the Baptist churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Baptist churches are sensibly discussed together (perhaps noting which ones were visited by John the Baptist), not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're agreeing that some of these are likely to be notable. I and others are not wanting to play game now of pulling up info right now for you in multiple AFDs, and actually sources brought up in some of the other AFDs probably provide info about some of the Baptist ones. As we've discussed elsewhere wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP but you are explicitly acting like it is for cleanup. You're ignoring fact that outright deletion would remove the candidate list of churches which might be notable (individually, or list-item-wise), that some other editor thought were notable, and would maybe delete some sources and some context. The existence/closure of the AFD should be noted at the merger target article, and future editors can find their way to the candidate list even if it is merged/redirected. We are obligated to consider alternatives for deletion and there is this good one here, so there is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HEY since the initation of AfD, the list has been worked on. To be considered (bold mine)

Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a simple listing without context information and it contains information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose.
Wikipedia:LISTN: This list fulfills this because as it is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, items in the list do not need to be independently notable, it is not a large list, it is informational, and there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: The list follows the precedent of List of X churches in Y, of which there are likely hundreds, many of which are much more complex and cross-categorizational. as seen in Category:Lists of churches

Djflem (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is in more than satisfactory shape (format & refs) to remain published in main space, where it will be seen & invite improvements by more editors, while regulation to draft will hinder that process by hiding it from potential contbutorsDjflem (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Djflem that the article does not contravene any of the WP:NOT categories that would make the inclusion of this material unsuitable for a list article. Lists of churches for a city are appropriate for a Wikipedia and are not a "directory". The article needs significant cleanup but that's not the purpose of AfD. Bookscale (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just to cover off everything, I believe the churches in Leicester have been discussed by multiple reliable sources. There are some in the article, and there are likely to be others, for example, Rimmington's helpful articles (another one, and another one in a different publication: Rimmington, G. "The Baptist churches and society in Leicestershire, 1951-1971." Local Historian 39 (2009): 109-21, etc.. Bookscale (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and this group is not notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the accepted reasons (not a requirement: meaning there are more accepted reasons), why a list topic is considered notable is that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source, as this list and its entries have.Djflem (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this topic has coverage in multiple reliabls sources as shown in the references and sources sections of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the relevant volume of the Victoria County History. As the list provides both information and a basis for future development, it satisfies WP:LISTPURP too and the nomination's contrary claim is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, this is the one source that has significant coverage on "Baptist churches in Leicester" as a whole. The other sources presented are for individual churches and not the group as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these lists could all be merged into List of places of worship in Leicester - q.v. List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling et al. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather than merge; combining all the city's lists of different religions' premises/congregations into Places of worship in Leicester would result in a very long and unweieldy page. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If a single Leicester list would be too long, then a split by postcode area would be appropriate. LE1 - LE9 are the areas that comprise Leicester, so that would give nine lists. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge into Places of worship in Leicester. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly just a "directory" as it includes a large number of purely historic entries. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing DIR#6 is vague because it in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the policy Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another clear one is cognitive dissonance. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which is filled with exactly the same type of lists.Djflem (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been more activity at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester. About Methodist churches, there are more sources (two articles by Rimington). I think any potential closer should close that one first, or maybe wait for someone else to close it. If that AFD is closed "delete" or "draftify" or "merge", then this AFD about Baptist ones should be closed similarly. The case for "Keep" is less strong here. In fact I see no source available on-line which can be argued to support keeping this. This Baptist article includes mention of 3 off-line sources:

A Brief History of Free Churches in Leicestershire & Rutland, Rev A A Betteridge
The Story of the East Midlands Baptist Association, Fred M W Harrison, 1986
Places of Worship in the City of Leicester, Leicester Council of Faiths, 2004

but I see no serious evidence that those sources are helpful, there has been nothing added to change this article from being a list of random places violating wp:NOTDIR. By the way, the "Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place" source is just literally a catalog, a directory, of no help.

I do see assertion that several of the Baptist churches are Type II or whatever listed buildings; those ones could be added to List of Baptist churches. Above I !voted "Merge" to that list, which I still think is the right option. --Doncram (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of online articles not previously mentioned (I think?), see some in the list here. Bookscale (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place is indeed a database created by the University of Leicester (Archeology Department) as the result of a broader project to record all (types of) churches in Leicester, which clearly establishes the interest making it academic, encyclopedic, and notable.Djflem (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Delete per DGG. This is, for all intents and purposes, a list; not an article. The "delete" arguments, arguably, have this one as WP:NOTDIR criterion #6 is entirely on point. Thus, the WP:GNG arguments don't hold water. Merging is a possibility, but it shouldn't be our place to "court order" a merger on a specific target, so draftification is entirely reasonable. This would allow those favouring "keep" to decide to where they want to initiate a merge talk page discussion or, alternatively, to refocusing the scope of this list into an article on Baptist churches in Leicester. Doug Mehus T·C 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good observation to note that a page entitled List of Baptist churches in Leicester is indeed an list and not article. One would be wise to also note that at WP:DIR that #6 , like all , target points is clearly proceed by Wikipedia articles are not: and does not speak to lists at all is in and of itself mute on the point and does NOT preclude lists of this type. It would also be wise to consider Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which provides the information as to how to proceed with lists, which WP#6 does not. As clearly stated the at the incorrectly dismissed Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. DIR#6 merely touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to disregard the guidance offered is not wise and does not appear to demonstrate a clear understanding of the purpose of policies and guidelines.Djflem (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester I added the following:- "There are others in Anglican churches in Leicester. There should just be one article (Churches in Leicester) listing churches that have an article. Congregational Churches in Leicester, Anglican churches in Leicester and any similar ones should be deleted." I think this should apply to this article also. Only churches with articles should be listed. I am not sure what is the best way to handle these separate articles. --Bduke (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing?

