Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 02 May 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suhaib Saqib[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON. Störm (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One trivial mention, a radio interview, and 3 references which don't work. It fails to demonstrate WP:GNG. Nexus000 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 03:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimsen (1950 film)[edit]

Bhimsen (1950 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a Bollywood film, created in April 2016. There are two citations. #1 is about a different film altogether (Zimbo Comes To Town). #2 is a listings site. The EL is non-WP:RS IMDb. A WP:BEFORE search in both English and Hindi (भीमसेन) failed even to disclose the plot. The actual title seems to be Veer Bhimsen, not that that affects matters. References #1 and #2 were added by the article creator later in April 2016; who also took that opportunity to delete a WP:PROD tag.

For only the second time (perhaps showing my naiveté), I found parallel articles in a couple of dozen languages at vvikipedla.com (check the spelling). I venture to suggest that that site is not RS.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Supply chain management#Organizations. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute for Procurement and Market Research[edit]

International Institute for Procurement and Market Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find multiple secondary sources that would warrant a pass of WP:ORG or WP:GNG for said company. nearlyevil665 20:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 20:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article written per this table. I do not see the issue here. --Hodxa (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hi, thanks for the comment. I'm not sure if I understand but are you implying the company is notable because it is mentioned in that particular chart? nearlyevil665 20:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Exactly. As far as I could see, mentioned are the top certification providers in the branch. I was just filling up the missing articles and wiki links. Also, lack of secondary sources does not mean the topic is not notable, right? Similar article here. Those are my thoughts and standpoints, though. --Hodxa (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Unfortunately that's not how it works. Subjects should pass WP:GNG or the relevant specific guidelines - in this case WP:ORG - to qualify for an article. Being mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, which mind you is not a reliable secondary source, is not sufficient for establishing notability. Also please see WP:OTHER. nearlyevil665 20:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 22:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unit run[edit]

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

I do not see this term actually used in any sources. Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Some official military website (.mil domain name instead of random sites) refers to the term [1][2]. FM-722 also refers to unit run as one of the scheduled exercises [3], also used in Citadel Military School. It is also briefly mentioned on this book. Some media (which I admit not fully reliable) also mentioned it in here and here. A Twitter from official military account also have used the term. I think it may weakly pass WP:GNG, but it is far from not used in any sources. SunDawn (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One has also to look to see whether there is anything about morning runs taken by entire units. It's more than simple phrase matching. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 04:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Military units usually engage in morale-building exercise of this sort. The doctrine of the US Marines may be found in manuals such as this. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used exactly one time in that source, we're nowhere near passing WP:GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, per WP:NAD, fails further WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Military units engage in all sorts of exercises and group activities, and I fail to see why something as mundane as running together, as many people trying to stay fit do regularly, is notable. We need an encyclopedia article to tell us "Distance and pace of the run depend on the terrain, weather, and overall fitness level of the unit." and you run for "Physical conditioning"?? Reywas92Talk 17:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2021 (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/2021 May 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Reywas92. Yes, military units sometimes run together, and yes, if you google the two words you can find some things stating this. There is not, however, sufficient coverage to indicate why this is notable. The sources from the two "keep" arguments above are simply times the two words were used together, not actual coverage on the concept or indication of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 02:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Suprun[edit]

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

"Faithless elector" and two-time failed congressional candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm pretty sure we have a number of articles for other two-tie failed congressional candidates as well, Jana Sanchez being one. I'll reconsider my vote if more evidence is given to Suprun's particular lack of notability. Love of Corey (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ WP:OTHERSTUFF. If Jana Sanchez is being used to support another page's notability, you know you're in trouble. KidAd • SPEAK 21:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's supposed to be the difference between Suprun and Sanchez, then? If there's none, I'll nominate Sanchez's article for deletion, then. Love of Corey (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Both articles should be deleted. KidAd • SPEAK 22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you didn't answer my question. Love of Corey (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OSE. Articles should be evaluated on their own merits. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither "faithless elector" nor "unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election" are grounds for Wikipedia articles per se — but the article makes no strong claim that he has notability for other reasons independently of that. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable failed candidate, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firefighter eh? Oh let's keep him. Delete, non-notable candidate. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barbie. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willows (Barbie)[edit]

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

This fictional town has been a stub for 18 years, and everything worth saying about it is already said in the Barbie article. BD2412 T 21:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: I found some evidence of notability in this Milwaukee Record article and this Milwaukee Magazine article. The second one, in particular, has a quote from a book that explains that Willows was made up to make Barbie more appealing to women who might not want to buy their daughters a busty doll. Still, I think that anything relevant could be easily slotted into the main Barbie article, and that this isn't a likely search term. Kncny11 (shoot) 22:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even with the information from the sources that Kncny11 mentioned, there just is not enough content to warrant this being WP:SPLIT from the main Barbie article, where her fictional background in the town is already discussed. It could be used as a redirect to Barbie#Fictional biography, where it is covered, but as stated, it doesn't seem like a very plausible search term. But, redirects are cheap, so if someone thinks it should become one, I won't object. Rorshacma (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to list of fictional cities (in which it is currently not mentioned at all) unless better sources are found (then ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barbie: Plausible search term, might be worthwhile to preserve the editing history. Could have been boldly speedy redirected using this rationale without an AfD but since we are here, I think it is best to let the AfD go ahead. JavaHurricane 07:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barbie per JavaHurricane. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barbie per JavaHurricane-the Wisconsin Historical Society has an article about Barbie and the fictional place of Willows was mentioned. I also concern that editors will confused the fictional place of Willows with the town of Willow, Wisconsin in Richland County, Wisconsin. There were edits done to the Willow, Wisconsin article about the town by people who thought the town of Willow, Wisconsin]] was the fictional place of Willows where Barbie had lived. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Please see my comments at the Willow, Wisconsin, Richland County page considering my comments about redirecting the fictional place of Willowa-Thank You-RFD (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Barbie article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles James Fox (doctor)[edit]

Charles James Fox (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a 19th century physician, but the text consists primarily of (a) obituaries quoted in full with no attribution other than a citation to "Family archive of the writer of this article", and (b) genealogical information about the subject's descendants. The article culminates with the text in Latin of a benediction (not translated into English). I don't see any indication that the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia. I am only placing Oikonyms in Western and South Asia in the result because you're required when closing. However, please discuss the proper place on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-patnam[edit]

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

Dictionary definition about a place name suffix, unencyclopedic.

I found this article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-wal (2nd nomination), and believe it has the same deletion rationale. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the below articles to this nomination:

Pur (placename element) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
-abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe the deletion of -wal was particularly well-informed, so I'd be weary of using it as a standard of comparison. The articles -abad, -pur and -patnam are not about place names, but about placename suffixes, and extremely common ones too. Content about broad patterns of toponymy is certainly encyclopedic, and the only meaningful question that I see here is about the best way to present that content: as separate articles, or merged into a smaller number of pages covering the broader topics. – Uanfala (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, I will correct my nomination rationale (missed the word suffix), but I still am unsure if placename suffixes as a whole are encyclopedic. After doing more research, it appears that there is an entire category of these suffixes, so these other ones may have to be evaluated individually. Natg 19 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I'm of the same opinion then as now. We've merged this stuff regularly over the years, from E (prefix) to xe (pronoun). It is just a question of where, and we should be working that out rather than nominating these things for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the only deletion rationale is WP:DICDEF? I'm not sure if this is really a reverse disambiguation article, a definition per WP:DICDEF, or a page that requires WP:GNG to be met, but I'm hesitant to vote !delete on a page, even a poorly formatted one, where I learned something interesting, used the page as a launching point, and kept exploring (same with -abad) and while I'm not sure how to assess its notability, I'm not sure deleting this makes the encyclopaedia any better. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -patnam per WP:NOTDIC. It is a definition and a list of examples. On the other hand, Pur (placename element) might possibly satisfy WP:WORDISSUBJECT, though I am not yet sufficiently convinced one way or the other. Cnilep (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oikonyms in Western and South Asia solves all three of these and they can all be redirected there, as (when the lists and the ridiculous flags are subtracted) there's actually much there as in these, except that I found sources for all of it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • -patnam will need to be added to that list, but I don't mind a redirect. I just don't think this information should be lost. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are lots of sources for -patnam. I've been trying to find the good ones. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind a merge/redirect to somewhere, but I don't believe these articles should be standalone articles. Natg 19 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heeser Addition, California[edit]

Heeser Addition, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a very early (pre-1950) suburb of Fort Bragg, about which I can find nothing of note, other than the common mention in the description of some soil series. Gudde doesn't mention it, and given the lack of a reference in the article, it's likely Durham doesn't either, which means we are unlikely to find out why it has this name. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - newspapers.com brings up two instances of an 1877 statement that construction was ongoing in the Heeser Addition, and two instances of a 1911 statement that someone was trying to buy part of the Heeser addition. Doesn't seem to be mentioned in an Arcadia Press book about Fort Bragg, nor in another Arcadia book about the Mendocino coast. 1914 Mendocino and Lake County history mentions a Mr. Heeser who owned land in Fort Bragg, but not the Heeser Addition. There's an uncited mention at the William Heeser article, so it may be worthwhile to redirect, although I'm not convinced that the redirect would have that much value as only a vague connection is made between the man and this site there. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, the state park road is named after his son, August Heeser, not after William. August is the one who donated the land, in 1957. Uncle G (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chitwood, Missouri[edit]

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

This one is a weird case. The Chitwood in Reynolds County was A railroad stop on the Missouri Southern in the southwestern part of Logan Township, named for Uncle Baty Chitwood, a prominent man in the county, according to the non-GNIS source. I can find nothing significant about the Reynolds County Chitwood.

However, there is also a Chitwood in Jasper County on the other side of the state, for which I can find some mining references and a description of Chitwood, a little business center in the mines lately added to Joplin, was named for the family who owned the store..

So our current article is presenting a non-notable railroad site as an unincorporated community. My inclination is to WP:TNT this, and if someone wants to write about the Jasper County Chitwood later, that may be an option, although it doesn't seem to be particularly notable, either. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not the article that's a "weird case", rather what's weird is why the mass-creation king who made this decided to write content that is inconsistent with its source. The GNIS cites the same Ramsay list of source 2 (so we've got a case of circular referencing), not USGS topo maps, which don't indicate a community. Reywas92Talk 21:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really circular, as there isn't a loop. But it is duplication. I suspect that there are a lot of Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection entries yet to come. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad instead, but otherwise much as Hog Farm. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Keely[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hasn't played in Ireland's premier division and is thus not a pass of WP:NFOOTY. nearlyevil665 20:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't extensive coverage on a subject's death be considered non-trivial? Nehme1499 20:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fails NFOOTY, but passes GNG, lots of significant and reliable coverage such as this, this, this, and this.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BASIC is largely met. While it's not cut-and-dried and though much of the (more recent) coverage of the subject relates to his death, there does appear to be coverage in enough multiple independent sources to demonstrate some notability. It's not black and white, but (in a grey-ish case like this) I would lean more towards a "keep". Guliolopez (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article fails NFooty, however I also feel it does qualify under GNG, I agree with Guliolopez comments above. Govvy (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Keely before his death so he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage was a bit borderline until his death, but the extensive coverage of his death puts it over the top for GNG. Seems a bit odd to me that this article has been here harmlessly for a decade, but then gets nominated for deletion on the very day he dies. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People have extensive coverage of their deaths but they still aren't notable for a Wikipedia article. It's why there are "Death of X" articles rather than articles called X. AfD's shouldn't be decided on whether someone's death receives coverage or not. Dougal18 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to redirect or discuss that on the appropriate page. If you need to see the article to merge, just ask. Missvain (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Masonic[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pearson PLC. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson VUE[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is an independent guides published to pass their test: [3]. Lots of others sources are available: [4],[5], [6], [7], [8]. These can count along with an APN News Channel source [9] to satisfy WP:AUD. Mottezen (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "www.pcquest.com" source might not be considered reliable and it also included info rom the subject for it would considred not independent. "accountancyage.com/" look like a promo and might considered not a reliable source. :Indiaeducationdiary" is considered not reliable and not independent sources as the subject make up part of the content. "apnnews.com" is reliable but might not be independent as the subject makes up some of the content. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a lazy source assessment. Why do you say "might" and "looks like"? Is it independent, yes or no? If no, why? Does it say "sponsored post"? Is the author an advertiser? If there is no connection with the subject, then it is independent! As for your claims that the subject makes up "some of the content" of an article. What do you mean? All these articles primarily talk about this topic. They count towards GNG and NCORP. Mottezen (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject passes WP:NCORP and GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pearson PLC: While I have nothing against very brief articles this is briefer than one might wish. The sole claim to notability that I can see is 165 countries with >5000 test centres. So it has notability from size. But more is required. Big corporations are not notable from being big, they have notability from the thing that allowed them to become big. Pure bigness is not genuine notability.
The references are interesting. I am discounting the org's own site because it can only verify simple facts, not notability. It also misses its target since the web site has been redesigned. I can't comment m the Tullahoma News because "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons" the GDPR renders it unavailable. The third reference does show notability, but the is not enough. WP:THREE is an essay, but makes substantial points. I see one, potentially two useful references depending in what is in the Tullahoma news.
What I cannot see is that this article has sufficient about it to stand alone. I only see sufficient at present to suggest it be redirected to and merged into the main Person article FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirect, merge, or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge+redirect into Pearson PLC, perhaps creating a new section "products" in order to group broader Pearson products if required. If such a section wouldn't fit in, redirect w/o merge. Casspedia (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent article, since sourcing aside this doesn't seem to be independently notable in any way (three refs, one is to the company's own site and one is a very passing mention). jp×g 04:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 22:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi[edit]

Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently only a single primary source. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jamiatur Rasheed is among the major Deobandi "higher religious education" seminaries in Pakistan. There is plethora of coverage offline (in Urdu) about it. This is my major field of work, and I admit this seminary is a notable one. I'd be working on updating the article soon. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi is a major university established in 1977 for higher religious education. Added 2 new references to the article including a newspaper and a Government of Sindh website. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aafi & Ngrewal1. - Owais Talk 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the additional sources are in-depth. The government source is a simple mention, the news article is not about the institute, but about a meeting which occurred there, and the third source is primary. Onel5969 TT me 12:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This above article right now is barely a total of line and a half. Thousands and thousands of Wikipedia articles are accepted and exist in that condition, where the editors are given opportunities to expand and improve them. That's no basis for asking for outright AfD deletion? Give people a chance to improve it since it's a major university in Karachi. I am sure the expanded article can look a lot better with more in-depth content and references. Added the category 'Pakistan-university-stub' today.Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No indication whether any searching in Urdu was undertaken as part of a BEFORE process. Notable university/madrassa, frequent mentions in English language press, in-depth discussion in Urdu. "Some notable madrasas, including Jamia Tur Rasheed Karachi"[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

References

  1. ^ "Despite constraints, madrasas encouraging their students to receive modern education". www.thenews.com.pk. 8 February 2021.
  2. ^ "Deobandi clerics meet to avoid Tablighi Jamaat's crisis". www.thenews.com.pk. 18 January 2019.
  3. ^ "Karachi madrassa found to have 50% students with depression: study | SAMAA". Samaa TV. 25 January 2019.
  4. ^ "Food industry: Legislation on halal products' certification, standardisation stressed". The Express Tribune. 26 October 2013.
  5. ^ "Jamia tur Rasheed students visit to Pakistan Mercantile Exchange - PMEX Karachi. | JamaPunji". jamapunji.pk. 19 December 2018.
  6. ^ "ممتاز عالم دین اور جامعۃ الرشید کے مہتمم مفتی عبدالرحیم کا دورہ جامعہ اشرفیہ". Daily Pakistan. 9 July 2018.
  7. ^ "فوجی ترجمان نے مدرسے کا دورہ کیوں کیا؟". Pakistan24 (in Urdu). 28 December 2019.
  8. ^ "جامعتہ الرشید کے طلباء کا پاکستان رینجرز ہیڈکوارٹرز کا دورہ". MM NEWS URDU. 27 March 2021.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and not a single one of the above refs goes in-depth about the institute, just simple mentions. Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As my !vote indicated: frequent *mentions* in English language press, in depth discussion in Urdu. I'm not sure how the articles discussing the visit of Pakistan Army Major General Asif Ghafoor to the university or the visit of 100 students to the Sindh Rangers can be characterised as "simple mentions", there's in depth discussion of the madrassa as one of the important locations of early support for the Taliban and the university leadership's more recent attempts to moderate its image via invitations of prominent Pakistani liberals, such as Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, or visible interactions with the military. An Urdu-language BEFORE would have avoided this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Army Generals and Chief Justices are not speaking at every madrassa in Pakistan. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jamia Tur Rasheed is one of the Illustrious seminary in Pakistan. 02:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Ainty Painty (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment delete comments here seem to not understand the nature of this institution, this is a madrassa for university graduates, NB WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2 ... it is not a "school" (in the the British English sense). Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldsztajn, True. As I've stated in a number of AfDs including this concerning madrasas that we must not confuse between the two. Madrasas have a different system but sadly we don't have any guideline for them like we have for schools. Jamiatur Rasheed Karachi is a degree awarding religious institute and its degree is equivalent to a double MA. (see this). Random madrasas aren't even equivalent to matriculation. Despite this, JTR has made a good news.─ The Aafī (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources all seem to trivial and otherwise extremely run of the mill. They have to address the subject of the article directly and in-depth. Things like research papers on rates of depression in people who attend the place just don't satisfy that standard and I'm not seeing anything else that does. If someone can provide three independent in-depth sources that address the place directly I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This repeats the claims made above, without addressing the *Urdu* language sources already discussed and continues to misconstrue the nature of this institution, ie it is a degree awarding higher education body.[1] Again, I reiterate, run of the mill "schools" are not visited by Army Generals, Chief Justices or have delegations received by the Governor of Sindh.[2] Seems necessary to spell this out... WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES c2: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online..