Note The above comment (@8.20 26feb20) was made after message sent to editor the nominator (@07:4826feb20) (and may have been prompted by it). Could this be considered an instance of inappropriate canvassing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's absolutely not inappropriate canvassing. If you bothered to read the very behavioral guideline that you link, you'd see that WP:APPNOTE includes as an appropriate notification:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following... On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Oh hey, Bduke commented on the closely related AfD on Congregational Churches in Leicester. So this was a totally appropriate notification by the very guideline you link.

Knock it off, Djflem. This is another frivolous personal attack by virtue of being a false accusation of wrongdoing (e.g. like this false claim). You've made four personal attacks on these AfDs and have been warned by myself and by another editor (Doncram). You need to stop making false accusations immediately. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the inquiry and acknowledging that guidelines are important.Djflem (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be only 1 list named List of churches in Leicester for all types of churches, otherwise keep since the article seems well sourced to RSs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale, This is a list though, so notability doesn't really apply. It fails WP:AOAL and WP:CLN woefully; we cannot allow cruddy content to remain in Main: namespace as poor content, in turn, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Thus, your idea of having a single List of churches in Leicester, perhaps sectioned off by denomination, has merit, but the proper place to handle this is Draft: namespace where editors can decide on inclusion criteria, whether to write it in list format or prose (I favour prose, since most of the church buildings are inherently non-notable and not eligible for bluelinked articles), and the like. Since we have no deadlines, we can't allow cruddy content which fails our guidelines to remain in Main: namespace indefinitely. Moreover, just speaking in generalities, the behaviour of some editors in this and other AfDs has been, frankly, appalling, particularly the refactoring of editors' comments and rearranging their comments seemingly to effect preferential placement. Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One simply needs to see Wikipedia:LISTN, a section of Wikipedia:Notability, to see the absurdity of the above claim.Djflem (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out above, lists containing with "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list. While such bluelinks are not a required by Wikipedia:SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, or Wikipedia:LISTN, it is correctly observed that it does follow Wikipedia's common practice to keep those lists which do have blue-links as is the case with the aforementioned pages. This article contains at least four entries which are independently notable as listed buildings. The creation of those articles would thus bring it in line with other articles and remove a concern/original claim of the nominator who stated that this is "a list with no notable entries". They are:

Charles Street, Central Baptist Church [5]

Main Street Evington [6]

~~Melbourne Hall, Evangelical Free Church [7]~~

Narborough Road, Robert Hall Memorial Baptist Church [8]

Belvoir Street [9]

--Djflem (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum/correction: add Central (now blue-linked);strike Melbourne.Djflem (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those in Category:Lists of listed buildings in Cumbria contain non-linked items. I'd add that most parish churches (rather than Methodist churches) tend to be listed buildings and will have third party coverage from a number of sources and are significant to the residents of the parish. Even still the list appears to satisfy AOAL#8 anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to return and reply to anything here, because I don't want to prolong this AFD, which has long been ready to be closed (delete).

But, as has been pointed out before in some or all of these related AFDs, it is just wrong to assert that any list whatsoever is Wikipedia-notable, just because it can have one or a few bluelinks. That is just silly, and I am surprised that one or more editors are repeating that. (If someone seriously believes that, please consider: do you want there to be a million or more separate lists covering these? E.g. "List of stone churches", "List of churches in Leicester", "List of churches in Leicestershire", "list of Baptist churches having doors", "List of churches having addresses", "List of churches built before 2020", "List of buildings in England", "List of places on Bishop Streets in any city having a Bishop Street", etc. etc. etc.?)

No, in practice in Wikipedia it is NOT true that listed buildings are assumed to be individually notable. In England, it is usually assumed that Grade I (buildings of exceptional interest) and Grade II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest) are going to be individually notable. The four ones here are just Grade II. Note that Leicester#Landmarks makes a point to mention the 13 Grade I buildings in Leicester, but not lower ones. There is no need to split out that section of "Leicester" to create a separate "List of churches in Leicester".