References

  1. ^ "Islamic Finance Education and the Curriculum of Deeni Madaris (Religious Seminaries)". Islamic Banking and Finance Review. 6: 59–79. 31 December 2019. doi:10.32350/ibfr.2019.06.04. some institutions like Jamia tur Rasheed, Karachi and International Islamic University, Islamabad are offering specialized degrees in Islamic commercial law
  2. ^ "DELEGATION OF JAMIA TUR RASHEED LED BY MUFTI ABDUL RAHEEM CALLED ON GOVERNOR SINDH IMRAN ISMAIL". 14 November 2020.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be used in AfD discussions as per a February 2017 RfC. Onel5969 TT me 02:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTCOMESBASED: Participants can refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but are expected to further explain their reasoning in discussions. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTCOMESBASED is an essay. Not a policy. Whereas, the conclusion of the RFC (which revolved around changing the wording in an actual policy) was clear that "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is ... an ... um .. essay. There is no policy which indicates reference to SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot form *part of* discussions at AfD... the point is that it should not be used *solely* as justification, which nowhere in this AfD has that been the case. Having already provided RSs on this madrassa and elaborated on the contents of those sources, I've simply highlighted point 2 of the conclusions that notes that tertiary institutions can generally be assumed to be notable even where online sourcing is nto readily available. If no one had presented any sourcing here, I could understand an editor asserting that point, but that is not the case here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is not consensus, it is simply a *process* that may or (more generally) may not produce a consensus on a particular issue. The RfC that produced SCHOOLCOMES was about *secondary* education, it produced conclusions that included commentary on post-secondary institutions in order to differentiate the discussion around presumed notability for secondary from tertiary institutions ... and since the discussion now turns to consensus, consensus at AfD is that tertiary educational institutions are generally considered to be notable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the consesus at AfD. Articles about tertiary eductional institions get deleted all the time. Also, What makes the RfC that resulted in SCHOOLOUTCOMES more of a consesus that should be listened to then the one later that decided it should not be used in AfD discussions anymore? Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consensus that degree-awarding, independent not-for-profit (private and public) tertiary educational institutions are presumed notable. What gets deleted "all the time" are for-profit, commercial businesses providing post-secondary educational services. There's a substantial difference. The full text of WP:UNIN is worth (re)reading (yes, well aware it is part of an essay). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acredited or not, its an Islamic seminary/madrasas. In no way they the same as a university. Which is what the guideline is talking about. Also, if its public or private makes a huge difference to notability. Private univerities (which this isn't anyway) are not treated the same at AfD or anywhere else as public ones. Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today, there's nothing absolutely mutually exclusive between a seminary and a university (eg universities containing schools of religious ordination or schools of religious ordination having evolved into degree awarding institutions, ie universities). There's no reason a seminary cannot be a university, let alone considering the exact historic origins of universities. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's not what I said. Also, it would be ridiculous to treat some random private Cathlic seminary the exact same as the Stanford's or Harvard's of the world. No one here does. Let alone do the guidelines. You should read up on what a Madrasa is to, because they can be "any type of educational institution." Which is what my point was. Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the notability of a specific religious degree-awarding tertiary educational institution, not madrassas in general. Despite repeated assertions of run-of-the-mill, not a single editor supporting delete has addressed the evidence provided that this institution holds a status that is not akin to "some random private Cath[o]lic seminary". Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a madrassa. So we can't talk about the notability of madrassas in an AfD about a madrassa? Right....It seems like your really picking and choosing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not a madrasa that teaches upto Class 8 or 10? It is equal to that of a university in our Western Educational system, i.e. degree awarding institute as the sources say, not definitely "run-of-the-mill". We've a local Madrasa here that teaches upto Persian class. That's definitely run-of-the-mill but a degree awarding madrasa isn't less than in equivalence to Darul Uloom Deoband or any other such institution. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Run off the mill is in relation to the state of the sourcing. Which is the only that matters in AfDs. Not what the place is. Not that "other stuff exists" is ever a valid AfD arguement, but how many in-depth, non-trivial (or non-run of the mill) references are in the article for Darul Uloom Deoband compared to what is avalible for this one? Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to DUD, the institution "is not where the Deobandi movement began or which produced numerous Indian freedom struggle activists, or the founders of Jamia Millia Islamia and Pakistan, and it definitely isn't "155 years old", but established some 44 years ago. That said, the coverage that these type of seminaries usually get, is already what Goldsztajn has pointed out above, and majorly in Urdu language. I must bring the fact that the major hub of Deobandis in Pakistan, the Darul Uloom Karachi, where Muhammad Taqi Usmani (internationally considered an authority in Islamic finance) teaches, and Muhammad Rafi Usmani is the president "fails in what you call significant coverage" ; and that type of coverage doesn't really matter everywhere and this is why there exist subjective guidelines. Nonetheless, I was able to locate this book, The services of Islamic seminaries, by Muḥammad Anvar bin Ak̲h̲tar, where they discuss Jamiatur Rasheed as a major Deobandi institution, and also discuss their program of "Kulyatush-Sharia". I've expanded the article from a reliable journal published by the University of Karachi that discusses the seminary alone in 5 pages. And honestly, more such sources exist offline. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not really concerned with what type of coverage these usually get, I'm concerned with what type of coverage this particular one does or doesn't have. Otherwise, there would be zero point in doing AfDs on any subject out there, because most subjects in general have "coverage." This isn't and AfD about the notability of seminaries (or whatever) in general though. Also, if most of the resources are majorly in the Urdu language, cool. That doesn't stop anyone from finding or providing them though, and that's all I'm asking for. Is for people who say sources exist to provide them. It could even be names of the articles, I don't really care, but it has to be more then handwaving about how "seminaries are notable in general. So whatever." Finally, it doesn't matter if notable people work there. Notability isn't inherited. Nor is it based on who works for a place. Feel free to create an article about any of those people if you think they are notable enough to warrant one though. Again, I don't really care. Which subjective guidelines cover the notability of seminaries, madrassa, or says there doesn't need to be sources for them to be notable? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least five Urdu sources that have been cited and linked here (or added to the article) since this AfD began; not one editor has claimed that "sources must be out there", we've added them. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, I find it rather uncouth that TheAafi edited the term madrassa out of the article. It seems a lot like whitewashing in order to side step the discussion about if they are inherently notable or not. I doubt they would be resorting to such tactics if this was an inherently notable topic like they say it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly encourage you to assume good faith (as has everyone else with your contributions); per WP:HEY, there's no reason discussion at AfD cannot inform changes to an article. If you have an issue with changes to the content, the article's talk page is a far more appropriate place to take it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What edits to the article have I made during this AfD that people are assuming good faith about? Because last I checked I haven't made any. The existence of WP:HEY doesn't mean it is OK to selectively edit words out of articles that don't help your AfD arguments. Which is what TheAafi did. Not make edits that simply "changed content" in the article. More so because there was no discussion on the talk page or here about it and the word that was deleted fundamentally changes what the article is about. Also, it was removed during an active AfD discussion about the word. There's zero about that is good faithed, appropriate, or just making "changes to the content" of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out one place where I changed the word madrasa to seminary? The first sentence of the article ever since the article creation says "Islamic seminary" – now this doesn't help if I make changes to make the lede consistent with the article. FYI, the sentence was that Mufti Ludhynwi brought this madrasa to peak – and I really don't care about it because the introductory sentence says & said, it is a seminary. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, Madrasa is a Urdu heavily used in Urdu and we need to know where it means what. If some new editor mixes things like the article creator did – we shouldn't definitely bite those who improve such articles. That said, I added content below the lede, and updated the lede with consistency based on its introductory sentence and the rest of information. I didn't changed madrasa to seminary. Thanks. I also fail to understand why are you accusing me, without providing any proofs.─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you changed the word madrasa to seminary. I said you deleted it, like six times. Goldsztajn was the one that said you were just "changing content." Nice straw man though. People can easily see the proof that you deleted the word by looking at yours edits to the article. I don't feel the need to link to them. Also, it doesn't matter if the person who created the article was a new editor at the time. That doesn't mean they didn't know the meaning of the word madrasa at the time or that you shouldn't have discussed removing it on the talk page before doing so.
Especially since it was being discussed here when you deleted it. I'm hard pressed to come up with a valid reason for you deleting the word considering the context that you deleted it under, and all you've done is strawman me and make excuses about it. So, I'm sticking by the fact that it was bad faithed on your part and completely inappropriate. Both of you seem to be deflecting a lot and making up a bunch of excuses for why the article should not be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also amazed to know that I've been seen, saying, seminaries are notable by default, woah, where did I say it. I've pointed out the "type of coverage that covers the seminary that Goldsztajn has already referred to above. Doesn't make sense to misinterpret my words. "Provided the type of coverage that Goldstajn refered above; and if notable people work there" is never equal to saying "inherently notable". Nonetheless, I was trying to explain what sort of coverage these seminaries usually get, provided that it should be clear that Jamia Tur Rasheed is pretty notable even if the article creator makes inconsistency in the article content saying seminary in introductory sentence & then saying Mufti Ludhyanwi brought the madrasa to peak – this sentence doesn't serve purpose to prove that this is a little madrasa or that it isn't notable. Please, AfD is not cleanup. The source I've added is significant (5 pages), another one is also significant. Few others pointed in the AfD. What else? Saying someone brought the madrasa to peak doesn't serve any purpose & AfD isn't cleanup. It doesn't really make sense. I know the article creator for his inconsistencies and have patrolled a number of their articles. Since AfD is not cleanup, I'm not bind to "ask at AfD should I change this or not, and since it is inconsistent with the sources/reality it doesn't require a discussion either, imo. We call such institutions as "madaaris" in Urdu, be those little ones or the higher ones. Darul Uloom Deoband is referred as the "Deoband madrasa" in numerous works, should we just delete the terms and call them with Urdu terms? It is a total mess when someone puts up his opinion on you. The cleanup wasn't affected by this AfD or towards saving the article. Assume good faith, my friend. If you find the cleanup as wrong, raise the issue on talk page – and if you aren't fine with the sources that I added, just say it. Why to cherry pick and accuse of being in bad faith? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore your whole thing about how I said you claimed seminaries are inherently notable it's not something I said. Except to say, that putting things in quotes that the person your talking to didn't say is an extremely mediocre way to have a discussion. Outside of that, the sentence your quoting wasn't the only time the word madrasa was mentioned in the article and you them removing because it was badly worded completely ignores the context of the AfD discussion that was going on when you removed it. Which is what matters here. I would care less about the edit if it was done randomly when there was no AfD discussion going on about the word.
There's zero reason you couldn't have just rephrased it to sound better or not touch it in the first place until me and Goldsztajn were done discussing it. Look at it this way, would it be cool if there was an AfD about an athlete or actor that had an active conversation about what notability guidelines were relevant to them and someone deleted all references to the words "athlete" or "actor" from the articles, because "hey man, AfDs aren't cleanup, I'm just changing things in the article..The sentences were phrased badly anyway.." or due to some similar reason? I wouldn't think so. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! Man. The two references exist there. I'm not able to access the government-website because I live in India, and the other source just says, "Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi’s Mufti Taqi Usmani, Darul Uloom Haqqani Nowshera’s Maulana Anwar ul Haq, Jamia tur Rasheed Karachi’s Mufti Abdul Rahim, Jamia Farooqi Karachi’s Maulana Dr Muhammad Adil, Jamai Binori Town’s Maulana Imadadullha, Jamia Binoria Karachi’s Maulana Noman Naeem and Darul Uloom Farooqia’s Maulana Qazi Abdul Rasheed were prominent among the clerics who attended the meeting." Updating the article to what the sources support shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't mention Mufti Rashid's role. FYI, the government source also titles, Delegation Of Jamia Tur Rasheed Led By Mufti Abdul Raheem Called On Governor Sindh Imran Ismail". ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and I did re-phrase it as, Mufti Abdul Rahim is the current head of the seminary. How do we rephrase something that sources don't support? like Mufti Rashid did so and so (imo, this belongs to his biographical article). I mean, how does it help the AfD. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool what does the person your talking about have to do with if the place is a Madrasa or if you removing the term from the article was OK or not? At this point your just talking in circles about nonsense to avoid the problem or answering my question. Adamant1 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any merit in your questioning. Mufti Rasheed Ahmad Ludhianvi brought this madrassa to its peak and at the time of his death made Mufti Abdul Rahim the superintendent of the madrassa. - the two cited sources don't help this, rather say, Mufti Abdur Rahim is current head of Jamia Tur Rasheed (and it exists there, though rephrased). The sources say "Jamia Tur Rasheed" and don't focus on "madrassa". Please reread my comments, sources, and earlier and new version of the lede. I'm done in updating the article as much as I could, and I leave it here. I have clarified each of your "curiosity" so far. Thanks.─ The Aafī (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you wouldn't. And no, you haven't clarified anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's a textbook 'passing mention' right there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a passing mention but "5-pages coverage" in a reliable journal Usooluddin published by University of Karachi is definitely not. Other sources have also been indicated above and in the article as well. Also, this book has discussed the Jamia Tur Rasheed as a major Deobandi seminary while discussing their "Kulyatush-Sharia" program. Enough coverage has already been demonstrated. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants in this discussion are reminded that brief, cogent arguments are more effective than large walls of text.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Lau[edit]

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

Political campaign manager does not meet WP:GNG. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to Democratic National Committee, where he is now serving as "Deputy Executive Director," or Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign, for which he was campaign manager. KidAd • SPEAK 02:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CNN called him historic. That’s more than enough of a notability threshhold for me. Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've also found this, this, this which can be considered somewhat significant and numerous mentions in all the major media but all as Warren's campaign manager. Less Unless (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable to me based on above references. Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I have found a lot of sources that could be used.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a few more thoughts about sourcing and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added references for his new position as Deputy Executive Director at the DNC. I think the combination of sources on him qualify for WP:GNG as a key Democratic resource. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 22:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhankar Bhar[edit]

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

Non-notable. The single source cited only mentions the person once in passing, and even then only verifies that he worked on that particular film; otherwise completely unsupported. Search finds nothing even resembling RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:FILMMAKER.

The article has been published and draftified twice before, but the creator insists on bringing this out, so it may be worth salting if this AfD results in deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! i did not notice that earlier. From what i gather, he was nominated twice for the Filmfare (2018 & 2020) but did not win it. One of the other two awards he was nominated for and eventually won (West Bengal Film Journalists' Association Awards) appears to be a major accolade. Not sure about Films and Frames Digital Film Awards and would like others to present their point of views.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Richardson (author)[edit]

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

Author of numerous non-notable books. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Going with the keeps. Feel free to propose merger on appropriate talk pages if someone deems necessary. Missvain (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Easter eggs in Tesla products[edit]

List of Easter eggs in Tesla products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list that is full of overdetailed trivia, verging on WP:NOT. To be fair I am not proposing that we chuck the article's content in the bin and forget about it, I support an option to partially merge some of this content into respective relevant articles where the topics in question have been mentioned, as long as it is appropriate. talk to !dave 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. talk to !dave 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. talk to !dave 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The news media covers Easter eggs from Tesla. https://time.com/4290474/tesla-easter-egg-mario-kart/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/technology/easter-eggs-tesla-google.html https://www.cnet.com/pictures/tesla-easter-eggs/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/tesla-easter-egg-makes-the-world-s-fastest-car-even-faster https://www.engadget.com/2016-12-23-tesla-hides-two-easter-eggs-in-its-latest-software-update.html https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/elon-musk-distracts-us-from-bad-news-with-psychedelic-cowbell-road-tesla-easter-egg-and-it-worked https://www.engadget.com/2017-04-07-tesla-owners-can-expect-easy-access-to-all-discovered-easter-egg.html etc. etc. Easy to find, just search for it. 135 references in the article already. If the news media talks about it, its notable, that's how Wikipedia works. Dream Focus 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say that this falls somewhere between WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Specifically, it's the "products -> activation -> description" that doesn't sit right with me. I've no doubt that the concept of Tesla easter eggs is notable, but there should be an article, or a section in an article, that is more about how Tesla began incorporating Easter eggs into their car models, why the ones are chosen as they are, rather than a list that's really a step above up up down down left right left right B A start. Even if a list like this were to occur, I don't see a downside in WP:TNTing, considering how 1. trivia laden it is and 2. the flattering portrait of Elon Musk that it paints. In particular, the second section of "Notable omissions" is really just "a list of things Elon Musk likes", with a side of "see! He was praised in Star Trek!" Kncny11 (shoot) 22:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With well over 100 references to news articles, the topic is dense with primary sources and has undeniable notability. None of the reasons for deletion apply to this article to any significant degree. While the article is not perfect, existing imperfections warrant improvement through editing as opposed to unilateral deletion. This article is the only existing resource for a full and near comprehensive treatment of the article topic. Deleting this article would go against Wikipedia's purpose (to benefit readers with free information on all branches of knowledge) by eliminating that knowledge for approximately 450 people per day. There is precedent for this type of article including List of Easter eggs in Microsoft products and List of Google Easter eggs. Neither of these lists of easter eggs are currently being considered for deletion. Finally, it may be useful to know that I already plan to refresh the article (I am the original author) before the end of this year. For example, I agree with Kncny11 that the Products/Activation/Description format is not the best. I intend to get rid of that completely. In general, the article could use some futureproofing. Language and information that can become obsolete will be removed. Nevertheless, these are aspects of editing and improving, rather than grounds for complete deletion.

    Reply to points from Kncny11:

    "I would say that this falls somewhere between WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Specifically, it's the "products -> activation -> description" that doesn't sit right with me."

    While I disagree with your assessment that this article is something between a indiscriminate collection of information, or a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, I can see that the format makes it feel this way a bit. I intend to move more towards the format of other lists of easter eggs as discussed above (Google and Microsoft). In particular, I will remove the products -> activation -> description structure. Just need some time to make the edits.

    "I've no doubt that the concept of Tesla easter eggs is notable, but there should be an article, or a section in an article, that is more about how Tesla began incorporating Easter eggs into their car models, why the ones are chosen as they are, rather than a list that's really a step above up up down down left right left right B A start."

    I would encourage you to add such a section (with references) to this article! Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instructs that "the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text". This article is rich with notable, well cited information that is clearly of interest to people. It should not be lost.

    "Even if a list like this were to occur, I don't see a downside in WP:TNTing, considering how 1. trivia laden it is and 2. the flattering portrait of Elon Musk that it paints. In particular, the second section of "Notable omissions" is really just "a list of things Elon Musk likes", with a side of "see! He was praised in Star Trek!""

    All that you refer to is referenced to notable primary sources. But if you think it is biased or could be better, please make additions/edits and include citations. If there are specific issues you would like to discuss, happy to do that too, but specific small issues in an article are not grounds for complete deletion. The problem with "blow it up and start over" is, who will start over? If given until the end of 2021, I plan to start from the existing rigorously cited text, improve the format, and futureproof by removing anything that can change with software updates or new products. I think this is a better option as compared to WP:TNTing.