But sure, if enough coverage exists to satisfy wp:GNG, a Grade II building could nonetheless be Wikipedia-notable (not shown to be thef case for any of these though). However, there does exist Grade I listed buildings in Leicester, and those 4 churches could better be mentioned there, without creating separate articles about them. Also, they could be mentioned in List of Baptist churches in the United Kingdom, which I think I pointed out months ago, above. They are still not mentioned there; there is no reason to split out a smaller list of Baptist churches in Leicester alone.

I probably won't reply further. --Doncram (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. So, in your opinion, how many Grade I or II listed churches would need to be included in a list like this for it to be kept? Or would they all have to be Grade I or II listed? Don't feel you have to reply. But I'd be interested to hear your opinion. Whether or not this is just "silliness". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Martinevans123, I'll answer. It would make sense to split out a sublist from List of Baptist churches in England when there are about 200 or more to split out. The 200 or so rule of thumb is effective practice for splitting out sublists for historic places in the U.S., and would generally apply for tabulated lists of places in England or anywhere else, too. Technically I think there is a guideline somewhere on the number of bytes justifying a split, which basically corresponds to about 200 items like these. I have added the four Grade II-listed ones to the List of Baptist churches in England list. I am not really sure all four of those really need to be mentioned there, but I am quite sure there are not 196 more that need to be listed there, so split won't be needed anytime soon! --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But did you want to answer my questions too? I don't think there is actually any written policy on this, is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinevans123, please note your statements don't show an understanding yet about the fact there are three levels of listed buildings: Level I, Level II*, and Level II. Please see listed buildings for explanations of those 3. I have tried, am willing to keep trying to answer your questions (but maybe this should be at your or my Talk page?). You asked for my opinion; I gave it. There is a written policy/guideline on how big is too big for a list-article somewhere, I will try to find it, but anyhow the current List of Baptist churches in England list-article/section is nowhere near that. What further question(s) do you have / what other written policy do you want to see? --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So I "don't show an understanding yet about the fact there are three levels of listed buildings". "lol", as they say. I thought my questions were reasonable clear. Never mind. Please don't trouble yourself any further on my account. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Even if not closed as "delete," to close it as anything other than "draftify" would be wholly incorrect; there's simply no consensus here for retaining the article as is in Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 15:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to delete or draftifyDjflem (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your beliefs are clear and do not need to be repeated again and again and again and again and again. Please leave it to the closer to assess what the consensus is. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:It important to note that since the nomination RS which support the notablility/verfiability have been added, including Ruddy, Austin J. (6 February 2018). "Renovating a great survivor of the 'metropolis of dissent'". Leicester Mercury. Retrieved 28 February 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Thanks, great, I have added that citation to the row about the Central Baptist Church in the List of Baptist churches in England list-article. The existence of that citation does not mean that a separate article about the church is needed; I think its row in that list-article is just the right amount of coverage. And there is no need to divide out the few Leicester ones from the England-wide list-article, which is certainly not too big yet. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added four Baptist churches in Leicester to the List of Baptist churches in England list-article. Above I think I argued for "merger", but at this point I think "Delete" is better. There is other junk in the current List of Baptist churches in Leicester article, such as claim that "St. John the Baptist church" in Leicester is a Baptist church, which is just false, it is a Church of England church. It is garbage, frankly, and best deleted. :) Or fine, give a copy to anyone who wants to try to salvage anything other than garbage to put into Leicester or List of Baptist churches in England article, but I personally don't see anything of merit worth copying over. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I sould suggest that List of Baptist churches in England is garbagy, piece of junk. It is a random, indiscriminate mish-mash of odds and ends, just filled a little of this a little of that without real reason, rationale or parameters. What is the basis, the goal or objective of such hodge-podge grocery list of incomplete information? What does it have to with the real truly academic & encyclopedic world outside the Wikidpedia orbit? This list and others for Leicester and London present a comprehensive, perhaps exhaustive/finite lists of real complete information that has vetted and verified by university & community studies/survey. They are what make for a real encyclopedia and make Wikipedia, the purported goal of which is to record human knowledge, better.Djflem (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly can one find the Saint John the Baptist Church that you claim is in the list? Djflem (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Closed churches", Clarendon Park Road, Clarendon Park Baptist Church is referenced to Church of St John the Baptist. Likewise, Melbourne Hall (under "Open Churches") is not a Baptist church either. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work for catching that: corrected! That scouring of the references and the recent work by User:Martinevans123 helps to improve this list-article. One can safety assume that citation of Ruddy, Austin J. (6 February 2018). "Renovating a great survivor of the 'metropolis of dissent'". Leicester Mercury. exported from this article for notablility/verfiability at the aforementioned List of Baptist Churches demonstrates its quality as a source. There is much to mined from it and others in this list for creating in-line citations. The work done by User:Martinevans123 (thanks!) and this ref-check clearly demonstrate that keeping the article in the main space, rather than a draft, leads to improvements. The question of the Melbourne Hall highlights the architectural (as opposed to religious aspect) of the list is better dealt with on the talk-page.Djflem (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that Anglican churches in Leicester and List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester ought to show if any of their entries are listed buildings. I believe Leicester Cathedral is a Grade II* listed building (but pardon my limited understanding). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist, if only to fix something borked with the original NAC close and re-open. No prejudice given to closing this "early" due to the age.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As with the similar article for Congregational Churdhes, I think that all that is needed, as is the case for many other places, is that there is an article "Churches in Leicester" that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article. --Bduke (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Leicester with articles on Wikipedia isn't really very encyclopedic (and probably a violation of NOT:DIR).Djflem (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with Bduke's suggestion. Churches in Leicester was created as a redirect back on 13 Jan 2020, to redirect to Leicester#Landmarks, which is a place where churches that are especially significant in the city might be mentioned. It would not be appropriate to list more than a couple churches there, because most are so non-important in context of discussing Leicester. Nor would it be appropriate to split out any churches mentioned there, to a separate list, whether or not that would be expanded to become a directory of all churches that have ever existed in Leicester. We simply do not want this one or a zillion other directories titled "Churches in X", where X is a city or town or other area. Nor do we want "Restaurants in X" or "Factories in X" or a zillion other possibilities. Bduke, while I kind of agree with your dismissal of the AFD topic article, IMHO you are simply wrong to imply that a bigger list of unimportant churches is "needed"; it is not. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: If it will assuage your concerns about zillions of possibilities, there is a Category:Lists of churches, which includes many (maybe hundreds) "Churches in X" and "X churches in Y" that satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no Category:Lists of factories. There is a small Category:Lists of restaurants, which does indeed include random, indiscriminate collection of lists of restaurants that have blue-links, which would which be better described as Category:Lists of restaurants with articles on Wikipedia, since the only criteria for them existing seems to be having an article Wikipedia, which is a indiscriminate, random, non-encyclopedia, non-academic, self-referential Wikipedia-world rationale for a parameter. That would be similiar, if one correctly reads Bduke's suggestion that an article "that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article" be created, to List of churches in Leicester (with articles on Wikipedia) to which Churches in Leicester would be properly redirected. But rather than speculate or fret about future worries, the matter at hand is this AfD, and as you are likely aware, which should be dealt with on its own merits. This list as a whole has been well vetted and clearly undeniably meets notibility and verifiability as provided by the reliable sources and should be evaluated in that context. That may help to expedite its closure.Djflem (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to Bduke's good-faith suggestion of creating a List of churches in Leicester with articles on Wikipedia, because WP:AOAL and WP:CLN require most of the list entries to be bluelinks, with some redlinks, the correct place to draft such a combined article is in Draft: namespace. As written, this is just a list of old non-notable church addresses and this fails WP:NOTDIR criterion #6. As suggest above, this would be better written in paragraph form, as prose, and this should occur in Draft: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 03:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus:: This list and the others for churches in Leicester easily fulfill the advantages of a list. While, bluelinks are not a required by Wikipedia:SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, or Wikipedia:LISTN, which this list (and others) easily fulfill, DO have them. Prose would NOT be the better format for the presentation of the material, so there's no need for a draft. Unless you have something to add to explain your suggestion there appears to be no reason to incessantly repeat it.Djflem (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looks like some bludgeoning going on here... Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not seeing it. Perhaps there are sources enough to have an article about baptism in leicester where this could be merged, but this seems like a NOTDIRECTORY issue. Second choice, I suppose, would be Selective Merge into a list of churches that includes notable examples. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extensive, reliable sources that prove Baptist churches in this city are notability are here, here, and here. A somewhat less extensive source is here.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First source appears it might support an article on Baptists in Leicester, though not about Baptist churches AFAICT. Second and third are Rimmington, discussed (and dismissed by me) above and/or in related AFDs. Fourth is not usable as a source for anything. As I think i've asserted above, if someone could write a list-article using info from Rimmington, they should have done so long ago, by now, but it seems to me that Rimmington's articles are not seriously helpful for a list like this, so I eventually changed my !vote Delete. Bookscale asserted that Rimmington was good and further that there must be more so-far-undiscovered sources; I disagree. YMMV. --Doncram (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rimmington, Gerald T. (200). "The Baptist Churches and Society in Leicester 1881–1914". Baptist Quarterly 38:7. pp. 332–349. Retrieved 15 March 2020. In 1881, the Baptists were the undeniable leaders of Nonconformity in Leicester. They had grown rapidly in numbers since 1851, when they had ten places of worship. Two more had appeared by 1872. By 1882 they had 20 places of worship.... added to article.Djflem (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would seem that G.T. Rimmington an Honorary Visiting Fellow, Centre for the History of Religions and Political Pluralism, University of Leicester from 2000-2019 (who has written extensively about Baptist and other church buildings in Leicester) would include information in his (3rd above): "Baptist Membership in Leicestershire between the Two World Wars". Baptist Quarterly. 39 (8). Baptist Quaterly: 393–407. 2002. Retrieved 15 March 2020., which does not appear to be available online.Djflem (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first above, "Early Leicester Baptists". Baptist Quarterly. 1 (2): 74–77. 1922., AFAICT does not appear to be freely accessible on line, and therefore cannot be properly evaluated. It may or may not contain info usable info to support GNG and verifiablity some theoretical article, but is not needed to do for this existing one.Djflem (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mountain Ridge, California[edit]