    JacksonKP (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't doubt that it is notable. It's just that this is content that falls under WP:TRIVIA IMO. My nomination vote isn't a proper delete, I respect that (some of) this content is mergeable, maybe a worthy mention in respective articles. talk to !dave 07:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune - I've only edited this article once, and that was to remove some info that although sourced clearly is not an Easter Egg. I'm sure that some of the entries here are noteworthy and valid, but I'm equally sure that some aren't. I propose that with some pruning to bring the article into line, it would be a valid and decent addition to the project. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune Indeed a notable subject but the impression of WP:NOT needs to be reduced. Sachin.cba (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN. The nomination is just a mix of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. See also WP:MAD. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a brief one to three paragraph summary to Tesla, Inc. or any more suitable article. The topic of "Easter eggs in Teasla products" seems to have received coverage, but the amount of prose you're going to get out of it seems very small. Listing every instance of an Easter egg is the definition of trivia. TTN (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge per the points brought up by TTN. The information on this list seems more apt for a brief mention on the articles for the cars themselves, and the fact that easter eggs have been incorporated into many Tesla cars could definitely be mentioned on the article for the company itself. The tone of this article feels fancruft-y to me though, especially the 'Notable omissions' section, which is entirely inappropriate. Waxworker (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep vote already made above. TTN, Waxworker, and Dave generally show some support and make points towards keeping some smaller subset of List of Easter eggs in Tesla products by merging it with other articles. I think that this approach overlooks that there is precedent for this type of article including List of Easter eggs in Microsoft products and List of Google Easter eggs. Both articles could be merged with Microsoft and Google respectively, but they have not, and there is currently no proposal to do so, either by Dave or any other commenter. Both of these later Easter egg specific articles have been around for on the order of 15 years without being merged or lost so I think that sets a clear precedent. By merging and shedding some significant portion of List of Easter eggs in Microsoft products in the process, much notable content would be lost which is contrary to the Wikipedia policy, and specifically policy mentioned above regarding the deletion of salvageable text.JacksonKP (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a merge discussion for the other two articles with the focus towards putting the relevant information in them in a better space. Regardless of that, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't really have any place in this discussion. TTN (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep vote already made above. TTN and Dave point to much of List of Easter eggs in Tesla products as trivia. Trivia is defined as (petty) details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value. While this argument may apply to extreme cases of articles composed of minutia, it should be clear that what is trivia and what is not trivia is subjective. Rather, the measure of what is noteworthy in Wikipedia is based on (among other things) the existence of news media coverage. List of Easter eggs in Tesla products has a high density of this coverage evenly dispersed throughout the article. There are many Wikipedia articles that I find to be trivia, however it is not my perspective that is important, but rather the measurement of the standard of noteworthiness set by Wikipedia. If every article were deleted or truncated and merged because some subset of readers found the article to be subjective, Wikipedia may become very small. JacksonKP (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether something is trivia or not is going to be a subjective discussion, but we have to think of the inclusion of material from the perspective of a general encyclopedia. For a lack of a better term, it's similar to game guide material. The overall topic of the game is obviously notable, but we only need a basic overview of the game mechanics to understand the topic. That's the same with this topic, we need a summary of what they are, how they came to be, the development of their popularity, and the most notable cases of them. The list is superfluous information that is neat but ultimately too fan orientated. TTN (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep vote already made above. Waxworker points to "tone" and how the article "feels". Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and particularly Graham's hierarchy of disagreement within the dispute resolution page teaches that arguments of "tone" (second from the bottom on the hierarchy) is not a strong form of criticism. Notability is the standard and notability is based on the General notability guidelines. List of Easter eggs in Tesla products clearly meets these guidelines. JacksonKP (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is properly sourced. Argument against it seems to be somewhere between petty and vindictive based on the comments above. Nweil (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus, at least, that there should not be a separate article on this subject. However, it clearly meets the standards of noteworthiness for mention in an appropriately related article, and fortunately a participant in this discussion has provided that target. If substantial additional material on the subject is found and added to this target article in the future, it may then be proposed for unmerging back to a separate article. BD2412 T 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lake Resort[edit]

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

Finally doing a bit better on these Lake County places. Not too surprisingly, this was another fairly short-lived resort, started in "the 1930s" according to this page, which in turn seems to be citing Hoberg, Donna. Resorts of Lake County. Arcadia Publishing.. I've come across several YT videos made from home movies taken at the resort. What the topos show is a dense grid of buildings (presumably cabins) from the 1940s up into the 1960s, at which point they thin out, There's nothing there at all now; the resort seems to have closed sometime in the 1960s-'70s. At any rate, not a settlement, and not a notable resort. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. I had to remove about 150 of these kinds of places from the United Arab Emirates AfD by weary AfD a couple years back. Archaic gazetteer reference ≠ settlement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was expecting little, but the Arcadia book (of which you have found a book review) tells us a fair bit about this place, including who founded it and the fact that it used to be named Camp Calso. That name took me to History and prehistory of Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, Lake County, California, which seems to at least mention Jim McCauley and the Camp Calso Company. Similarly, ISBN 9781555676285 came up in a search for Camp Calso and appears to have a "Forest Lake Resort" section heading in its history section. More research needed, but I think that this might be expandable. But definitely "was a resort" instead of "is an unincorporated community". Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was. Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Covered in some depth in two books. But consider renaming to "Forest Lake Resort". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This quaint family history is all very nice, but it fails WP:GEOLAND. It's not a natural feature, it's not a populated place, it's not notable historically. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been a populated place. Notability does not fade away when the people leave. And the coverage by at least 2 books is enough for GNG. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:GEOLAND is the test, not WP:GNG. And where, please, in the guidelines do you find the words "Notability does not fade away when the people leave"??? As a settlement, unless it's an archaeological find of notability, notability most certainly does fade away when the people do. A settlement without people isn't, erm, a settlement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:GNG trumps project-specific criteria such as WP:GEOLAND or WP:FOOTY. Ghost towns are notable if they have been discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources. That is, if they have been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it's not even a ghost town - as per Mangoe "not a settlement, and not a notable resort" - and lacking in-depth discussion by reliable independent sources - if you're going to cite a mention in the "History and prehistory of Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, Lake County, California", you're really scraping at the barrel. At best, this former resort deserves a passing mention in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The former resort has multi-page coverage in Dillon and in Hoberg. That makes it notable. It was popular and would also have been discussed in contemporary magazines and tourist guides. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's no way of validating the 'multi-page coverage' claim, because the books aren't searchable unless you have University access. It's perhaps worth noting that the 'Friends of Boggs Mountain' website devotes but a single line to this notable settlement: "McCauley established a resort near the head of Kelsey Creek renaming it Camp Calso. Jim McCauley died in 1941 and his heirs sold the timber rights to Setzer Forest Products." Here. As I say, at best - failing WP:GEOLAND - it deserves to be a footnote in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Don't assume bad faith. You can see some of the coverage in snippets: Dillon and Hoberg. With a bit of ingenuity with search terms you can see more. It is indeed multi-page coverage in both books. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain, but was one of a string of resorts along Kelsey Creek below the mountain. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. Both the book sources above are published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection who manage the forest, and as such don't quite fulfill the requirement of "multiple, independent sources". Both sources mention the resort only in the context of the history of the current state forest, and there's no reason why we shouldn't do likewise. I don't see any in-depth coverage elsewhere, a newspaper search (including for its pre-1937 name Camp Calso) revealed only adverts and passing mentions. ----Pontificalibus 05:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pontificalibus: The main source, Hoberg, was published by Arcadia Publishing, not the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and does not mention the state forest. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain and was never part of the state forest. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am amazed discussion is ongoing, when this is such a clear-cut issue. This is not a settlement today. It never HAS been a settlement. It was, briefly, a failed resort. It does not pass WP:GEOLAND. It is not notable for any reason whatsoever. It has, arguably, never been notable in history. It is briefly mentioned in two (unverifiable) books, so yay for that. But that doesn't make it notable. And it doesn't make it a THING in today's context. It is not historical, archaeological or even anthropological. It's.not.a.thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The books are verifiable. You just have to click on the links: Dillon and Hoberg. All that WP:GNG requires is that the topic has been covered in some depth by reliable independent sources. That is certainly true. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which just verifies that the place does NOT pass WP:GNG. Passing mentions in two books that are themselves quaint marginalia. And it STILL fails WP:GEOLAND! To reiterate: at best, this long-defunct (and only briefly funct) resort deserves a passing mention in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The resort was not on Boggs Mountain. Two pages of text in Dillon and five pages of text and photographs in Hoberg are much more than passing mentions. The power of WP-GNG is that it does not require that a topic be "important", whatever that means, just that it has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I love the use of the author's surnames to make 'em sound more authoritative - Dillon and Hoberg. Wow. 'Resorts of Lake County' doesn't sound quite as impressive does it? Some pictures in a picture book and some passing mentions in a regional guide DO NOT make the empty location of a long defunct (and only briefly viable) resort notable. There's nothing there, hasn't been for 60-odd years. What isn't getting across here? This.is.not.a.place. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Brian D. Dillon is an archaeologist and author of several books, and Donna Hoberg is a local historian. They are both reliable and independent sources, and both discuss the topic in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without prejudice to this discussion, I have moved the article to Forest Lake Resort, which seems a more appropriate title, since the article is not really about today's hamlet, known mostly for Our Lady of the Pines Catholic Church. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2021 (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/2021 April 30. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is a clear-cut issue, but Alexandermcnabb has it wrong. It doesn't matter how "important" it is. Wikipedia:Fame and importance is a long-rejected idea. It doesn't matter whether it's "merely a resort" any more than it matters that other articles are "merely beetles". This was just more two-sentence "unincorporated community" GNIS rubbish. Now it is an article on something with an already documented history. It doesn't matter that that history ended and the place is no more. Indeed, that is why people often come to encyclopaedias to look stuff up. The claim that this is like Jabal Mubrahah (AfD discussion) is laughable, because this no longer being a two-sentence GNIS dump makes it exactly not like that article. And dismissing the sources because one hasn't read them and judging based upon a WWW site is entirely wrongheaded, and clearly Alexandermcnabb's evaluations of the sources, given that xe outright says that xe hasn't read them, is unreliable. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb has read both sources and still believes they don't stand up WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. This is a marginal resort of zero importance, no longevity and no current geographical standing. It also fails WP:PLACEOUTCOMES as a resort (hotel). It's no.longer.there. As a minor blip in the history of Boggs Mountain, it possibly deserves a sub-heading on that page, but no more. It won't surprise you to know that Alexandermcnabb doesn't think he has it wrong. This is a place of no lasting notability, historical significance or merit. It's a small resort that opened briefly and then closed. The Magna Carta wasn't signed there, the Rolling Stones never played there, a famous actress never died there. It is, in short, a Norwegian Blue. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not consider "importance", a vague and subjective concept, but simply requires that reliable independent sources have discussed the topic in some depth. Not entirely by coincidence, that means there must be enough material to develop a non-trivial article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ukiah area.

Buckle up. Procedurally, looks like this AfD was lost in limbo: last relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 3, closed on the 16th (as merge) but perhaps reopened without attaching to a new log list? Let's put it out of its misery.

Redirection/merger would be the clear next step here, per WP:ATD-R and how these station AfDs have traditionally gone when they're proven to have existed in some form. This said, there is no clear redirect target, with moderate disagreement about Hopland, California, or Mendocino County, California, being adequate targets. So I've taken the unusual step of mainspacing @Uncle G's Ukiah area composition below since there was more interest in redirecting there (to an draft that does not exist in draft or mainspace) than to any existing target. There might be disagreement about the name or scope of that article, but that is a matter for its talk page and, perhaps, a subsequent AfD. Fair warning: If the new article is moved into draftspace, all of the redirects and their page histories will naturally be deleted, so be sure to move those into draftspace as well if needed for reference.

czar 21:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Largo, California[edit]

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

Yet another NWP station stop that is long gone, in the midst (now anyway) of a spread of vineyards. Searching was cluttered by Spanish language results and by mis-scans of the word "large", but I did find a few references of the usual someone "from" there, and one stating that on the opposite side of the river there was once a dry ice factory; I could find no trace of it, but neither the topos nor the aerials go all that far back. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Topo maps from 1958 to 2018 show a persistent nothingness in this zone. No results in news, no results on Google I could find (I had to search with -tanker because otherwise it gets confazed by there being a freight ship named Largo). Nothing in books except for translation or OCR errors. I don't think anything is really going on with Largo, California. jp×g 04:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Support merger to general area article per below - Gudde calls it a railroad station. Newspapers.com is largely useless due to about 11,000 (literally) scanner errors of the word large, but the string "Largo station" brings up some passing mentions, references to a water gauge for the Russian River, a ranch being near Largo station, and an announcement from the state railway commission recommending closure in 1949. Other things I could find in other sources: the postmaster at Largo sent in some plants for identification in 1903. Nonagency station reclassified to Class E in 1949. And you've got this 1937 photograph of Largo Station with hills in the background that's a single small building. I'm inclined to think this isn't notable, but I'm willing to listen if someone can find something significant. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1890 Bancroft's Official Railway Guide of the San Francisco and North Pacific Railway Company has it as the stop after El Robles on the Ukiah to Hopland main line. Searching is made somewhat easier by looking in conjunction with "Crawford Ranch", which is just to the west of the station. I cannot find any documentation other than timetables for the station, or indeed in depth documentation for the ranch, sorting out the Charlie/Leslie problem. Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hopland, California where I added a mention. Largo is Spanish for Long and it was named for L.F Long ([13]) who grew the first hops there ([14]). The region became hop-farming country, hence the nearby Sanel being renamed Hopland. Since this is where it all started I figure it could be mentioned in the Hopland article. People did live at Largo[a] but I'm not sure there's enough evidence to call it a settlement.----Pontificalibus 11:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ e.g. "My grandmother Grace E. Gowan was born in Largo Caif. in 1891 (Largo was a spot in the road between Talmage and Old Hopland)". [1] - "There was John Knight, my grand-father, my mother’s father, who was born in Largo down here on the old Hopland road where that oldbridge is." [2]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate additional thoughts on User:Pontificalibus's proposed merger. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1914 sketch map of Ukiah area showing location of arable valleys
The Ukiah area is an area of 303 square miles (78,000 ha) in southeastern Mendocino County, California that encompasses the arable valleys of the Russian River drainage system and the adjacent parts of the Mendocino Range Mountains of the Pacific Coast Range.[1]

Geography

[…lists of valley articles and stuff…]

Several shipping points on the railroad in the Ukiah and Sanel Valleys serve surrounding towns and resorts in the Coast Range. Hopland, California grew when the railroad came along, the old business centre from the time of the old toll roads, before the railway, being Old Hopland (merge Old Hopland, California here, sans "unincorporated community" of course).[2] Other stops include:[2]

Climate

Agriculture

References

  1. ^ Watson & Pendleton 1919, p. 2629.
  2. ^ a b Watson & Pendleton 1919, p. 2636.
  3. ^ a b "Pieta". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.
  4. ^ a b c Durham 1998, p. 122
  5. ^ a b "Largo". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.
  6. ^ a b c Durham 1998, p. 91
  7. ^ a b "El Roble". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.
  8. ^ Durham 1998, p. 57
  9. ^ Gannett 1905, p. 118.
  • I'm a bit wary of "area" articles where there isn't widespread usage of the term by multiple sources with a common definition. Perhaps a section within Mendocino County, California would be more appropriate - the Geography and Communities sections there are basically just lists at the moment, so there's plenty of scope for improvement.----Pontificalibus 06:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am new to this discussion, but am puzzled by this one. If it was a station, I would expect to to be mentioned in the Northwestern Pacific Railroad article. I do not see it there, but maybe it was on some other line covered by another article. If so, that article could have a paragraph or so for each station, maybe a picture, and have station names redirect to the entries in the route article. Am I missing the point? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a merger into an article about the general area. Might be best to work that up in the draft space - I don't think this stub will be missed much while the draft is being worked on. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are merging, we need both this and the articles that were deleted. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should be pretty easy to get the undelete, if there's consensus for this, as I think it was just prods. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have the 303 square mile 1914 USDA definition, but there is also the 3,506 square mile Ukiah Micro Area and the Greater Ukiah area, including adjacent valleys and connecting communities. The 1936 Ukiah area embraces the arable valleys of the Russian River drainage system in Mendocino County , together with the adjacent mountains. It seems a bit vague. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ukiah area or possibly Mendocino County, California. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the close reverted? I don’t get it. The obvious consensus is to close as merge. Since we can’t merge to non-existent articles surely it makes sense to merge to Hopland, California and then if a more suitable target later becomes available, the redirect can be changed to point to it. —--Pontificalibus 18:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pontificalibus: - would creating a draft using the content above and then merging this into the draft be a decent idea? Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m probably not the best person to ask as I’m not convinced a Ukiah area article would be kept at a theoretical AfD based on the sourcing above. We can’t redirect to a draft anyway - better to merge to an existing article and then if and when a better article is established in mainspace, update the redirect.--Pontificalibus 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Support Hog Farm's proposal to work on an higher-level subject as a draft); oppose Pontificalibus' idea to merge with a target that isn't the very best conceivable target. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm:the aforementioned draft is not currently in existence, right?
It does not currently exist, and I just started a new job and don't have time to create one. Probably best to just delete this for now; the history can be restored for merging once the draft exists. Hog Farm Talk 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not enough for a stand-alone article and the proposed merger targets above are sub-optimal. As Hog Farm says, we can WP:REFUND the article if there ever is anything relevant to merge to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Hopland, California is compliant with our redirects policy, would survive an RfD, and avoids the need for a refund process should a better target be created. In fact it would be perfectly valid to create such a redirect if this AfD is recluses as delete, but this would be a worse outcome because the redirect wouldn’t the have the edit history attached. The original AfD close should not have been undone.
But why don’t we leave this AfD open for a few more months, maybe it will close itself because it sure is a scary and difficult decision for any one admin to make.—--Pontificalibus 05:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J. Summers[edit]

Donald J. Summers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 18:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment according to his Scopus profile, he has published over 800 papers with more than 55k citations and has an h-index of 107. In most fields this would be quite impressive, but in high energy physics there are literally thousands of authors per paper and it is unclear how to assess the contribution of an individual researcher such as Summers. --hroest 19:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Hannes Röst, if that is the case, then he would definitely pass wp:nscholar. How do you explain the Scholar search wherein he doesn't even have a profile, and only 1 paper which he co-authored with over 100 citations? Please ping me.Onel5969 TT me 20:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Onel5969 I used the linked profile from his article to get his ORCID and from there his Scopus ID. I dont know how good Google Scholar is with these large consortia, but it seems he does not have a profile in GS? At least some papers that are his see the first one here do not link to any GS profile at all. Not having a GS profile is not grounds for non-notability, many researchers dont have one since you actively need to create one unlike Scopus or Microsoft Academic. Also I dont know how well GS deals with large author lists, maybe it works less well for these papers? Btw, his Microsoft Academic profile shows 99k+ citations for him. I checked some of these papers and it is clearly him, so not an error from Microsoft Academic. --hroest 00:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently, he's also commonly referred to as Don Summers. There's a university article about him with background info over here. And an NSF grant. The h-index does seem rather hard here, though i'm seeing a number of large physics papers referring to him as the mentor for others, which is interesting. SilverserenC 20:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. All I can find is that he participated as a member of significant but very large physics collaborations and that he gave some money to his university. Even the experiment that the donation article says was most closely associated with, Fermilab E791, does not have its own article, he is not one of its two lead authors [15], and his name is listed alphabetically in the middle of a pack of 66 authors. I don't think that's enough to base an article, and I don't think an h-index based only on such collaborations is enough for WP:PROF#C1 notability — we need publications in which he can be clearly stated to have played a key role, either because he was lead author or because there were few authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I won't even attempt Scopus-analyzing particle physicists on such large collaborations, at least not until Elsevier responds to my request for access to their API (for "scholarship purposes")... I asked the physics wikiproject if they had any suggestions for gauging notability, but they didn't seem to have too much of an idea either outside of agreeing citations and h-indices in this field are ludicrous. JoelleJay (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The issues pointed out above with the large author counts in this field mean that his authorship statistics are likely a poor indication of nobility, but it's not as though the article is badly written or unverifiable. Notability guidelines exist because a lack of notability usually implies a lack of verifiability, which doesn't really seem to be a concern here (and neither does self-promotion, since he's dead). jp×g 04:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:NSCHOLAR, not enough W:SIGCOV found-able, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a bit more insight from the community regarding WP:PROF. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would it be informative to others here if I compiled Scopus citation metrics on Summers and, let's say, the top 50 of his most frequent collaborators (very high topic specialty match, but will skew towards higher-profile researchers) and 150 of his most recent coauthors (will be less specific to his subfield and skew towards newer researchers)? Or if anyone has other requests I can probably do those too. @Onel5969, Hannes Röst, Silver seren, David Eppstein, JPxG, CommanderWaterford, and Missvain: JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably be somewhat informative, but it's unlikely to give an obvious, conclusive answer to the question posed by this discussion. It is very difficult to judge articles on experimental physicists who take part in such large collaborations where it is unclear who played a major role in any particular experiment. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 22:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Bergeron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non notable sound designer Purosinaloense T/K 06:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Purosinaloense T/K 06:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't judge the NYT article, but all other sources are pretty by-the-book passing mentions or, in the case of CNN Money, a short, self-authored promo piece. Not much to write home about, and certainly not enough for GNG. AngryHarpy‍talk 06:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Namkongville: The New York Times source says of him: "sound by Francois Bergeron". That's all it says about him.
Entrepreneur is paywalled, but the part I can see says "The results are breathtaking, but for founders... François Bergeron, 42..." and that's it.
Le Journal de Montreal says "Il a demandé à François Bergeron (un autre Québécois, concepteur sonore du spectacle) de lui trouver un rire de Ginette Reno», raconte le comédien, en riant.", which is a passing mention about someone asking him to find a singer like Ginette Reno. I'll stop there because I am pretty sure you might have overlooked reading these sources.--- Possibly (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted keep on basis of the New York Times and other supporting sources. If NYTimes refers to him as a sound designer that's pretty convincing to me. Namkongville (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Namkongville: I guess you are easily convinced then: it's literally four words in the NY Times. I would suggest reading WP:SIGCOV, the part about how to tell the difference between a trivial source and significant coverage.--- Possibly (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG as per above sources and for receiving Sound Designer of the Year award. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covered in multiple independent sources passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, simply mentions. Winning a minor "Sound Designer of the Year" award hardly qualifies him. Onel5969 TT me 21:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to barley passing GNG. RockOften (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether an article is published in Joe Bumbo's Sound Editing Blog or the NYT, a selection of simple name drops does not constitute meaningful or significant coverage. Likewise, a 1996 award from some magazine with a five-year-old notability tag on its article does not grant anyone a free pass on notability. AngryHarpy‍talk 12:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has indepth coverage in [16] and his notable roles in [17] and was part of notable shows like Quidam which makes him satisfy WP:MUSIC requirements. Pryorbede (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As sound designer he should be evaluated under WP:MUSICBIO. He meets criterion #10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable,..", Possibly if the Cirque Du Solel has toured 2 or more countries, he may meet crierion #4 as well. Webmaster862 (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a musician. Bergeron is a sound designer.To meet WP:MUSICBIO, you need to be able to play an instrument of some sort, you know, to make music. --- Possibly (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has designed and contributed to notable projects like Quidam which should be enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Pryorbede (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pryorbede created their account April 7. On April 23 they created this article, 20 minutes after their first edit. --- Possibly (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It took me 2 hours to create this page. I was preparing the wiki code in my sandbox. Possibly, You are an experienced editor with around 60000+ edits. I am not a pro editor like you still learning but I aim to become a pro like you. Pryorbede (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He qualifies for WP:NMUSIC as was the sound designer for notable shows like La Nouba and Quidam. This article could use some cleanup though. Riteboke (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ditto on all the keep reasons above, especially for music category. Star7924 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my source analysis above. Him meeting MUSICBIO would a) also have to be demonstrated in reliable sources and b) require that it is established that MUSICBIO covers sound designers, which does not seem to be in the spirit of the guideline; the assertion that some SNG is met is not a substitute for actual coverage, which has not been provided. I will also note in passing that some of the activity surrounding this saga reminds me of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. --Blablubbs|talk 20:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He meets WP:MUSICBIO, Sound designing is the base of Music. I have created all current pages basis on that criteria. I have read this thoroughly and then after I created the pages. As per WP:MUSICBIO criteria, #10 indicates "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." Francois created themes and was a sound designer for many notable shows like Quidam. Similarly, I created another article on basis of this guideline for the sound designer Jonathan Deans. As per this criteria he should pass for WP:MUSICBIO. Pryorbede (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I can see multiple article created on the basis of same guideline, some examples are Dwarak Warrier, Gregory King (sound designer), John S. Bowen (sound designer) and as well as many others. Which follows same criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. I would request the closing admin that on the basis of WP:MUSICBIO criteria #10 François Bergeron and all other mentioned pages qualifies for WP:MUSIC. Pryorbede (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This claim that sound designers, who aren't musicians, can meet MUSICBIO is quite innovative, but I am not buying it. The spirit of MUSICBIO addresses musicians, not designers of circus sound environments. Also, we do not typically compare other articles in deletion discussions, since they are of varying quality. It's very rare that you get an example that is a good comparison. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--- Possibly (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got an example that is a good comparison is because there are many sound designer pages which are based on same criteria's and are created by many other experienced editors by following same notability criteria and requirements. As he is a sound designer and basis on his current achievements he should qualify for WP:NMUSIC. I can't keep argue on same thing that sound designer comes under musicians. Because its a waste of time. I am just following Wiki criteria's to create the pages. But here it looks like you are opposing the current criteria's which I guess you should discuss on appropriate discussion area to make updates to the Wikipedia:Notability (music) if it gets approved by admins. As I am a sound designer myself and knows well about sound and music. I can refer to a seperate Wiki page of sound designer which you can also read through this link [18]. This clearly states in the very first paragraph that Sound design is the art and practice of creating sound tracks for a variety of needs. It involves specifying, acquiring or creating auditory elements using audio production techniques and tools. It is employed in a variety of disciplines including filmmaking, television production, video game development, theatre, sound recording and reproduction, live performance, sound art, post-production, radio and musical instrument development. Sound design commonly involves performing (see e.g. foley) and editing of previously composed or recorded audio, such as sound effects and dialogue for the purposes of the medium, but it can also involve creating sounds from scratch through synthesizers. A sound designer is one who practices sound design.
Above clearly mentions in Italic highlighted text about theatre, sound recording and reproduction, live performance, sound art, post-production, radio and musical instrument development. Some of the common things which the subject of this article does. He has made sound for many Theatre shows and live performance shows like Nouvelle Expérience, La Nouba, Zed (Cirque du Soleil), Quidam and many more. On basis of these he should easily pass for Wikipedia:Notability (music). Pryorbede (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Richter[edit]

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

appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately, because checking might show that some of them might have notability otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, taking part in some talent show doesn't qualify for anything, nor is there much in how the rest of his career is described that suggests notability, either. The sources might just about meet WP:GNG criteria, but all the same, this reads to me like a 'famous for being famous' vanity piece that doesn't justify an encyclopaedia entry. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Gourdet[edit]

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

appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately, because checking might show that some of them might have notability otherwise.

Article is highly promotional, even for a field like this where promotional articles are not uncommon. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I really wish you'd do research before nominating pages for deletion. Clear keep here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:GNG due to significant coverage in Portland Business Journal, Portland Monthly, and Street Roots, which are all strong publications per the standards of WP:RS. I agree with Another Believer, this should have been brought up on the talk page or preceded with a WP:PROD, either approach would have saved Wikipedia's readers and editors from the hassle of a deletion discussion. It would, however, be good if somebody could improve the lead section to better reflect the significance of the subject. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Prod would have been inappropriate. If nobody had noticed the prod for a week the article would have been summarily deleted.) pburka (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I revised the lead a bit and added one review of his new book. DGG, could you point out whatever seems promotional to you in this article? I'm just not seeing it. Chers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Reliable sources have covered his cooking career and his cookbook. pburka (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 1/local reviews of a local restaurant do not show notability -- to be notable , it has to be known outside its own service area 2/ promotional elements include: the personal life section, the way the anonymous attacks system is written to be actually praise for him, and use of PR references--Portland Busines journal like all similar publications is merely a placeto publish press release, the Colorado Tourism Office is an ever less reliable source. . 3/ for the book, one PW review that merely lists a few dishes is trivial review coverage- and However, the NYT reference was not present when I listed it, and might count for notability , if the other material mentioned here is removed. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, Before nominating an article for deletion, you should review available sourcing, not just the sources currently used in the article. You're right, local reviews of a local restaurant may not demonstrate notability, but a simple Google search shows you there's adequate sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: Some of what you say involves judgment calls, and I'll leave that aside. But when you state "Portland Busines journal like all similar publications is merely a placeto publish press release" you are absolutely wrong. There are certainly local business publications that match that description, but the PBJ is not one. Just click the article - the byline is for a "Staff Reporter." There's no shame in not knowing that, but I'd urge you -- especially as someone with a lot of well-earned esteem around here -- to be more cautious in making strong declarations about publications you're not actually familiar with. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read that particular article. It's a promotional story or interview of the type disallowed by nCORP, where the individual is allowed o say whatever he chooses -- in this case "Gourdet shared his story today at a breakfast given by CODA, the longtime Portland addictions treatment provider that bestowed Gourdet with its 2016 Advocacy Award..." So it's essentially a reprint of a speech he gave. Looking further, at the journal as a whole, I should have said, that the journal is composed mainly of PR and notices., with some news items about general business topics; its coverage of specific executives and concerns seems to be PR. I can certainly make mistakes with unfamiliar sources, but not this time. When I do, I acknowledge my error. DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My language above may have been stronger than necessary, which I regret; but I stand by my point. I've documented some specifics about the Business Journal here, feel free to look there if you want evidence for what I say here.
  • "merely a placeto publish press release" -- this is a statement about the advertising department of the Business Journal, so it's irrelevant to our consideration of the editorial product. Yes, the publication will distribute press releases, clearly marked as paid content, for a fee. Other news publications that have an advertising department include the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
  • Your personal opinion of this specific article has no particular bearing on the case for notability. Discussion of how much value to assign to a specific source would make sense on the article's talk page, but it's not very relevant here. The relevant consideration for an AfD is whether a publication, overall, matches up against the WP:RS standard, which the Business Journal certainly does. With reference to WP:NCORP, which you bring up, the Business Journal certainly does not have a "vested interest" in Gourdet. The simple fact that their editorial department (not their advertising department) judged that their readership would be interested in a profile on this man is enough to contribute to an assessment of notability. (For what it's worth, many publications publish both high-intensity investigative journalism, and also profile pieces that don't offer much critical commentary. That's not a knock on the piece's factual accuracy or its judgment of the significance of its main subject, though.)
  • As a side note, I want to again state that there are plenty of business publications that actively damage their own reputations by either acting as content mills that accept custom submissions without much or any editorial oversight, and/or publish press releases in a way that doesn't distinguish them from editorial material. I understand why Wikipedia editors often view business-oriented publications with skepticism. But contrary to what was stated above, this publication does not do either of those things. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While competing on Top Chef does not automatically confer notability, Gourdet has received enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Besides the Oregonian, New York Times, and Publishers Weekly sources already cited in the article, I found significant coverage in Food & Wine magazine ([19]) and The Haitian Times ([20]). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's coverage in the NYT here, Portland Mercury here, Portland Tribune here, Oregon Live here, etc. Additionally, Lord Bolingbroke found additional sources in Food & Wine and the Haitian Times. I think this is an easy and clear keep. --Kbabej (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Motion Pictures[edit]

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

I first thought about moving this into draftspace. But I could not find even any single sources other than some linkedin profiles and some directory like websites. No reliable sources exist at present giving enough sigcov thus failing GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC) striking as the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited only mention the company in passing: accordingly, it fails WP:SIRS. JBchrch (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kashmorwiki first of all I would like to say there are a lot of coverage where assorted have already mentioned there. And Assorted Motion Pictures have already produced some movies. And in there on movies coverage you can see Assorted Motion Pictures are mentioned. So I think article should stay.

Hey JBchrch yes you are absolutely correct the sources cited only mention the company. But in wikipedia i saw a lot of article which have same issue. They only have mentioned on the sources they have provided. If you want then you can check( Surinder Films, Acropolis Entertainment, Magic Moments Motion Pictures, 4 Lions Films, DJ's a Creative Unit, Sphere Origins). Now my question is, if these article(which I mentioned) are eligible to stay on the article space. Then why my created article won't be. I had read all the rules. And when I saw these article then only i start created Assorted Motion Pictures So if these article is eligible to pass every rules then I think Assorted Motion Pictures is also eligible to stay on wikipedia. DasSoumik (talk)

Hi DasSoumik, I understand thAT it's frustrating to see your article be the subject of a deletion discussion while other sub-par articles remain on the website. However, in my view, these articles aren't eligible as well, and for the exact same reasons. Please note, additionally, that no one made the determination that they were actually eligible: it's just that no one has noticed yet that they weren't eligible. In any case, have you looked whether you could find coverage of Assorted Motion Pictures that would match the criterias of WP:SIRS? JBchrch (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JBchrch, it is not frustrating. I just told you the matter. If those articles are eligible then Assorted Motion Pictures is also eligible. That's what I think.
DasSoumik per my answer, if what you say is true, I would not consider these articles to be eligible. JBchrch (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I missed the ping somehow! Hello DasSoumik, from my experience at several AFD's, there is no point in arguing as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Like JBchrch said, some articles remain here unnoticed for several years, while some get noticed within weeks. It might be because we have improved set of toolsets and bots to patrol new pages now. If you want the similiar articles like this to get removed from here, you may nominate those for AFD. Nobody is going to object you for that move. Unless you or anyone comes up with any sources giving this company some significant coverage, my stand remains the same. Good luck. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hello Kashmorwiki, thank you for your reply. Now wait for other editor to come and comment here.
  • Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 01:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this production has produced many movies and recently their produced movie Rickshawala is nominated for Dadasaheb Phalke Award. And I got an article so I have added. I don't know it's enough or not, as I don't know much more about rules. But as per my knowledge 1 article is enough for article of production house. Thanks TryingToDo (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has short but well written with reliable sources, passes Wiki guidelines to retain Applus2021 (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applus2021, it is not sufficient for an article to have reliable source. WP:ORGCRITE calls for significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. JBchrch (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch hello, as you can see Assorted Motion Picture's movie Rickshawala is nominated for Dada shaheb Phalke Award. And you know Dada Shaheb Phalke Award is so much prestigious award. So when a film is nominated for such kind of prestigious award then how can it not be reliable ? TryingToDo (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC) comment written by DasSoumik (talk · contribs) [21][reply]
DasSoumik (talk · contribs), why did you sign as TryingToDo (talk · contribs) in the comment above? [22] JBchrch (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch i do edit from phone so was trying to copy paste from my previous comment on this discussion(from here [23]). But I had copied wrong user's id that is my mistake and also my phone's problem. I was coping my sigh from previous discussion of my sign on this discussion. So didn't notice this. Thank you. DasSoumik (talk)
DasSoumik, gotcha. Be careful when doing that. Regarding your argument: you are arguing for a form of WP:INHERITED notability, which is not sufficient. Again, WP:ORGCRITE applies here. JBchrch (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch thank you for pointing out my mistake regarding signature which I didn't notice. Next time surely I'll be careful about my signature. DasSoumik (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Cmar[edit]

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

appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately, because checking might show that some of them might have notability otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm generally skeptical of notability for reality show contestants, but I think she's a perfect example that they can be notable. First, she appeared in three separate seasons of the show, including an all stars season. This eliminates any WP:BLP1E concerns, and the all stars inclusion indicates that she's more notable than the average Top Chef contestant. Secondly, she's been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that goes well beyond the WP:ROUTINE coverage one might expect while a reality show is airing. The Boston Herald profiled her (and her kitchen). Boston Magazine reviewed her doughnut shop and her catering business. And Eater has covered her cooking career [24][25]. Of course most of these mention Top Chef (it would be weird not to), but the articles are about Cmar, not the show. pburka (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of in-depth coverage to demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. As outlined by Pburka, WP:BLP1E is not a problem. Coverage demonstrates Cmar's notability extends beyond Top Chef and exceeds that of your average reality show contestant. Samsmachado (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pburka and WP:BASIC, including because the coverage for this type of reality show contestant (or, at least this contestant) includes a focus on their career as a chef; I was also able to find 2013 Boston Herald coverage to add to the article as a reference. Beccaynr (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not all Top Chef articles are the same. The subject meets GNG with significant coverage, including the NYT and Boston Magazine (both currently included in the article). Thank you to Pburka for the assessment, with which I agree --Kbabej (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 02:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Ransom[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a software engineer and entrepreneur, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for software engineers or entrepreneurs. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're technically verifiable as having jobs -- the notability test requires evidence of the significance of their work, not just verifying that their work exists. The strongest notability claim here is that a magazine in her hometown named her one of "30 rising local tech stars" in a local-interest listicle, which is not in and of itself a notability-clinching award -- and other than that listicle, three of the other four footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published website of her own company, a short blurb on the website of her own alma mater, and a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions in the first person on the website of an advocacy organization that isn't a media outlet. There is one footnote here that's genuinely solid coverage in a reliable source (Forbes), but a person needs a lot more than just one of those to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forbes story is a contributor story. I feel it fails WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the Forbes article is not acceptable, sources mentioned by Beccaynr make her notable. Chirota (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I welcome more comments regarding the sources found by User:Beccaynr. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the border to keep. Sandstein 18:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nubera (GetApp)[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A review of the sources and a WP:BEFORE search all shows mere announcements, press releases, and hits in other unreliable sources lacking editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simple brochure article by UPE. The only highlight is that references, if it possible (Which I didn't think it was), are totally rank. scope_creepTalk 13:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked the number of sources and they look pretty decent. Entrepreneur, TechCrunch, The Next Web, Mergr and Information week. The article itself might need some work but I haven't found any blatant signs of promotion or advertising. Furthermore, I see this page no different from the other Gartner's acquisitions. The company seems notable in the software industry as it is literally a directory and review guide for businesses, - something like Yellow Pages directory. The company has been acquired by Gartner and it is still active and operates as a separate entity in its area of review business. Here are the other Gartner's daughter companies that have Wikipedia pages:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEB_Inc.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Advice Idunnox3 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only two publications that might be revised are published on the Crunchbase but since they are actual articles (not company’s profile), I’m not so sure about those two in particular but the rest of the sources look good.--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate any additional insight! Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails to satisfy WP:NCORP, indeed WP:ARTSPAM CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gartner, the subsidiary is not separately notable from the parent company that has owned it for a majority of its existence. BD2412 T 03:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: SIGCOV in three TechCrunch sources. The rest don't establish SIGCOV but they don't need to (an article which passes GNG doesn't magically become crap if you include more references). I'm not seeing a lack of notability here: AfD is to determine whether an article is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, not pass judgment on whether its subject is stupid. jp×g 23:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of good coverage, such as in-depth at Techcrunch also in Entrepreneur.Peter303x (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plainly not spam and passes WP:GNG with the coverage that is currently provided. Merging doesn't seem appropriate given how specific the content is to this company. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Abdullayev[edit]