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

Seems to be another GNIS-related mistake. Satellite imagery show a ridge named "Big Mountain Ridge" but not a town. Americanfreedom (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually GNIS says it's a ridge, but it's in El Dorado county not LA so idk what this is supposed to refer to. No other results there or google besides mirrors. I added another page by the same user that's an island rock. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Big Mountain Ridge, weak delete Big Rock The first is obviously not a notable feature. Big Rock is also the name of the Malibu neighborhood just north of the, um, rock, but I doubt it is independently ntoable. It's hard to tell because searching the name is pretty difficult. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It at least appears to be a real thing in LA County according to this LA Times article, but it's not in-depth enough to establish GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per John Pack Lambert. From Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Uranium[edit]

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

Not a notable company. As listed here, this is one of the few names the company has gone by. It is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange but now under the name American Helium Inc. TSX: AHE.H Insufficient coverage in independent sources for any of the company's names. maclean (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is about the Canadian company. There is another company in Australia that formerly (until 2014) went by "United Uranium" also. maclean (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick Google search does not reveal any sources to indicate notability of this company. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Uranium[edit]

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

Not a notable company. It was listed on the TSX Venture Exchange between 2006-13 and then changed name to Star Minerals Group and now goes by Navis Resources. Insufficient coverage in independent sources. maclean (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no any indications of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No showing of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kim[edit]

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

autobio sourced almost exclusively to fake news/black hat seo sources. all the other sources are primary or unreliable (ie. forbes contributor pieces) Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. --BonkHindrance (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a pr piece. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Christopher[edit]

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

Contested PROD by an SPA. Promotional article on a non-notable actor/reality TV personality. WP:REFBOMBed with completely unreliable sources such as MySpace, Youtube, podcast interviews, song lyric sites, IMDB and unreliable blogs. The editor who created this article has repeatedly dodged COI warnings and questions regarding promotional editing. GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION OPPOSED- Article sources are valid, including listed work with notable, established actors and media personalities. Article shall remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idkanyomous (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idkanyomous which of the references meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source? Also please note that working with notable people does not make someone notable. GPL93 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant roles or "large fanbase" per WP:ENT. A lot of the coverage seems to be more niche online magazines. The tv credit seems to be closer to two appearances on separate shows. I cleaned the page up but afterwards, there really wasn't much left. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This jack of all trades has gotten kind of close to notability by association, but his own works have received little reliable media notice, not even his streaming channel. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, he does not gain notability just because he appeared in some song or TV show with notable people, and reliable sources on those items merely list him as being present. And the article's history indicates an attempt at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor/reality TV personality fails WP:ENT Wm335td (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhos Garth-fawr[edit]

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

There is no notability or significant coverage. I could not find anything about Rhos Garth-fawr. I am also nominating it because there is only one sentence with no context. I am also nominating Boxbush Meadows for deletion. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG --BonkHindrance (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2020 (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/2020 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous AFD. I will note that Dr. Blofeld created 367 of these one-line substubs on SSSIs in Wales. While a number like Coed y Crychydd have been slightly expanded with links to the Woodland Trust, I'm not convinced SSSIs are automatically notable and would encourage a bulk nomination. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, suggest finding all the ones you can't expand and delete them all. We're not a database. Happy to db author them, save wasting time with AFD s, create a list of all ones created and the ones you think should be deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I left a list on your talk page. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect SSSIs to be notable but if there's little or no evidence of their existence then that's not a good sigh.

Delete unable to find existence of this in Powys, this lists one 9.5 km from Rhosgoch which is on Anglesey but even that doesn't otherwise seem to exist. "Rhos Garth-fawr" only returns about 142 results on Google and you would expect a SSSI to easily be found on Google per WP:GHITS. Other than this which the page doesn't show it otherwise seems like all the other results are mirrors from WP. Geograph also doesn't come up with anything. Similar for Boxbush Meadows. Note that Geograph does return this but its both a different place and a descriptive title rather than a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Couillard[edit]

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

I did a good search and could not find a single in-depth independent source. The subject has a long career, but enough sourcing does not seem to be available for an article. No work in collections, no sign of reviews. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search turned up no reliable sources and no substantial coverage of the subject. The article reads like a CV, and there appears to be a WP:COI with one of the contributors to the article, namely Paulcouillard, whose only contributions are to this article. Does not pass WP:GNG and fails WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete pernom. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Bartholomew[edit]

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

GNG fail. I could not find any independent sourcing that discusses the subject or their work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar result as nominator. Curiocurio (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic hiring in digital marketing[edit]