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

I do not see why the person is notable. Certainly not as a football players, he fails WP:NSPORTS, and the rest of the article is incomprehensible POV (is he really notable for telling THE TRUTH to the Armenian prime minister? What the fuck?) Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. nearlyevil665 20:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article looks like it is poorly translated from the Azerbaijan Wikipedia. The truth seems to be a reference to that he confronted the Armenian prime minister because of the alleged genocide of Azerbaijanis by Armenians [26]. Out of curiosity, since this is an imprisoned politician and a video blogger from a non-english speaking country, was a WP:BEFORE conducted in his native media before the Afd? Alvaldi (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Azerbaijani Wikipedia article is currently nominated for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is famous in Azerbaijan but not for his encyclopedic activity or something like that. --NMW03 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 01:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Savio[edit]

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

Fail of WP:GNG. References are either to primary sources or to blog sites. nearlyevil665 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-05 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 22:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akash K Aggarwal[edit]

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

DEPRODed w/o explanation, no sufficient significant, independent coverage, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nomination, no significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More contents (not trivial mentions) with reliable sources have been added now. Please go through the references in the article. Over the past decade, India has made unprecedented progress toward LGBT equality and LGBT activist Akash K Aggarwal has made immense contribution (most notably activism against Section 377). He is also a leading accessory designer in bollywood industry (see the article for more) . I think he meets WP:GNG and we should keep this article. Nalbarian (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The coverage seems to be mostly about the celebrities who wore what he designed while appearing in fashion shows, not him or his career. The guy is successful, but I'm not seeing much about him specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that reliable source coverage prior to the recent sexual misconduct allegations was insufficient to meet WP:GNG and also insufficient to classify EDP445 as a public figure for the purposes of including the allegations per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDP445[edit]

EDP445 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had been deproded, beside of the accusations which had to be removed per BLPCRIME no signs of sufficient notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG so let seek consensus CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a case of TOOSOON. I agree with CommanderWaterford that outside of the predator accusations, there really isn't much notable you can write about him, that's why he has never had an article on Wikipedia prior to the accusations. Besides, just look at all the other issues that this article has and has had previously. BLP vandalism, BLPCRIME violations, the use of possibly unreliable sources. The article seriously just shouldn't exist yet until more becomes of his situation. Maybe then there will be more to write about.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. EDP445 passes WP:NOTABLE. He had thousands of YouTube subscribers, and millions of views. His jokes and videos were widely used on the Internet. Outside of his recent odious actions, he was a notable YouTube personality. However, this article will need Semi or Extended Protection to stop vandalism, whether fits. Modern Major General  I quote the fights historical 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Views and subscribers are not a valid measure of notability per WikiProject Youtube consensus.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 22:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Locomotive207. It seems that the article was created on April 21, 2021 (one day after YouTuber Chet Goldstein uploaded the now-deleted video which raised the sexual misconduct allegations) by a user who, in subsequent edits, included the allegations into the article, which could suggest that the article was created in reaction to these allegations, violating the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. It doesn't seem that EatDatPussy445 was covered much in the media outside of these allegations so the article would likely not grow beyond the size of a stub anyway.--Kzkzb (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly seeing any RSes covering him. Maybe some day people will understand that being a meme or the subject of a flash-in-the-pan controversy within a particular subculture doesn't mean you need a Wikipedia article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ENT, WP:PERP and WP:ANYBIO. Mass fail on notability grounds. ——Serial 10:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was certainly a large content creator with a large audience, however he never received enough coverage by reliable sources to be notable by Wikipedia’s standards. He’s only been in the news because of the allegations, and even then the coverage has been limited. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 16:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that some of the !votes here have been disproven, such as those stating "no sources", etc. without further clarification. Sources were presented in the discussion, so the notion that there are no sources is false. These !votes did not mention anything about the depth of coverage of the sources presented, so taken verbatim, the statements are actually false. Nevertheless, even after properly dismissing these !votes, those that remain and are guideline based clearly lead to a consensus for the article to be deleted. North America1000 01:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Book of Lists[edit]

The Royal Book of Lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book; article effectively unsourced, and a search finds no secondary RS — fails WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK. (PS: Also likely COI editing, but don't let that affect your reasoning.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found this: McLean, Willa (March 23, 2002). "Book of lists takes readers on a Royal romp through history". The Guelph Mercury. Guelph, Ontario. p. C4. (879 words) - Bri.public (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Times Colonist reference is not very long, I'm not sure I would call it substantial as it is one of several reviews in an article. I feel that the review is trivial, so #1 of WP:NBOOK is not met. Is the Guelph Mercury review longer? None of the other criteria at WP:NBOOK are met. Cxbrx (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most charitable outcome would be WP:TNT, but nobody other than the author seems to have any interest in it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not the usual fare for a book article. Where are the reviews? scope_creepTalk 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No meaningful reviews, no sources.  — sbb (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero source. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient sources, limited reviews, and author also lacks the criteria of WP:AUTHOR [[27]]. RV (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No in-depth reviews or sources. Does not meet WP:BKCRIT. --Kbabej (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that this is not notable at the moment. Several !votes are for draftifying, but also acknowledge that no reliable in-depth sources can be found and draft space is not for storing articles on the off chance that sources become available soon. Randykitty (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euphoria (visual novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources (WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS.

The only review is from Capsule Computers, which accepts volunteer writers and does not appear to be reliable (noticeboard mention). I am not sure about the content of The Anime Encyclopedia, but assuming significant coverage of the game (and not the anime), that would make 1 source. Every other source are product pages, directory entries or very brief listings -- nothing that would come close to significant coverage. The game has simply not received reviews from reliable outlets. Mainstream Western magazines of the time would not have covered an eroge game and I have no way to search adult-rated Japanese magazines on the off chance they have. Custom reliable source search does not return any usable results.

(Article moved to mainspace from declined draft, so taking to AfD since draftify no longer applies. I previously reviewed and declined the draft on the same notability grounds, although a couple new sources were added since.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 17:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's safe to say that major outlets wouldn't cover this due to its extreme subject matter. Whether you think that's a flaw of the notability system that something disgusting but with high production values could get ignored, the fact is that it would undoubtedly be considered non-notable and fails WP:GNG with the current sources provided.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If new sources are found and this survives deletion it should be moved to Euphoria (video game).--67.70.101.238 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a Visual Novel, not a game. The text-to-play ratio lies heavily for the text (and other means of VNs). Also, it's euphoria, not Euphoria. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion came to the exact opposite conclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_95#Visual_novel_as_a_genre and I haven’t seen anything newer to discount that. Also, attempts to remove visual novels form List of video game genres have failed for the same reason. Finally there was a clear consensus in December 2020 to move Clannad (visual novel) to Clannad (video game) for reasons similar to what I mentioned. Long story short, the idea that visual novels are not video games is not the current consensus.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ZXCVBNM, how does this review fails to fit in as a notable source? It is (among other things) an established review site, with a cadre of writers and more than adequate Alexa score to witness for its notability. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even established sites like that may not count as WP:RS, and Alexa scores do not count in determining reliability. For Wikipedia's standards, which are very stringent, Lewdgamer would be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source. Often, if something is not from an established and widely-recognized news organization, websites are vetted by experienced Wikipedia editors to determine if something can be counted as a reliable source or not. For anime/manga-related topics, for example, you can find a list of reliable sources here: WP:A&M/RS. Sandtalon (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't get my meaning as to the significance of Alexa rank: it proves this site/online magazine is accepted and popular. As to the rest of your arguments, I think they are circular. Instead of arguments why this site isn't a valid source, The claim is basically "it's not a reliable source because it isn't".
    I am aware of the recommended list for anime and manga, however none of the sources there specializes in eroge, as evident by searching for explicit eroge coverage. This one does. It stands through what Wikipedia need as a reliable source on its subject. It holds a cadre of editors and journalists and cover the genre pretty well. Really, it's all that we can ask for in an eroge valid source. It's mission statement fits in perfectly - LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition.
    Of cource, you may think that explicit eroge shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia. This is a valid sentiment, but with Wikipedia's coverage of hardcore porn I believe it is moot. אילן שמעוני (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All that being said, I think we should discuss adding lewdgamer.com to the reliable sources, for eroge content. Would you object raising this in the anime and manga sourcing? אילן שמעוני (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want it to be added, raise it on the talk page of that list of anime/manga reliable sources. Also, with the Alexa thing, just because a site is popular doesn't mean that it is reliable. To give an extreme example, the Daily Mail is very popular, but it in no way is reliable. Popularity is no measure of reliability. As for circularity--yes, it is kind of circular, and you can take issue with Wikipedia's epistemology (I don't think it's perfect myself), but the fact remains that it is the English Wikipedia policy that has been reached by consensus. (The specific guidelines are: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.") Sandtalon (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some private view, not affecting this discussion: I have heard about euphoria years before I actually read it, and from many sources (none of which is acceptable as source. I talk about discussions in forums, reddit etc.). So for myself, I am sure of its notability. Of cource, the fact I know this is irrelavent. But I will say - euphoria stands out high in the genre for its depth as well its high-quality delivery of a very shocking story. Both its fame and notoriety preceded it - years before it was translated to English. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to find two sources from the Japanese language wiki article. https://www.menscyzo.com/2021/04/post_189102.html this one is run by Cyzo [ja] and is an adult-oriented news site. Not entirely sure of how credible this one is https://otapol.com/2017/08/post-83121.html. curious if other people think just the first one would satisfy WP:GNG. Daiichi1 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe OTAPOL is published by Cyzo as well. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's two reliable sources for the article: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2014-08-09/mangagamer-adds-euphoria-the-house-in-fata-morgana-eden-visual-novels/.77467 and https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2016-05-21/mangagamer-announces-new-titles-hardcopies-and-anime-expo-guests-at-acen/.102369 I may add them shortly, or someone else may. (In addition, and I know this isn't in the GNG or anything, but I would be in favor of inclusion because it has an anime adaptation, which to me, indicates at least some amount of notability.) Sandtalon (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources are not significant coverage and are only a little better than press releases (one of the is a literal press release). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is a solid decision at this point. At this point it is safe to say that numerous sources point to the same mark. While individually they may not follow the "trusted source" guidelines, the sheer number and the fact that WP:A&M/I totally lacks any coverage of eroge sourcing that may be used are less relevant. As a side note, the unhealthy issue of no trusted sources for eroge content must be addressed. אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how WP:GNG works. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG is irrelevant to a genre that it does not cover. Using WP:GNG as-is will dictate deletion of any explicit eroge content. In other words, as of now WP:GNG is not relevant to extreme eroge content.
    This is an issue that should be addressed, either by less-preferred discussions such as this one that struggle to determine each article by itself, or by a definitive guidelines how valid sourcing of such content must be done. Since the latter is not available now, we are forced to cast verdict by the former. As I said the sheer number of less-than-acceptable sources combined proves notability. I admit that I do not like this procedure but as it stands its the only thing we can go on. Again - as is, extreme eroge is out of the scope of WP:GNG. Please address this argument. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still undecided. Daiichi1 did some great finds, as both sources he cited have non-trivial coverage of the VN and seem reliable. However, WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." And that is the case here, where both are owned by the same organization, Cyzo. So we'd still need more, and I will try to check all possible Japanese sources and hope to find something. ANN citations above do not establish notability, as the first one is citing the announcement, and the second one is an actual press release (WP:PRIMARY). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning Weak Keep: From what I've read in the AfD, it is possible that the required sources needed exist, but I'm not quite convinced yet. Link20XX (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The above sources do not constitute significant coverage. It would be impossible to write an article that does justice to the topic based on the above sources: The ANN articles cannot be cited for anything, being a press release and an "article" that almost entirely quotes another source. Someone with a stronger stomach than me can wade through the Cyzo articles' reliability, but those citations are not strong enough on which to base an entire encyclopedia article.
    As for the argument above, no, the GNG applies to this topic as it universally applies across WP as policy. There are many topics subject to systemic bias on WP based on cultural import and lack of third-party coverage and yet extreme eroge is not one of them. czar 05:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also do not draftify. If the source material does not exist, draftifying is an end run around AfD. None of the below material has satisfied the aforementioned fundamental lack of sources. czar 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar, can you please elaborate on the GNG applies to this topic as it universally applies across WP as policy. There are many topics subject to systemic bias on WP based on cultural import and lack of third-party coverage and yet extreme eroge is not one of them.? I did not get what it means. אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every article on Wikipedia is justified through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (the GNG) There is no exemption or "out of scope" from the GNG, as implied above, nevertheless an exemption for "extreme eroge" topics. czar 22:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there should be such exemption. else any article about a subject that did not yet got a list of reliable sources gets automatically deleted, which is a. an absurd, and b. bad for WP declared intention to cover all subjects. In such cases the list of reliable sources must be expanded to cover the neglected subject. Alternatively, some subjects (such as extreme hentai) may be declared "out of bounds" - I personally don't think this should be done, but maybe that's just me. Following the rules is good, but when the rules are found lacking common sense should be used, and the rules should be updated. It surprises me that I am quite alone here who see this as a problem that must be addressed. אילן שמעוני (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A source does not need to formally listed as a reliable source on a project's list to be considered reliable. Editors are expected to assess sources for reliability on an ad hoc basis in AfD threads, and often do. That said, I don't mean to speak for Czar, but they didn't primarily dispute reliability here, but rather the significant coverage prong of the GNG. — Goszei (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but now I'm really confused. One of the sources above is a site with multiple registered reviewers (i.e. not anyone can come and publish a review) and at least one editor. In what this site fail to be a source? I thought it's because it's not listed, but apparently that's not a consideration. And another thing - English is not my native language, and I fail to decipher but rather the significant coverage prong of the GNG. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG can be thought of as three main prongs: significant coverage, reliability, and independence. Editors have generally agreed that an article should be kept if it has more than one source that satisfies all three conditions.
An example of a source that lacks significant coverage is one that only says the topic's name. An example of a source lacking reliability is a blog. An example of a source lacking independence is a press release from a company.
I think most of the discussion above is about whether the sources given are blogs or not. Blogs are not reliable because anyone can make one and say anything they want. The things that separate an average blog from a reliable source are usually (1) evidence that an author was published somewhere known to be reliable (2) there is evidence of meaningful editorial oversight (3) the source has been cited by other sources known to be reliable. — Goszei (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To address the LewdGamer review in particular, I think the editors above have raised concerns because we don't have any information on this Rillania person ([30]), and the authors of the editorials on the site ([31]) are similarly just anonymous people on the Internet ([32], [33], [34]). It seems to fall under a "fansite" or "blog". "Reliability" is a bit of a confusing concept on Wikipedia, but it captures the ideas of "credibility" and "authority" of a source. — Goszei (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so I did a bit of searching - basic stuff. LewdGamer has About 400,000 results in Google, and one of the reviewers has over 6,000. I think 400,000 results are well above anything that the editor/admins/site reviewers can reasonably generate by themselves, and over 6,000 seems to me significant. All said, I stand by my claim that LewdGamer coverage of euphoria us a valid source, though obviously others disagree. The high Alexa rating also hints for a site that is popular and not some niche blog, I believe. אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not draftify. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources mentioned above are significant and reliable and independent—and, in fact, most are none of those. I looked for sources with the WP:GAMESOURCES custom Google searches and found nothing. Woodroar (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC) 2 weeks later: updated my !vote because I don't believe this is worth being draftified, either. Nobody has been able to find sources that are significant and reliable and independent. LewdGamer certainly isn't reliable, as discussed here. Other editors have mentioned MensCyzo.com and Otapol.com but given no reason why we'd consider them reliable. They don't bear any of the hallmarks of reliable sources, which I outlined here. I empathize with editors who've worked on the article, but here's the thing: if reliable sources are found next year or next month or tomorrow, we're going to have to start over no matter what. We don't write articles and then find sources to support our claims. The sources absolutely need to come first. If sources turn up, or if MensCyzo and Otapo are somehow determined to be reliable, then we'd still need to write the article based on them. Literally everything here is original research or based on unreliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. LewdGamer.com answers the criteria for a reliable source. LewdGamer coverage of this title is quite extensive, following both VN and anime releases: [35], [36], [37], [38] and more. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LewdGamer is not a reliable source. Copying my comments from your WT:VGRS thread here: The writers are pseudonymous with no indication of a background in journalism. In fact, anyone can register an account on the site. There's no masthead listing their editor(s) or editorial policies. They are cited only a handful of times by reliable sources, which suggests that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. Woodroar (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again - registering doesn't grant any access to write articles. Point about pseudonyms is correct, but I don't think it's relevant. there is a clear mission statement: LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's relevant. Everything is relevant. Read our guidelines at WP:RS, our supplement at WP:RSP, and discussions at WP:RSN and WT:VGRS. We need to be able to evaluate the article, the author, the editor, the publisher, and how reliable sources treat the site in question. The site itself tells us nothing about itself and reliable sources largely ignore it. The fact that they'll tweet out some vague editorial statement but won't add a masthead or name their editors or writers speaks volumes here. Woodroar (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided one more source as to LewdGamer reputation, including name of editor etc. LewdGamer is a reliable source, for the topic in question, eroge gaming. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for euphoria notability:

In this article euphoria is one of two chosen examples of art style.
This article is cited, among others by Joleen Blom, Utrecht University. Also - I do not know if this is of importance - in Lukas R.A. Wilde: Kyara revisited: The pre-narrative character-state of Japanese character theory.
.