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

This is an essay, based on the author's own views. There's no indication that the references support what is written. There's no evidence of this being a notable subject. While not a reason for deletion, there remain no links to this article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is spam from a single purpose account probably intended to support someone’s business with a piece of “thought leadership” dumped on Wikipedia to take advantage of the SEO. Mccapra (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:PUFF, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:GNG. I think somebody whose native language is English wrote this, but I'm not certain. It's such a huge pile of puffery and spam that I don't know where to begin to fix it. The topic itself is too detailed be be more than an middle-school essay -- somewhere else. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I work in communications/marketing and I struggle to understand what value this article adds to Wikipedia. I can see from the history that there have been multiple requests for the article to be improved. Given the lack of response / changes, I agree that deletion makes sense. - Dyork (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:G5 Primefac (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yukesh Chaudhary Entrepreneur[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per g5 Praxidicae (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Brueckner[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an artist, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our notability standards for artists. The main notability claim here is that he's had gallery shows, which is not an instant free pass into Wikipedia absent real reliable source coverage in media, but all but two of those shows are completely unreferenced, and the two that do have references are both citing the primary source front splash pages of the galleries themselves — with the added bonus that any mention of him has long since expired off both of those pages, because the shows in question were more than a decade ago. And the only other reference present here at all is the deadlinked primary source website of a non-notable conference he gave a presentation at 12 years ago, which is not a notability boost. This also contained an extremely large linkfarm of external links, which I've stripped, but nearly all of the ELNO violations were still primary sources with the exception of just two articles in his own hometown local newspaper, which is not enough media coverage all by itself to make an artist notable to the rest of the world.

There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA who never edited Wikipedia on any topic but Brueckner between 2007 and 2014, and then disappeared until making a very small cluster of edits in 2017 to our article about Winnipeg (Brueckner's hometown) itself — and even those edits have since also since been scrubbed from that article as advertorialism, because they focused primarily on promoting the same local galleries that Brueckner has been directly associated with.

As always, the notability test for artists is not simply the ability to use directly affiliated primary sources as metaverification that their work exists — it is the ability to show distinctions, such as notable art awards and/or critical attention from a variety of real media above and beyond just a couple of pieces in the artist's own hometown newspaper. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any independent in-depth coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW speedy delete. BD2412 T 22:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient and bible[edit]

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

Prod deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to paraphrase or summarize religious texts. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Wikipedia is not a pulpit to giver sermons or a place to give religious education. No proselytizing. There is a difference between explaining the basics of a religion and giving what amounts to a lecture in Sunday school. This is the latter and doesn’t belong here. This is not the first article the original editor has tried to write on this and related topics. If they keep writing articles that are not appropriate, I would like an administrator to discuss this with the editor. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an essay, not an article. It is not clear what article it might even be meant to be. Goes without saying that it fails on notability grounds. Suggest this one could be a snow close as delete. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. This seems to be some alternative version of the Bible, in which "Abele and Kaine birthed a son called Noah". The cited sources don't support most of the content here; for example, Kim Ryholt's The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period is about ancient Egyptian kings, not the alternative Bible stories stated here, and the cited page of Timothy H. Lim's The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction doesn't support anything in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. As already requested on the article talk page, could the deleting admin please consider clearing Draft:Ancient bible and the mysteries, User:Sethabi ba sethabi/sandbox and any other copies, as every time this "article" is deleted, or moved to draft space, it is recreated as a "new" article, under a different title, without any significant improvements. - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Close to patent nonsense. Already covered, in a much more understandable way, in our many articles related to the Bible. I favor a snow close. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a snow close? Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion which "doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell" can be WP:SNOW closed early if the outcome is overwhelming and obvious. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90. The name spellings (e.g., "Kaine") appear to be taken from a particular Sotho translation of the Bible[10]; it is possible that these are the teachings of an African folk religion rather than the invention of the page author, but I could not find evidence of this. Cheers, gnu 57 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
question Can an administrator block this editor from disruptive edits to this article? Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever this is trying to be, it clearly isn't an encyclopedic article. I suggest deleting Draft:Ancient bible and the mysteries which is going nowhere fast. Pichpich (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- nominated it for deletion Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is an essay seeking to retell the story of Genesis, using non-English spellings of some names. The author cites Genesis as his source, so that this is independent folklore. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, but this is a content forum, and this is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus here is that the sourcing provided does not establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Little (politician)[edit]