Sources for LewdGamer credibility:

DailyDot, Mission statement and editorial team, Ethics policy, Citing LewdGamer as a trusted source, including irl name of LewdGamer founder and quatations, interview with one of LewdGamer editors, and most importantly a case in which LewdGamer reported unethical conduct of one of its sponcers. This conduct on behalf of LewdGamer is a firm testimony of high standards.
VisualNovel.info, has columns by editors with irl names. cites LewdGamer as source. אילן שמעוני (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

another notability reliable source: CapsuleComputers. Mission statement. Staff. euphoria review. אילן שמעוני (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the Daily Dot article? Because it's thoroughly critical of LewdGamer, their staff, and their coverage in general. It also points out their connection to Gamergate—though the site's "head content editor" has walked back their stance to "neutral". The DD article alone is enough to discredit LewdGamer. That a bunch of unreliable sites like visual-novel.info cite them is irrelevant. As I mentioned earlier, a few reliable sources do as well, but it's minimal and suggests that they aren't reputable. The DD article explains why that is.
CapsuleComputers doesn't appear to be a reliable source. They have named writers and editors, yes, but I'm not seeing any background in journalism, and they also don't appear to be cited regularly by reputable sources. As for the Image journal source, it's a single mention in a caption, which is beyond trivial.
I suggest reading the policies and guidelines that I linked earlier. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—it has to be all of those, at the same time—not "the subject is mentioned somewhere online". Similarly, source reliability depends on a variety of factors, including the identities and backgrounds of the writers/editors and how reputable media views them, not simply real names publishing something on a website. Woodroar (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is false for the topic at hand. The criticism is regarding LewdGamer acceptance of controversial topics such as rape of minors - which is one of the backbones of extreme eroge.
The rest of the criticism is about LewdGamer's fans Free Speech policy. - again, irrelevant to our discussion. Please read carefully what the criticism is about. It bears no relevance to the issue of the LewdGamer's reliability.
The claim regarding CapsuleComputers lack of reputation from reliable source is also false. It is cited in The Observer in an article about the computer game Metro 2033. (btw, it is also cited in WP article Nero (Devil May Cry), just a tidbit).
Looking into the sources provided more thoroughly before issuing such claims is advisable.
I have already read the policy articles you mentioned.
אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding It also points out their connection to Gamergate - this also, is false. Nowhere in LewdGamer itself there is support for GamerGate threats, and the editor-in-chief denounced GamerGate in twitter. Here again you attribute fans comments to LewdGamer itself. This is once more mixing LewdGamer's strict policy of free speech with LewdGames stance. I understand (and sympathies) with the anger about GamerGate, but it has nothing to do with LewdGame stance. BTW, in case you missed this - I think euphoria is beyond morally wrong. But it's an important, notable and all too popular game. Do not mistake my will to have an article about euphoria with identifying or accepting it. אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to bring up CapsuleComputers at WP:VG/S or WP:RSN but I doubt you'll get a different answer. Source analysis is something I've done for years, both on Wikipedia and in my day job, and there's nothing remarkable about CapsuleComputers. They don't appear to employ professional journalists or editors, and they're not cited by reliable sources. Looking through Google News, virtually every mention of "capsulecomputers" is in an image credit—ironically, mostly for content they don't own—and not for their original reporting. That's true of the Observer source you mention. (Also, that's a student newspaper, so we wouldn't consider it a reliable source in any case.)
And back to LewdGamer, the Daily Dot clearly considers all of this important: "It’s hard to write about LewdGamer without mentioning Gamergate", "LewdGamer came about during Gamergate’s first few months, and Caldwell himself was an initial proponent of the hashtag", Caldwell "no longer supports Gamergate...But the language he uses in the Discord and the way his staff manages LewdGamer is endemic of a larger problem in the porn games world", criticism of the "adult news site’s community standards", "catering to a readership that acts like Gamergaters", "squeamish editorial world sending smut peddlers to a site filled with readers complaining about multiculturalism". The Daily Dot criticizes the readers, yes, but it's also criticizing LewdGamer's editor(s) and staff for cultivating that readership. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on User:אילן שמעוני's effort to look for sources. Although some question the reliability of them, that can be discussed outside AFD. enjoyer -- talk 23:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is having spent effort in any way related to notability? They have not demonstrated that they understand RS. And AFD is literally the place to discuss if the reliability criteria of sources for GNG is met. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problem is that in this discussion the question regarding source reliability started honest, then answered then started to slip ever closer to non relevant moral judgement of the sources. All the questions regarding source validity had been addressed, the rest is just irrelevant rants that do not contribute to the discussion and create white noise. אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If moral judgments have been made about LewdGamer, they've come from the Daily Dot source. And I wouldn't even call them moral judgments, but the DD pointing out serious breaches of journalistic ethics—like siding with GamerGate, an obviously false harassment campaign. Look, there's only so much direct source analysis that we, as editors, can do. We can see if a source's writers are professionals (in this case, no) or if their editors are professionals (no), or if they have a masthead (no), or if they've won any journalism awards (no). But eventually, we need to look at how reliable sources treat LewdGamer to see about that "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement. Do reliable sources cite LewdGamer? Only a handful of times, and always with attributed statements to make it clear that it's their source making the claim. Do reliable sources discuss LewdGamer as a source? Only in that DD article, and with plenty of criticism. So at best, LewdGamer isn't a reliable source because there are so many unknowns. At worst, LewdGamer is an unreliable source because the only reliable source speaking to their reputation is decidedly negative. Woodroar (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Czar. When you look at the full scope of what the WP:GNG and WP:RS entails, the bar is simply not met with the sources discussed so far. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: LewdGamer is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Reliable sources to cover extreme sexual gaming. While there aren't many participants, at least two (as of this edit) other experienced editors have questioned its reliability. Woodroar (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have requested help on Japanese Wikipedia, suggest to wait to see if there is a response in few days. אילן שמעוני (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unfortunately I have to agree with the general consensus that LewdGamer is not a reliable source, nor are most of the other sources presented. Link20XX (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like I said before in the discussion, I tried to look for native sources to establish notability. Sadly, I wasn't able to find anything aside from Cyzo coverage, making a fail of WP:GNG which requires multiple reliable significant coverage of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't rank 58 in The Visual Novel Database enough for notability? אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is not enough. Your issue is that there aren't enough reliable sources that would be enough to keep this article, regardless of "popularity." Popularity is not notability, and 58 isn't as high of a number as you are making it out to be. As The Visual Novel Database is itself a wiki (they even state so on their front page) it is not reliable. As I've stated before, print sources may be your key to keeping this article. lullabying (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: The article in itself has problems mainly with WP:ORIGINAL, as I can see some original analysis in the article that is not present in any of the articles. I'm inclined to give it a second chance because it does have a manga adaptation and an OVA adaptation, so it's somewhat known. However, sourcing still does seem to be an issue. Perhaps you can try looking for print sources. lullabying (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I concur mainly with lullabying. Searches for sourcing have not produced a satisfication of GNG, but the ones found do uniformly mention the game's notoriety/infamy in the eroge community. A manga adaptation and an OVA adaptation are further suggestion that there's some notability here. I think this circumstantial info is enough for a second chance at finding sources. — Goszei (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • lullabying and User:Goszei, can you please point as to what seem to original research? TIA. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Mostly the anime doesn't follow the virtual novel plot, it rather display scenes that could fit into each of the plot lines"; ""Apart from having the same characters, it bears little resemblance to both the virtual novel and the anime"; these are statements that are based on opinion. Unless these are statements specifically made by a reputable news source I would advise against including them. But let's not get off topic and focus on the bigger issue at hand, which is the lack of sources this article has. lullabying (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't know what to say to this. It's based on knowing the VN, anime and manga content. However, if there's an agreement that it should not be there, I will remove it if no one else would. אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: The game ranks 58 in popularity in The Visual Novel Database. It also has top rankings in several categories. Safe to say this covers notability. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That doesn't indicate notability since The Visual Novel Database is a user-submitted database, meaning anyone can edit entries. The front page even states "This website is built as a wiki, meaning that anyone can freely add and contribute information to the database, allowing us to create the largest, most accurate and most up-to-date visual novel database on the web." This means that the source may be unreliable. You should probably look towards print sources as I've previously suggested. lullabying (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It rather shows quite accurately popularity, as it's voter's base is over 14,000 people. If a VN is very popular (rank 58 is really high) isn't that denotes notability? Surely, WP has to cover the top VNs there are. I would be very surprised if not. אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Popular" doesn't mean "notable." See WP:POPULARITY. lullabying (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Popularity is only related notability in the sense that the more popular something is, the more likely a subject is to have third party significant coverage. It doesn't help if you can't find the sources though. Page views at an enthusiast website absolutely doesn't prove notability in the Wikipedia sense. I feel like multiple people have already mentioned this. You really gotta drop this approach. It's a dead end. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may be dead end, but I appeal to common sense. There are no sites that covered this topic, hence we can only judge popularity through other means, and The Virtual Novel Database is an excellent place to judge VNs popularity. אילן שמעוני (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per lullabying and Goszei. Link20XX (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly support draftifying, but if it goes that route there needs to be some sort of condition there, like WP:SALTing and/or requiring sending it through WP:AFC first or something, because there's some WP:IDHT sentiments going on with some of these keep votes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTIFY says AfC is used in cases like these, which was my assumption when commenting above. I don't think a pre-emptive salt is needed unless something unseemly happens. — Goszei (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally already been moved from draft to mainspace with the edit summary "problems fixed". That same editor currently doesn't understand how it doesn't meet the GNG. Not hard to see where this is headed a couple weeks after the article is draftified and no one is paying attention anymore... I'm just saying I don't trust their decision making on the topic of notability or reliable sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the innuendo that I would try to sneak it back. This ad-hominem is totally uncalled for. אילן שמעוני (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiples editors now have informed you of the very basic concept of "popularity =/= notability", and yet you continue to fight against it. It's not an adhominem, it's that I fundamentally dont have faith in your understanding in policy and guidelines, and that's why I don't trust you to make call on draft publishing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citing you: "Not hard to see where this is headed a couple weeks after the article is draftified and no one is paying attention anymore" is a blunt suggestion that I will not adhere to basic rules. This us ad-hominem per se. While you may think I do not understand some rules, insinuating I will blatantly go against basic rules is a personal accusation, and yet you attempt to cover it with excuses.
In this discussion it is evident that while I am at the stage of learning EN:WP rules, I adhere to them. The question of reliable source, for example, went on to me doing evident effort to find sources that adhere current guidelines. There is no basis to the accusation I will blatantly try to work behind the back of the participants in this discussion. This is both unethical conduct and a direct breach of WP basic ideology. I do not deserve this. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats...a bit extreme, but I've struck that part and clarified my point. I still stick with what remains though - your views on reliable sourcing and notability dont currently gel with enwiki's approach, and you're exhibiting a lot of IDHT behavior. That's a valid reason to suggest that, should it be draftified, that it require some sort of extra review before being published, whether that be by AFC, an Admin, or community review. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The point is I regard rules and consensus as what counts. I do try to persuade, but it's evident here that the majority judgement as to the rules, in my view, greatly outweighs my own judgement about how the rules should be applied. I have tried to open a discussion regarding some modifications to the rules, but not for euphoria which is most likely doomed to be deleted. The point is - discussion, persuasion by arguments, consensus. I totally accept this, and this guides me throught my work in HE:WP, where I function as monitor and apply rules I do not agree with. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General questions: I am familiar with the rules on HE WP, not EN WP. Does breaking a long discussion using secondary header accepted, When a lengthy discussion has clear division? Also: Is mentioning users that participated with delete/draftify/keep considered "canvassing"? (new term to me. We use "rallying"). אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is under a level three heading ("===") so any subheadings should be level four or greater ("====") though split headings are usually discouraged. It's fine to mention users who have participated already when there is new information or a genuine question for them, but mentioning prior participants just to pull them back into the discussion would be badgering/canvassing. czar 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: I worked on the page a little bit and I'd rather not have everything deleted. Euphoria is certainly notable in the visual novel genre, but I don't think it quite meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet. Not really familiar with Wikipedia's polices, but finding credible sources for this game seems next to impossible at the moment. I'm fine with keeping it in the drafts until anything new pops up. Morganstedmanms (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines based upon the sources on the article and those brought up in this discussion - reliable sources that cover the topic do so in passing or are a press release, and sources that cover the game more extensively like 'LewdGamer', are unreliable. Waxworker (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn Missvain (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thage Brauer[edit]

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

Despite the claim that he competed at the 1912 Summer Olympics in the high-jump, I can find no evidence to support this. No-one of that name is listed as competing on Olympedia, and his name brings back no matches when searching that site too. Their are no results when for searching the IOC database and the Swedish Olympic Committee as well. The web archive link used to source the entry on the Norwegian wiki does not mention him either. I assume this is a mistake when the bio was created in 2007, so unless he's notable for some other reason, he fails WP:NOLY. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My own quick Google search brings up only mirror-sites and dubious websites of a mirror-like quality. Nothing specifically related to the Olympics or Olympic history sources. Hoax? Simple error? Mistake? Who knows. Not for staying, for sure. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and was quite close to proposing G3 speedy deletion before a review of the creator's other contribs led me to figure it was more likely a good-faith mistake than a hoax. There's no there there; archival sources get zero hits at all for the name. Vaticidalprophet 22:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is mentioned in the Official Report page 1290 as a competitor in high jump, but not in page 392 where the results are. So probably he was a DNS? --- Løken (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Definitely not a hoax, but (as Løken suggests) there's a decent chance that Brauer was a DNS. The source for his competing is Paweł Wudarsky's Wyniki Igrzysk Olimpijskich, which is no longer online. An archive link is here. That site was the best available back in 2007 when I created the Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's high jump article. Given that other sources do not include Brauer as competing, however, I'm inclined to think this is an error by Wudarsky. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want my use of the word "hoax" to imply any accusation towards you or other editors, I've striked-through the word in my !vote. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoaxes do happen, and it's not at all an unreasonable guess for an article claiming to be about an Olympian who doesn't show up in the usual sources. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are conflicting records, but many sources cite the performance of Thage Brauer at the 1912 Olympics, including Bill Mallon's The 1912 Olympic Games: Results for All Competitors in All Events, which is one of the more authoritative sources on the subject. This source has been build upon elsewhere by other Olympic statisticians (examples [39][40][41]. The OlyMadMen (the source of Olympedia) exclude Brauer from their lists, but they are just one source. Given the age, sometimes there is more art than science to interpreting the primary sources. The subject clearly existed, which is why the Swedish Olympic Committee originally had a profile on him (including his death in 1988) at this url. We need to note these facts clearly, but this is clearly not an error. SFB 15:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this, SFB. All those sources seem to be variations of the original SportsRef page, and the first one even states its data comes from SR. Isn't it more likely that the original inclusion on SR was an error, which has then been copied? Or possibly something along the same lines as a trap street for copyright violations? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Either the result was an error/trap by Mallon, or it's an omission by the OlyMadMen group. I can't find any material going into detail on the issue, so perhaps the best option is to merge the article content to Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's high jump and leave a redirect with categories? Brauer is at the very least a genuine person set to start the 1912 Olympics. SFB 20:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the related deletion-discussion on Wikipedia Norwegian Bokmål-edition, I asked for a deeper look in to the the swedish website of www.friidrottsstatistik.se and their sources and authors. There could also be some good sources mentioned at the sv:Svenska mästerskapen i friidrott#Källor-list. Best regards Migrant (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what about these swedish newspapers / Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives#Sweden of the time he is supposed to have been active ? I would guess those years to be somewhat between 1909-1930 according to this bioarticle data for birthyear. Best regards Migrant (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've written the Swedish Olympic Committee on the off chance that they happen to be able to solve this for us. /Julle (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Julle:. My hunch is that he was down to compete, but didn't show, or his bio has been confused with someone else. Worst case, if the article gets deleted, and he turns out to be notable, then WP:REFUND can be used. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish Olympic Committee had no information on Bauer, but was formed in 1913 and they weren't sure there couldn't be information in archives that hadn't been transferred to them. They referred me to sv:SCIF, who organised the 1912 Olympic Games. I've now written to them too. /Julle (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SCIF has promised to get back to me next week. /Julle (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A participant in the Bokmål AFD makes an interesting comment:

    There has been a Tage Brauer, who is possibly the same person. Svenska Dagbladet on 14 April 1988 appears to have had an obituary, which coincides with the stated date of death. Unfortunately, the article is not freely available online, but an excerpt can be seen here: https://tidningar.kb.se/1767385/1988-04-14/edition/0/part/1/page/20/?q=%22Tage%20Brauer%22&from=1910-01-01&to=2015-12-31&sort=asc. In previous birthday reviews, he is referred to as a [army] major and gymnastics director, and this may indicate a certain physique. But that does not mean that he was in the Olympics.

    @Julle: do you have access to SD back in 1988?
I tried as many open and closed searches with keywords like Tage, Thage, Brauer, T, Th, 1912, Stockholm, olympiska, höjdhopp etc. I could think about, but could not find further sources. Sam Sailor 19:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Sailor: I do! However, it's a short standard memorial advertisement with no biographical details. /Julle (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Julle.
There are book sources mentioning one Tage Brauer.[1][2][3][4] Would it be an idea to follow up on the comment on no.wp, I tidligere fødselsdagsomtaler benevnes han som major og gymnastikdirektör and search the archive you have access to for "Tage Brauer" and see, if any of the previous Födelsedag idag-mentions are more than merely one-liners? Sam Sailor 08:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Algutsboda sockenbok (in Swedish). Algutsboda hembygdförning. 2000. p. 386. ISBN 978-91-631-0125-0. Retrieved 10 May 2021. Major Tage Brauer gick igenom förutsättningarna, sedan fick man ordna försvaret av högkvarteret. Sigvard Fjällbrink fick som ställföreträdande hemvärnschef befälet. Man ordnade snabbt bevakning med poster runt skolan, och andra ...
  2. ^ Nordisk kriminalkrönika 1990 (in Swedish). SAGA Egmont. 2019. p. 971. ISBN 978-87-11-87337-3. Retrieved 10 May 2021. ... deltagande av flera landsfiskaler och fjärdingsmän, poliser och militärer i Blekinge och Småland, bl a 180 man från 111 i Växjö. Sistnämnda styrka stod under befäl av kaptenen och friherren Thorsten Rudenschöld och löjtnant Tage Brauer, som hadde det uvanlige oppdraget å jage en loffer med skyggelue og vaggende gang i de store skogene i søndre Småland.
  3. ^ Sveriges industriförbund (1937). Svensk industrikalender (in Swedish). p. XXVIII+XXIX. Retrieved 10 May 2021. Comment: by 1937, his rank is Captain and he lives in Växjö.
  4. ^ Svenska jägareförbundet (1946). Svensk jakt (in Swedish). p. 136. Retrieved 10 May 2021. Comment: by 1946, his rank is Major, he still lives in Växjö, and is Secretary of the Kronobergs läns jaktvårdsförening (=~Kronoberg Hunting Association)
The general archive I can access from home (Mediearkivet) is mainly from the 1990s and onwards, unfortunately. I've also checked SvD specifically, but found nothing (going back to the 1880s) about the officer Tage Brauer participating in the Olympics. /Julle (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update Following the excellent work from Julle and Sam researching the subject further, I'm happy for this to be withdrawn, with a note added to Brauer's biography saying he didn't take place, but the extra sources should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Facepunch Studios. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S&Box[edit]