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

mayor of a mslla region in a city, does not meet NPOLITICIAN, and not otherwise notable DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mayor at this level is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with coverage such as [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Probably more too - these all took me two minutes to find total, undoubtedly someone with more time could find more. Smartyllama (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors, and neither are unsuccessful MP candidates in federal elections — but the article features neither the depth and range of reliable sourcing nor the depth of substantive content about his mayoralty that would be needed to get him over WP:NPOL #2. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two", so mayors are not automatically kept just because they can show a small handful of coverage in their local media — every mayor of everywhere can always show a small handful of coverage in their local media, so if that were how it worked then we would always have to keep an article about every single mayor who ever mayored. The key to making a mayor notable enough is to show that he's more notable than the norm for mayors, because he has more, wider and/or deeper coverage than just what all mayors routinely always get: nationalizing coverage, actual published books, and on and so forth. Just showing four or five articles from the community hyperlocals is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. We can find multiple sources on virtually every mayor, they are not all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable Mayor. Perhaps if he had some regional controversy that garnered coverage. As it is he is just one mayor out of many. Wm335td (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable mayor. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the best positions of Albania in the Olympic Summer events[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN without any sources concluding these results - full of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the best positions of Albania in the Olympic Winter events. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albania at the Olympics. This is perfectly valid, citable and useful information, but info that doesn't necessarily require its own article. SFB 02:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the best positions of Spain in the Olympic Summer events[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN without any sources concluding these results - full of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the best positions of Albania in the Olympic Winter events. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN.KartikeyaS (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the best positions of Spain in the Olympic Winter events[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN without any sources concluding these results - full of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the best positions of Albania in the Olympic Winter events. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN.KartikeyaS (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the best positions of Great Britain in Winter Olympic events[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN without any sources concluding these results - full of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the best positions of Albania in the Olympic Winter events. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN.KartikeyaS (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Ronak[edit]

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

He's been in some films, but the career section even says they weren't successful except for one. He's directed a film which just came out; that's where his GNews hits come from. TheHindu has a nice writeup about him, but I don't see anything else. I don't think he meets WP:DIRECTOR, not with his current body of work; same for WP:NACTOR, nor WP:GNG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person easliy passes WP:NACTOR as he appeared in multiple films in important roles. And he did not direct Lanka, his charecter's name was director.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actor has starred in several films (including the critically acclaimed Pathasala) and his acting has been praised by The Times of India in several of his films.^[1]^[2] -- DragoMynaa

Saying Sai put up a "sterling performance" (literally, all it says in the Kaadhali article about him) doesn't even qualify for WP:GNG. That's not significant coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think every single article should pass WP:GNG. There are WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR and so on.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per WP:HEY—the article now contains four reliable sources, the contents of which, in my opinion, provide significant coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG. I think WP:NACTOR is also established, and, as pointed out above, WP:DIRECTOR isn't relevant to the discussion. The subject seems to be a rising actor who has already got lead roles under his belt. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Horsethief Basin Lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Thief Basin, Arizona[edit]

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

Marked as a geographic feature, not a populated place, on topo maps. No sign that this is notable either way. –dlthewave ☎ 03:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Horsethief Basin Lake. Here's an article about the development of the area, but as a recreation site, not a community. The 2-acre lake itself's not notable, but with sources like [18] it seems there could be enough to support it as a former campsite already mentioned there. Reywas92^Talk 06:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Horsethief Basin Lake. The genesis of the "populated place" designation is a set of "forest camp" labels which eventually get replaced by a guard house—and then, it seems, GNIS gets into the act. With lake having an article, the redirect makes sense. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Horsethief Basin Lake per Reywas92. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KaisaL (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Boswell[edit]

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

No evidence this biography passes GNG/WP:NBIO. Regular career, no awards mentioned. No sv intervwiki for expansion. BEFORE does not show any in-depth coverage outside blurb bio at his workplaces. There are some mentions in passing in few sources but nothing about him, through maybe something in Swedish I missed? Merge target has been proposed but I don't think it is appropriate, as we don't generally merge bios of employees to their companies, plus the article is unreferenced so there is nothing to merge at present (WP:V). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nominator's analysis of the sources seems to be accurate, and I agree that unsourced content shouldn't be merged. If something substantial turns up in Swedish, which I don't speak, I would revise my !vote. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with SR Sverige, his former employer. It would be rather strange when a program from him on this radio station is redirected but that the presenter is shot down. Article was earlier PRODded by the same nominator. The Banner talk 11:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't generally discuss employees in a company bio outside simple mentions of who is a CEO or such. Also, in this case there is no referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I barely found anything about him. _SUPER ^ASTIG 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not base articles sourly on informational webpages created by an individual's employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Spot, Arizona[edit]

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

I have no idea what the deprod claim "doesn't have to be per geographic guidelines" is supposed to mean.... My prod said "No evidence found this is a notable populated place Not a community" and yeah, there actually does have to be evidence this is or was an actual recognized community to be notable! 1968 topo shows a well and a corral so this was a random ranch as the GMap suggests; the only newspapers.com results are for Green Spot brand Orange-Ade and a tree nursery. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's carefully researched rationale. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete I've been fairly sloppy in taking buildings as evidence of a settlement, but what I see here is mostly consistent with this being no more than a ranch. Mangoe (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every two buildings built close are notable. By that definition I should be able to create an article on Eastlawn village north of Kercheval, Detroit, that distinct place, seperated by significant open land from elsewhere, has actual people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters, Arizona[edit]

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

This one is an impressive display of cluelessness on the part of the GNIS compilers. Once I fixed the coordinates in the article, GMaps took me directly to the main building on the south end of the Petrified Forest. And if you go to older topo maps, they all say "Headquarters" next to that building. Obviously not a populated place, much less a town named "Headquarters". Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yep, it's just the Petrified Forest park headquarters, right between Sewage Disposal Ponds, AZ and Picnic Area, AZ. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:GNG and the SNG WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ----Pontificalibus 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larneds Landing, Arizona[edit]