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

Non-notable, as yet unreleased video game; only source cited is the company's own website, and a search finds only a single article in PC Gamer, which may or may not be RS. This may well turn into a notable thing in the fullness of time, but nowhere near there yet. Fails WP:GNG / WP:PRODUCT. (Possible alternative to deletion could be to redirect to eg. Facepunch Studios where there's already a section on this, but this article only came about when an earlier redir was removed, so not sure how that would go down.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. IceWelder [✉] 16:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment General comment, PC Gamer is undoubtably a reliable source. Because S&Box is a marketing name and the game is sometimes simply called "Sandbox", it's difficult to search. It's also referred to as "Garry's Mod 2". PCGamer has sustained coverage though, 5-6 articles. RPS, PCGamesN, PCGamesN 2, and Gry Online have also covered. Some early coverage, mostly brief, from years ago when it was announced in 2015 in VG247, Eurogamer, Venture Beat, and Gamespot. I'm tempted to still say WP:TOOSOON, though. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge + Redirect to Facepunch Studios. The coverage is there to affirm the game and that it is coming along, but now enough to really have a standalone article at this point, but we have a reasonable place to have a current info dump (the developer's page) until more about the game can be revealed. --Masem (t) 17:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, would Garry's Mod#Successor be a better target? IceWelder [✉] 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if they are calling it specifically a successor to Garry's mod. I know press are treating it as one but I don't know if the devs specifically are. But you have at least one target for a merge & redirect here. --Masem (t) 17:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge + Redirect to Facepunch Studios. If necessary it can be retargeted later, but the core is that the article is TOOSOON regardless. The AFD should not be held up simply because there are multiple possible targets. -- ferret (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge + Redirect to Facepunch Studios. I'd like this to have its own article eventually, but I agree with the points raised above. Merging would allow the work that's already been done to be preserved. If and when the game comes out, the S&box article could be restored and expanded. Tisnec (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist (+) 10:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monk (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band/musician. No independent coverage can be found in reliable sources. Uncited. Should be deleted per WP:NMUSIC. There are three related articles (Quiver (Monk album), Hush (Monk album), and Blink (Monk album) that should perhaps be considered alongside this page as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator - having read the arguments below, I think that this nomination should be withdrawn, as the subject seems to be notable by our criteria. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination fails WP:NMUSIC. Chirota (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep haven't done a full search yet but he does have a staff written bio at AllMusic here as well as four staff written album reviews linked from his discography section at the above link. This coverage usually indicates further significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: speedily deleted per A7 by User:Geni (A)[reply] ([42]).. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 09:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top Tier Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks reliable sources Sanketio31 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can't see any indication of importance and this could probably be CSDed under WP:G11. User3749 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is being covered in many reliable sources. It passes GNG. Clouthneah (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 0 notability and once I removed the patently unreliable blackhat SEO sources, we're left with one, a press release and there's nothing better to be found. TAXIDICAE💰 16:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I have tagged it under G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy too if possible...the company offers a wide range of innovative solutions to meet the diverse needs of clients. Get out of here. ——Serial 21:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covid hospitals in india[edit]

Covid hospitals in india (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOT - I do recognize the problem but Wikipedia is not a Webhost or a Newspaper, further those Info lack totally of sources. Had been draftified before and moved back. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Cross (cricketer)[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail GNG. He hasn't played cricket at the highest domestic level and hasn't umpired at the highest domestic level. His military endeavours, while admirable, don't satisfy GNG for military personnel. His involvement with club cricket doesn't satisfy CRIN. His 37 years at Haslar Hospital also don't satisfy any inclusion criteria. Searches for sources seem to be routine coverage surrounding his death in local newspapers so lacks SIGCOV. Overall fails GNG, CRIN and military personnel inclusion. StickyWicket (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't think there is enough material to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG (Part of Wisden Club Cricket Hall of Fame and recipient of Legion of Honour). Störm (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure about the Wisden Club Cricket Hall of Fame - it's an initiative of the Wisden Cricket Monthly magazine rather than the far more prestigious Almanack. My first impression was that the Legion of Honour would confer notability and I was about to vote Keep, but looking at its Wikipedia article I see: "American and British veterans who served in either World War on French soil, or during the 1944 campaigns to liberate France, may be eligible for appointment as Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, provided they were still living when the honour was approved." So hundreds of thousands must have been eligible to have received it, and it's arguably less significant than his MBE. JH (talk page) 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There's a lot of routine coverage on him, mainly about his involvement in D-Day and his involvement in club cricket in Hampshire. The Wisden coverage is the closest thing we get to SIGCOV, and again it's just one source. Weak delete for now unless more can be found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JH. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The four sources in the article (from three independent RSs) all constitute WP:SIGCOV, and there is enough content in them to build a reasonably decent-sized article. As such my !vote would be to keep, but I'm not really seeing why he warrants an article here. We don't have articles for everyone awarded the MBE or Legion d’Honneur, and being well-known in local cricketing circles doesn't carry much weight either. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The guy has a MBE and there is plenty of coverage, reams of it. More than enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. I suspect if there is sufficient deep search, much more will surface including reports at the National Archive at Kew. The whole is orientated towards his cricket career, but it should have a decent sized block on his military career. scope_creepTalk 18:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:CRIN or WP:NCRICKET.— A.A Prinon  Conversation 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on cricketing/GNG grounds, not too sure about military grounds though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Draft broadcasters[edit]

List of NFL Draft broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced (tagged since 2009) and simply an example of WP:NOTDATABASE. Any modern draft is going to have several broadcasters and analysts, including pretty much all of NFL Network and NFL guys from ESPN. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list seems organized, appropriate, and similar in quality to the other various lists of event broadcasters. --B (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • B, if you claim other lists are "similar in quality" then they should probably be brought up for AfD too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't say how it's notable though, even if it's WP:PRETTY.—Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Nobody lists draft broadcasters; it's just too daft. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's no justifiable reason not to keep an article which meets Wikipedia guidelines and contains sufficient references. Rillington (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rillington, in what world does 4 out of 12 references being YouTube on a list that goes back to the 1980s count as sufficient? Each year should be using several (reliable) sources to cover the massive amount of people each draft apparently had between gurus, reporters, hosts, and analysts. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which notability guideline does this meet? Note that an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list can be well sourced too.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep yeah, I don't like it. But that's not a reason to delete. I think it's silly. Also not a reason. But somehow, some way, this annual event (which used to be as bad as watching paint dry) has gained much traction in the news and in popular culture. Passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that this meets WP:LISTN, namely: 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. Sources need to talk about the grouping. It's not sufficient to WP:OR and cull the group and claim its now important.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Just no." To put in more policy-based language, I support the comments of Dissident93 and Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NFL draft coverage is referred to as a group by independent sources (see examples from Sports Illustrated[1] and SB Nation[2]). Thus it meets the guideline for WP:LISTN. The article needs a lot of work to find more reliable sources, but it shouldn't be deleted on a lack of notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/04/23/nfl-draft-coverage-broadcast-preview-espn-nfl-network
  2. ^ https://www.sbnation.com/2018/4/26/17284390/2018-nfl-draft-tv-broadcast-channels-schedule-networks
  • Keep Instead of deleting this... why don't we just fix it? I did a search to add some references about a week ago, and found (at least for the recent stuff) that there was 2+ sources available for each year's broadcasters (Just an example, a google search of "2020 NFL Draft broadcaters brings up: NFL.com [43], CincyJungle.com (not sure if its reliable)[44], Usatoday.com [45], Espn.com [46], ChicagoBears.com [47], Sports Illustrated [48] (just draft stations), Bleacherreport.com [49], Pro Football Newtwork [50], and more). We just need to add them to the article. Also, there has to be sources available for the info to be put into the article in the first place. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to improve or discuss further on talk page and renominate if you so desire. Missvain (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Roe Carr[edit]

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

Subject appeared on two TV shows, the reality TV competition, The Circle and a programme about dating (and apparently on Lorraine Kelly's Breakfast TV programme after she was 'blocked' from The Circle). This isn't really enough by any stretch of the imagination to warrant her own Wikipedia article. We would normally only write articles about winners of the most high profile TV shows. Carr didn't come close to winning and the coverage about her is almost entirely in relation to coverage of events in The Circle. At best I'd say this should be redirected to The Circle (British series 2). Sionk (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if we look at WP:NACTOR, it says the subject needs to have significant roles in multiple shows/films which I think is this case when the rule is applied as She appeared in a Dating documentary, about which a full length coverage is present at The Guardian. There are plenty other references for the Circle. She also appeared on Lorraine Kelly's Breakfast TV programme. I think per WP:NACTOR and WP:THREE , these references [51], [52], [53], [54] make her pass the bar of notability. Chirota (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she's appeared in one documentary and a reality tv show. We don't generally count reality show appearances as significant roles. Over the last few weeks, we've been getting rid of participants in the Indian reality tv show Big Boss with more significant presences. Furius (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not aware of Indian Big Boss participants loosing their articles here and not sure if it is comparable here. But as far as policy is concerned, I have seen she passes WP:NACTOR as she appeared in multiple productions in significant roles. Also, it is not acceptable to be prejudiced towards relaity show, as long as the show is notable. Chirota (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was working from things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Som Shekar, where people said things like "appearances in Big Brother don't count towards notability". If that's incorrect, then I'm willing to change my vote, but on the face of it, it looks to me like a double standard and one that plays right into criticism of wikipedia's anglocentrism. Furius (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion discussion of Som Shekar seems indicating Som Shekar participated only in a single show where 20+ participants participates. I am not much aware of Indian Big Boss, but I feel these two situations are not comparable. Chirota (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appearing in two reality shows is not significant roles in multiple shows/films. --hroest 18:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a documentary where she acted as per The Guardian source where she has lead role, so it counts I Guess. Chirota (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She acted in one documentary and two shows out of which acted in major roles in Date My Mom and The Circle (British TV series). So passes WP:NACTOR for which the actress need at least two major roles. Also, passes per WP:THREE. Kirtos67 (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Katie Carr appeared in multiple shows and has good set of references so she is eligible for notability. In the Circle she appeared till Episode 9, so she was having a main role there. So is true for Date my Mum. BK927 (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the references and rationale given by Chirota, the subject appears to pass WP:NACTOR hence we can keep the article. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be realistic, Date My Mum is not a notable TV show, and being interviewed on Breakfast TV is not a significant role in a notable film/show. The Circle is a notable reality show, but she appeared broiefly and was voted out early. There's no way by any stretch of the imagination she passes WP:NACTOR. Let's treat Wikipedia with some respect! Sionk (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Sionk This is a case of borderline notability where the subject barely passes the notability criteria but since it passes nonetheless I opined in favor of keeping it. This reference says date my mum to be a documentary, can you convince me that it isn't so? If its a non notable reality show as you are claiming I may change my vote, but that's not apparent from the references. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pennsylvania Railroad locomotive classification#K: 4-6-2. czar 05:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Railroad class K3s[edit]

Pennsylvania Railroad class K3s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable; nothing to suggest any reason why this should be included in an encyclopaedia. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create, 2017-11 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gender dysphoria. Missvain (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender euphoria[edit]

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

Not a notable neologism. An attempt to redirect to gender dysphoria was reverted, and discussion on that talk page suggests there is not WP:MEDRS coverage to justify any content on this neologism. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with gender dysphoria (Trimton (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)). As per Wikipedia guidelines, articles prove notability either via a topic specific notability guideline, or WP:GNG. I don't find any specific guideline applicable. GNG states[reply]
    • ""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
    • ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."
I just went through the search results for gender euphoria in Google News and Scholar (which includes Google Books). As per the sources there, gender euphoria fails GNG as a standalone article, because reliable sources are either primary or insignificant coverage. The insignificant coverage consists of mentions in connection with gender dysphoria, that's why I propose Merge. Coverage might be enough for a standalone article in two or three years. Trimton (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's not a neologism, being attested with the stated meaning since the 1990s [55][56]. I could see a case for a merge-and-redirect, but not deletion. As for the WP:MEDRS concern, the article whose abstract says that gender euphoria has yet to be rigorously defined contains, in the text, a brief review of what had been written to date about it. (As MEDRS observes, the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says.) A review section is naturally not as comprehensive as a review article, but it is enough to indicate that the term is attested and even defined, albeit imprecisely. McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review. There may only be a limited amount to be said, but we can say something, and the turns of phrase in the current text aren't so bad to start with; hence, merge. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I address these below. Crossroads -talk- 04:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The two sources cited for the term being used since the 1990s don't really do that. One refers to the name of a newsletter intentionally meant as a pun, rather than a defined medical phenomenon. The other appears to mention gender euphoria in the title only. OsFish (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Use as a play on words is still a use. The second does not mention it in the title, but in the text: I do not wish to suggest that a sex-change operation is the only way a womancan be(come) a man. Kate Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw (London: Routledge, 1994)provides an interesting account of the (im)possibilities of achieving gender euphoria through a sex change. Changing "dys-" to "eu-" is an obvious enough move, so it's not surprising the coinage has been around for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gender dysphoria is a medical topic, so sourcing about it, including about topics that purport to be its counterpart, need to comply with MEDRS. As one of the few sources on Gender euphoria states in its abstract, gender euhproia has thus far not been rigorously defined or operationalized within health research. It doesn't have enough non-MEDRS sourcing to stand on its own either, tbh. --Equivamp - talk 16:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @ 力 and XOR'easter: Status as a neologism (...neologismosity) has no causal relation to notability, or did I miss something? An article subject can fail notability even though its title is not a neologism. Conversely, an article subject can be notable even though its title is a neologism. In that case, we'd rename (to a plain English description), not delete, I would think, as per WP:NEO. Trimton (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, all possible combinations of the predicates "neologism" and "notable" are possible in principle. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a reason I used both words. It's fairly clear to me this is a neologism. While I don't think it's notable separately from gender dysphoria, opinions may differ. The term is a well-defined term, which is different than some of the articles that are nominated at AFD. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not a neologism, being at least dated to the 1990s as XOR'easter cites. I would support merge if it were a subordinate term to gender dysphoria, but it is on equal conceptual footing despite being a less common term. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does "equal conceptual footing" mean? --Equivamp - talk 23:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we sketched a tree of concepts related to gender, GD and GE would be at the same horizontal level of that tree. GE is not, for example, a subcategory or supercategory of GD. If it were, I think merging would be more reasonable. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no Wikipedia policy for inclusion based on this conceptual-footing theory of yours. --Equivamp - talk 18:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Equivamp is right, Jmill1806. Some concepts on the same "level", even opposites to Wikipedia-notable topics, are not themselves notable. They lack sufficient significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and thus fail Wikipedia's general notability criteria. They also fail subject-specific criteria. Take religions. Islam has an article but Non-Islam and London Woodland Witches do not (and should not, for now), even though some people use the concepts [57] [58] Trimton (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Equivamp and Trimton. You raise good points. Of course I'm aware there's no such policy. I'm just explaining it as part of my reasoning for WP:GNG. Policy is never going to have enough specifics to make every decision, so we need to Use Common Sense and think critically about each case. To me, it seems like the conceptual footing of the term helps us make sense of sources that use both GD and GE. Does that make sense? Jmill1806 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's not hard to include it on an equal conceptual footing. You'd just add a sentence somewhere that says something like "The opposite of GD is called gender euphoria, i.e., having positive feelings". You wouldn't need to make 50% of the article be about the concept. And presumably there's another word somewhere for the historically normal human existence, which is being so busy trying to survive that you didn't really spend a lot of time thinking about exactly how you feel about the relationship between your body and your identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Equivamp said, Gender dysphoria is a medical topic, so sourcing about it, including about topics that purport to be its counterpart, need to comply with MEDRS. In no way is this on "equal conceptual footing" with gender dysphoria (GD). GD is in the DSM-5; this is a vague concept ("not been rigorously defined or operationalized") that has been tossed around now and again in some papers. Regarding the claim that McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review, here is the entirety of what they say on it: Several major constructs have been identified and investigated as contributors to gender identity, including gender development, body image, gender dysphoria/euphoria, and genderqueer or nonbinary identity....Newer nonbinary measures allow for a full spectrum of identity measurement, assess both dysphoria and comfort in affirmed gender (sometimes called gender euphoria), and meet assumptions of longitudinal measurement, meaning TGD clients can take the same measure multiple times, regardless of where they may be in a transition process [32]. This is plainly not a secondary source giving significant coverage to this topic; it is a passing mention or a dic-def at best. This paper is in a dermatology journal (i.e., not the relevant fields of psychology or psychiatry). Further, this study of respondents to an online questionnaire is not a secondary source in the sense that WP:MEDRS requires: Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations....Any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies....primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive. Oh, and: Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are...its content being outside the journal's normal scope. The fact is that this topic lacks the secondary MEDRS sources needed to have an article. As for the idea that we can merge it, well, any such content will have to be removed from the GD article for failing MEDRS (the current text on this concept is cited to ethics and dermatology journals). Then we're left with a redirect not mentioned in the destination. The answer is deletion. Crossroads -talk- 04:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the idea of not mentioning gender euphoria in gender dysphoria: Not everything dermatology and bioethics journals write about is skin, hair and metaethics, or has to be. If they write about the psychological effects of dermatological treatment, or the ethical significance of GD/GE, they are writing in a medical capacity, and Wikipedia can cite them on what they write (in gender dysphoria) if they're secondary sources and due (which they are Bradford 2019 is in this case). Trimton (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with Trimton here, generally speaking. The sources are in scope for what they are discussing (they would be out of scope for, say, the pharmacokinetics of anti-androgens, probably). We're not trying to cover the quantitative success rate or side-effect incidence of a specific drug, but to see whether a concept has been attested and defined at least semi-formally. The relevant literature is going to be psychological and bioethical more than biochemical. Short but to-the-point discussions of a topic typically aren't enough to substantiate an article dedicated to it, but they can indicate that it's worth covering as part of a larger whole. Gender euphoria doesn't yet have a detailed definition with a breakdown into bullet-pointed criteria, but it's documented well enough that we can say the term is employed as the conceptual inverse of gender dysphoria without yet having a detailed breakdown into bullet points. A source calling a concept a major construct is an indication that it's significant enough to mention even if they don't pour out the word count about it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trimton, you may wish to read WP:MEDRS and the explanatory page WP:Biomedical information - medical ethics journals are generally focused on ethics, not on medicine, even if the topics overlap - for this reason, most ethics journals are only considered reliable for the ethical issues, not for any medical information they may contain by necessity. That being said, and I don't know if this would work here as I haven't investigated the sourcing in those journal articles, sometimes ethics journals cite MEDRS compliant sources for their sources, so they can be a good starting point to find better sources. Also note that there is a general consensus among editors, not just in medicine but elsewhere, that experts in one field publishing in a completely different field should be taken with a grain of salt - there's either better sources that can be found, or there's a reason that no expert in the specific field has said the same thing. Crossroads wasn't referring to the notability here but to the ability to merge content - the information present in this short article right now is virtually all biomedical information that requires MEDRS - and as such, if it is not MEDRS compliant, there is nothing to merge. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Berchanhimez, I did read them carefully and found nothing on either page that would support your specialisation requirement. Going beyond MEDRS and requiring specialisation makes (WP:COMMON) sense when the question is complex like, if a particular drug cures cancer. You won't get a reliable answer to that from a geriatric care ethicist. But GE is not that complex or WP:EXTRAORDINARY that bioethicists or dermatologists (that work with trans people) couldn't write about it with authority. It's simply the fact that trans people may not feel dysphoric about their entire body. They may like the parts that match their preferred gender, and some authors call this gender euphoria. The phenomenon exists widely enough (see the non academic sources linked, and more such as Advocate). Since we know it exists (in relevant subpopulations of the gender dysphoric), we should not apply anything beyond the letter of WP:MEDRS and WP:Biomedical information. The situation would be different with my hypothetical cancer drug. We wouldnt know if it works just from reading about it in a bioethics journal, and reading testimonies about 'how this drug cured me'. We do know here. Merge with gender dysphoria but I add: we must clarify that the word 'gender euphoria' isn't an established term like dysphoria is. Trimton (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe you missed the part of the section titled Biomedical journals which goes into how journals may specialize and common sense dictates it also means that writers may specialize. That doesn't even get into the fact that the two "MEDRS" in the article right now are small primary studies - which are explicitly stated to be virtually useless for MEDRS - only large, well conducted, and extremely necessary primary studies are usable as MEDRS, and others do not meet that criteria. Furthermore, you may wish to note that policies and guidelines are to reflect consensus, and if consensus is against a policy/guideline, it's the policy/guideline that's wrong/incomplete. The consensus among editors on the English Wikipedia is that for medical sources, sources written in journals or by experts from a completely different field must be taken with a large grain of salt and carefully evaluated, as I explained above. If that's not clear in the pages you're reading, then it's not that the consensus is wrong, it's that the page may need to be updated to clarify the consensus. The information in this article is not compliant with MEDRS sourcing requirements and as such there's nothing to merge - that doesn't mean that MEDRS-compliant information can't be added to another article, just that this short article has nothing of use. If you wish to challenge that consensus, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of gender dysphoria to discuss whether your desired additions should be made or not - but alas, that's out of the scope of this deletion discussion and I will not make further comment here on MEDRS issues relating to another page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • the quote from WP:MEDRS goes Journals may specialize in particular article types. A few, such as Evidence-based Dentistry (ISSN 1462-0049), publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere. Nowhere does it say we shall not use the writings of generalists. If what you say is consensus beyond my suggestion of common sense, why isn't it in the guideline? Where else is there evidence of this purported consensus? You are right that Ashley & Ells 2007 [bioethics] (and Benestad 2010, not in the article) are primary sources. But Bradford 2019 [dermatology] is a secondary source: The construct of Gender Euphoria has been suggested by several writers (25, 26). For instance, Ashley and Ells (25)(...) Trimton (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • See my 04:53, 25 April 2021 comment. MEDRS defines a secondary source as review articles and the like. It also specifically cautions against using introduction and conclusion sections of primary research, as I noted. Crossroads -talk- 23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • MEDRS says A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include and then what you cited, not This is limited to. Bradford fits the defintion precisely; it summarises two primary sources to provide an overview. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Trimton, this is exactly the problem - it summarizes two selected sources - that is not providing an overview, that is merely citing two sources. Providing an overview (what a secondary source does) requires examining multiple (not just two) primary sources and comparing, contrasting, and examining their methodology to provide an overview of all current research/understanding on a subject. Your attempts at wordsmithing your way into defining a primary source as a secondary one are disruptive and you need to stop. The introduction or discussion sections of primary studies are virtually never in depth enough to classify as secondary sources. Selective cherrypicking of sources in one primary source is not secondary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • maybe you should change the wording one or more in MEDRS. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gender dysphoria. The concepts are related, as different points of view on issues around gender assignment and gender identity. And for better or worse, the medicalized version is likely to be discussed more widely. Cnilep (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What I'm seeing offered in support of keeping or merging seems very thin. If it is likely to become a defined subject of sustained formal medical or psychological study, then we should wait until it does. Trying to piece together how a variety of people have used the collocation "gender euphoria" as if there is an established coherent underlying concept before that work has been done in the literature becomes original research. "The opposite of gender dysphoria" isn't enough. OsFish (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The meaning doesn't have to be "piece[d] together"; the references are perfectly clear that "the opposite of gender dysphoria" is what they mean. There's just not a lot to say beyond that. It's established and coherent, though not with enumerated diagnostic criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The opposite of phenomenon X" is not in itself a coherent definition. Diagnostic criteria do not all have a spectrum where both extremes indicate the presence of a condition. For example, the meaningful opposite of self-harm is not an obsessively safe and healthy lifestyle. It's just the absence of self-harm. This is why it is better as Wikipedians to wait until there is a coherent positive diagnostic description established in the literature.OsFish (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gender dysphoria. As discussion here has established, the phrase does exist in literature but there is insufficient basis for a Wikipedia article on the concept. The Keep rationale offered by User:Jmill1806 is just plain bizarre: notability doesn't work that way. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crossroads and OsFish. I'd come here to say what they said. Vaticidalprophet 14:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Crossroads but will expand my opinion as well - a neologism should not be based solely on temporal newness, but also based on both professional and colloquial adoption. A term that's been around for centuries can still be a neologism if it never got widespread adoption - once a term has gotten widespread adoption it can no longer be a neologism, but until then, it may still be no matter how many decades have passed since it was "coined". I personally do not, based on the sources here, in the article, and from a google search, see enough usage to consider it more than a neologism at this point. The vast majority of usage is from activists and people who are not medical professionals - whereas "gender dysphoria" has become an accepted medical term, this is hardly used in a medical sense, much less become accepted as such. Wikipedia doesn't need to "lead the charge" and can wait to have an article, or even a redirect, for this term until if/when it becomes widely used. I appreciate the work of those trying to improve coverage of gender dysphoria and transgender topics on Wikipedia, but we must keep in mind that it's our job to write an encyclopedia - and be sure that we don't let our desire to improve coverage of a topic lead to inadvertent overt activism for a topic that is beyond what we should be doing as an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the reasons cogently outlined by Crossroads and Berchanhimez. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with specific redirect -- I agree that it's not sufficiently widely used or precisely (medically) defined to warrant its own article. But it is used in some medical sources, and these are not read only by medical personnel. We should mention it in Gender dysphoria as a term that, while not yet strictly defined or incorporated into standard medical terminology, nevertheless sees some use as a convenient shorthand. And the redirect should point fairly precisely to that brief discussion of the word in Gender dysphoria, so that the interested reader need not scour the whole article to find it, though of course they can do so for relevant information. --Thnidu (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I generally agree with the WP:MEDRS arguments. We should avoid the risk of suggesting medical authority where there is none. Marcus Aurelius 07:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus regarding whether to merge or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the WP:MEDRS concerns outlined above. As and when the term gets significant usage in reliable, independent sources that meet the various standards we have for medical articles, then the term deserves an article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Gender dysphoria. This appears to be a nascent idea without too much hard scientific discussion. Per WP:NOPAGE, what's worthy of mention about this topic can be placed on a more solid page where it has good context, especially seeing as this is solely defined as the opposite of gender dysphoria. Not to mock the concept or the genderqueer community, but a part of me has to question this trend where in an attempt to be inclusive a handful of people are simply creating pseudoscientific categories of the "norm", so to speak, so as to not make a certain community feel stigmatized by a label. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to gender dysphoria. It's a term that developed in response to gender dysphoria and, in high-quality sources, appears to be discussed in conjunction with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gotham City. Missvain (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City Police Department[edit]