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

This appears to be another GNIS-induced mistake, though the details are a bit murky. What I do see is that the name appears to have been copied onto the topo maps from GNIS; the latter cites a book on Grand Canyon placenames, but I have searched through it using GBooks and cannot find any of the possible spelling variations. Also the page number given is only five pages from the end of the book, whereas the entries (which are little stories about each name) are provided alphabetically. I have looked at the L entries and found nothing that way either. The text of the article claims that GNIS says the name comes from a Learned family, which GNIS does not in fact say. The spot in question is a rock outcropping in the middle of a dry streambed; there's a dirt road which comes down to the stream at that point but no sign of any place that could have held a building, much less any trace of one. Older topos from before the 1990s (the book was published in 1997) show nothing but the streambed; googling produces nothing but geoclickbait. Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero results for either spelling on newspapers.com, certainly doesn't look like somewhere there was ever a community. Reywas92^Talk 02:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find it on any topos earlier than 2011, and Grand Canyon Place Names specifically covers Grand Canyon National Park which is over 100 miles away. If this is some sort of mislabeled place, it certainly hasn't received notable levels of coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:GNG and the SNG WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this refers to Larned Landing on the shore of the Colorado River where there was a ferry crossing to California - here - per (this 1972 source with map). In current times it is a campsite, mentioned here. The earliest post-dam and lake formation reference I found was this 1967 source mentioning the power line construction spanning the water there. I haven't found any evidence this was a settlement (or a crossing point) prior to the flooding. ----Pontificalibus 11:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsar Hotel[edit]

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

Unremarkable hotel. It's not as old as you might think from the lede - that date is using the Solar Hijri calendar, which puts the date for the old hotel firmly in the 20th century. Google turns up mainly travel sites and a news article about a recent fire. Fails WP:GNG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think passes WP:NBUILDING (national heritage): "The Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization Iran registered Ramsar Hotel on the National Heritage List for historical reasons."[19] فرهنگ2016 (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" though. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is any reliable source to support that it is an Unremarkable hotel.Hispring (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NBUILDING per above. The hotel was a featured topic in the documentary film Iran Is My Home which was reviewed in Variety magazine. See Koehler, Robert (June 30, 2003). Iran Is My Home.(Movie Review). Vol. 391(7). p. 27(1). {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fox[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources. I'm something of an organ buff and I can't find anything other than namechecks. Guy (help!) 07:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF. My understanding of organists is that they need to be lead/head organist at a major church, cathedral, or university chapel to be notable. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet academic notability. Assistant organists are normally not notable, with a few rare exceptions when they still get huge coverage (The assistant organists of the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square are probably notable, but that is a widely broadcast position).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notable secondary coverage or independent sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anveshana (2002 film)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. I wasn't able to find any reviews online other than the already-cited review of dubious reliability. Interestingly, Times of India appears to still host a "song promo" for the film [20], but I wasn't able to find an actual review. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a review from The Hindu of this film, which is notable. Anveshana Review - The Hindu --DragoMynaa (talk)
Comment The notability guidelines say that there has to be two full length reviews of a movie for it to be notable. Which the Idle Brain review isn't. So is there another full length review somewhere besides the one in The Hindu? (is it even a full length review?) --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Hindu review is a full review of the film. --DragoMynaa (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant merge - It technically fails GNG as it stands, and is one of the last two films of a writer/director whose career seems to have gone off the rails [21], suggesting the poorly regarded film is unlikely to generate interest in the future. I note, however, the lead actor, Ravi Teja, does have a lively ongoing career [22], so perhaps the article could be mined for content and merged into Ravi Teja filmography?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D.A.V. College Managing Committee. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanand Anglo-Vedic Badri Narayan Saha Public School[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources online. I could only find one citation that shows this school exists, and it's not reliable as an isolated source because it's the school's own website: http://bnsdavgrd.org/. Other than that, I haven't found anything that shows that the school is notable in any way. The article seems to have had issues since its inception, since it was originally made with no citations at all and has been without citations for years. Whisperjanes (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with D.A.V. College Managing Committee. While the D.A.V "brand" is notable, this particular school fails WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paraná Banco[edit]

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

This was recently nominated for deletion because it didn't have any sources and because of another problem that was easily fixed. The first nomination got little interest and was closed as no consensus, so I thought I'd open it again, purely on the notability side of things. I am neutral. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:N due to the lack of third-party sources. I'm a Portuguese speaker, and it seems very obscure, with most articles relating to a recent attempt at getting listed on B3_(stock_exchange), which is almost the exact definition of WP:ORG#Examples_of_trivial_coverage. I think a dedicated editor could make a well-founded article on the subject, but as it is, my opinion is delete Richevans69 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NCORP due to lack of reliable in-depth sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated. Dorama285 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movie-reviews/pressure-cooker/movie-review/74240061.cms

[2] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movie-reviews/kaadhali/movie-review/59179268.cms

[1]

[2]