Gotham City Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Niche Batmancruft. Pure plot summary referenced (poorly) to comics/TV series episodes, coupled with some usual OR. No reception, significance, etc. Fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. BEFORE fails to reveal anything that is not a plot-summary, and very short at that, b/c even the usual DC/Batman fanpedias don't have much to say about this background entities. Granted, for a moment I thought we have something when I found this (an academic article titled Is Batman a State Actor: The Dark Knight's Relationship with the Gotham City Policy Department and the Fourth Amendment Implications), but sadly, inside there is next to nothing about the department, the discussion mostly focuses on Batman and real law, and the department is mentioned just a few times in the background (plot summary as usual). Note that there is an upcoming Batman movie that will focus on this entity, but hey - we had an entire 5 seasons of TV show that did the same and produced nothing usable, sources-wise, and recent coverage like [59] is not about this entity, but about the upcoming movie. Let's avoid conflating those entities. Still, maybe I did miss something that is not a plot summary - if so, please point that out with quotations. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. Outside of my claim, the GCPD did have it's own comic series that focused on it's known members there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotham Central is a notable comic series that takes place at the Gotham City Police Department. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the AFD closer: If Gotham City Police Department is deleted, could you have it go through WP:SOFTDELETE so that there's a chance that it can be redirected to Gotham City should that happen like how somebody created a redirect for the Metropolis Police Department? That way, it would be in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been several comic book series focusing on the department as well as a TV series and another upcoming TV series. As usual the problem with this article (and many other notable comic book topics) is a lack of effort it making something good out of it instead of just letting cruft run amok until the page is a disaster.★Trekker (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treker, You imply this can be good. For that we need to show there are sources. I am not a deletionist - I just wrote Dejarik after I found that article on pl wiki and did a source check (and improved the Polish one than translated it here, it was mostly fancrufty before on pl wiki and nobody even bothered writing this up here). I'd be happy to save GCPD - if there were sources. As those have not been found, your argument is sadly a wishful WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES so we can fix it. I am sorry, but first, find the sources. Per WP:BURDEN etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sufficient sources are brought forth. Gotham City is most certainly notable, so this topic can easily be summarized there without issue. The current article is just a collection of random Wikia-tier information with zero real world relevance that I can see, so deletion and a new redirect/summary would be the best course of action. TTN (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe modify and trim a lot. [60], [61], demonstrate that the upcoming HBO series of this name (?) is going to get significant future RS coverage. Deleting it outright is likely a bad idea; merging it to Gotham City is reasonable. But the real question in my mind is "where is this going once (if?) a major network TV show starts?" I bet we're going to see a number of reasonable RS comparisons between the comics and the TV show--we've certainly seen plenty of that with the Marvel and Game of Thrones adaptations. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to Gotham City ---> If the new series produces some significant coverage, we can always restore it. Right now, there is not much there outside the fan-written plot. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gotham City - I concur with GizzyCatBella. Currently, there is not a lot that isn't just plot, but that might change once the new show, which the majority of the secondary sources out there are actually about, premiers. At that point, it could potentially be spun back out if there are sufficient reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Going with the "not clean up" crew. Please consider cleaning it up and if you feel it does not qualify for inclusion for other reasons, feel free to nominate again. Missvain (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arab states of the Persian Gulf[edit]

Arab states of the Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a complex issue. This article was created in 5 November 2005 by @Jungli under the title 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf'. Its introduction stated that: 'The Arab Gulf states are a group of six Arab countries that border the Persian Gulf. These countries are Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. These six countries form the members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf'. The article remained relatively unchanged (with the exemption of an WP:WAR) until in August 2013 when user @Insomniaingest included Iraq in the article introduction in a series of consecutive edits while also removing the unsourced claim that: 'Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy with limited political representation'. The 2013 edit hasn't been discussed in-depth until recently in the talk page. The problem is that simply removing Iraq from the article subject would create a WP:CFORK since there already exist two related articles that primarily discuss the six Arab Gulf States: Gulf Cooperation Council and Member states of the GCC. And a single socio-geographical article that discuss the Persian Gulf region Arab states: Eastern Arabia (that also include Southern Iraq). Currently the Arab states of the Persian Gulf article is mainly focused around the GCC nation states. Should the article be up-merged or deleted? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the current state of the article is that its descriptive title subject is not notable (WP:N). There are few sources that group those countries together and this was discussed in the talk page. Moreover, it leads to confusion since its content currently specifically talk about the GCC countries which excludes Iraq in contradiction of the subject grouping (example: The six Arab states...). In fact, Iraq is only mentioned in the introduction to point out that it's not a member of the GCC. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 20:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how this is a notable grouping, it's largely WP:SYNTH about a particular set of countries and failing to show what ties them and just them together. It's those that border the Persian Gulf excluding Iran, or Arabian Peninsula excluding Yemen plus Iraq, or Gulf Cooperation Council plus Iraq. But several of the generalizations about these seven countries' Politics, Economy, Peace, or Freedoms (a) can be easily extended to other Arab or Middle Eastern countries like Yemen or Iran and (b) are not generalizable to all of them. I don't see the purpose of this when we have articles on entities more widely grouped and covered. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking my vote in response to User:Goldsztajn's comment. I would note that several of these sources are moreso about the GCC countries or another particular grouping, but with the related articles being more about the political entity of the Council or a geographic entity, they aren't necessarily the best places for a merger. But this article still needs a lot of work to address synthesis and generalizations, without being overly specific either so further discussion here is helpful. Reywas92Talk 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:I understand yours and User:Goldsztajn concern, but honestly I'm not sure how keeping the broad subject at its current form can ever help the article break out from its current state. If the article has a potential then sure, I would even be glad to help edit it as long as there's a consensus on which content to use that isn't a simple synthesis of a group of countries. I think currently this discussion would go no where, so we should make the task more straightforward to further this discussion: If there are a number of verifiable sources that merit the current article descriptive title then we should keep it, else I think it’s self evident that the article notability is problematic, that is, if such sources and relevant content are hard to get by.
Pointing out the fact that the article title is a common term (as Goldsztajn noted) doesn’t detract from the fact that this term is used in a multitude of different defintions in diffrent contexts that has failed to muster a general subject (as Reywas92 recognized on the term being used in different subjects, moreso about the GCC). Which is an important point we shouldn’t ignore. As for the keep and cleanup argument, I apologize but I don’t see it as a good argument, in fact I think it’s an argument for deletion since after all the current state of the article is self evident on its inherent issues. Also relevant User:Stifle essay on keep-and-clean. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could have various articles about random geographical groupings such as ‘Arab states of North Africa’, ‘Arab states of the Red Sea’, ‘Arab states of the Indian Ocean’ but all they would contain would be a summary of material covered in the individual country articles unless there was sustained coverage of the topic in RIS to give us specific content. Mccapra (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, this is unsurprisingly messy. At present count there are 975 (and 316 indirect) links to this page. Note that Persian Gulf States, Arab gulf states, States of the Persian Gulf, Arab Gulf States... plus another 31 all redirect to this page. Persian Gulf States is a term of continuing and historic usage: "The Persian Gulf States include the British protected states of Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States."[1] US State Department record of conversation with the UK on the "Persian Gulf States", March 1969.[2] Library of Congress country study series (which equates to GCC.)[3] Other examples.[4][5][6] Arab Gulf States is a term which has grown in usage since the 1980s (some examples[7][8][9][10][11][12]) and is presently the predominant term when compared to Persian Gulf States. I suspect that the difference is between British and US English usage: Persian Gulf States originates with the rise of British imperialism in West Asia and declines from the 1970s following the British withdrawal to the east of the Suez.

References

  1. ^ "The Statesman's Year-Book 1969-70". 25 August 1969: 1221. doi:10.1057/9780230270985. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ "Persian Gulf States 72. Memorandum of Conversation" (PDF). US Department of State.
  3. ^ Metz, Helen Chapin (1993). Persian Gulf states : country studies. Library of Congress. Federal Research Division.
  4. ^ Cunningham, Erin (19 January 2021). "Qatar urges dialogue between Persian Gulf states and Iran as Biden heads to White House". Washington Post.
  5. ^ Hay, Rupert (1954). "The Persian Gulf States and Their Boundary Problems". The Geographical Journal. 120 (4): 433–443. doi:10.2307/1791061. ISSN 0016-7398.
  6. ^ Yee, Vivian (9 May 2020). "Virus Forces Persian Gulf States to Reckon With Migrant Labor". The New York Times.
  7. ^ Khatib, Dania Koleilat; Maziad, Marwa (2019). The Arab Gulf States and the West: Perceptions and Realities – Opportunities and Perils. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-99949-9.
  8. ^ MOHAMMED, NADEYA SAYED ALI (2016). POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARAB GULF STATES : the case of bahrain, oman and kuwait. [Place of publication not identified]: ROUTLEDGE. ISBN 9781138258488.
  9. ^ Snider, Lewis W. (1988). "Comparing the Strength of Nations: The Arab Gulf States and Political Change". Comparative Politics. 20 (4): 461–484. doi:10.2307/421939. ISSN 0010-4159.
  10. ^ "What Are the Arab Gulf States?". Asian Migrant Workers in the Arab Gulf States: 73–76. 23 October 2019. doi:10.1163/9789004395404_005.
  11. ^ Guzansky, Yoel (2015). The Arab Gulf States and reform in the Middle East : between Iran and the "Arab Spring". Basingstoke [England]. ISBN 978-1-137-46782-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  12. ^ Ardemagni, Eleonora (27 October 2020). "Arab Gulf States: Expanding Roles for the Military". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1792.
While there is clear consensus for deleting geographically synthetic articles (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn Africans in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn Africans in Scandinavia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn Africans in the United States) I do not believe this is such a case here. Moreover, the talk page histories of many of the pages show discussions over time regarding naming. Two discussions regarding the title of the page in 2007 and 2010, seem to have reached a consensus regarding the present title. Editors seem to have previously concluded that this was the simplest way to deal with a conflicting and complex set of usages. I cannot see how anything has changed, nor do I understand why this has been brought to AfD when what actually appears to be the present problem is a content dispute (should Iraq be included). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the main issue here, simply put: It's a WP:N problem with the current WP:NDESC subject of the article. We can't simply remove Iraq from the subject since it would lead to WP:CFORK in GCC and Eastern Arabia articles. The sources you posted predominately refers to the Gulf monarchies that are referenced in both the GCC and Eastern Arabia. And as the commenters above stated: it's essentially a WP:SYNTH on a set of countries that don't have anything that groups them together (in the WP:NDESC title context, per the 2013 addition), the GCC article is suitable enough for the geopolitical grouping among the Arab monarchies that is also supported by the sources you have posted. Moreover, we have discussed the exclusion of Iraq in the article talk page and editors have raised a reasonable concern that simply editing the article to remove Iraq would lead to WP:CFORK.. Currently Iraq is only mentioned in the article introduction to state that it's not part of the GCC, the poorly written body of the article only refers to the aforementioned monarchies in a summary form of their economy, politics...etc. So the issue stands whether the article is notable or not, and what to do with its content since the NDESC title lacks a well defined subject. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, you cannot !vote (the nomination is your !vote). It's not a matter of (mis)understanding, I simply don't agree with you. Reading the history of the talk pages it's pretty clear there have long been discussions on the issue of article naming. The sources I cited include references to multiple contemporary and historic usages of the term which incorporate a mixture of countries not simply synonymous with the GCC; which is the whole point - there is no *absolutely* correct definition here, but rather a need to note that there are historic and contemporary usages of the term(s) which can convey different meanings. "Persian Gulf States" and "Arab Gulf States" are clearly notable, and to deal with the complexity of those concepts, to date, the community has chosen to use the title of this article. I'm not particularly wedded to this title, but I can accept the logic of why this title was chosen as a result of the earlier discussions; if you think this is an inappropriate title or there is inappropriate content then use the processes at hand to deal with that; but which are not AfD. I still see no reason to see this other than a content dispute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Yes the community chose this WP:NDESC title because the article suffered (and continued to) from WP:WARRING. The problem is that with the current descriptive title which also by extension includes Iraq (Per the 2013 edit) warrants a discussion on the article notability. I've tried to 'fix' the article by contributing to it and didn't arrive at the conclusion that the current state warrants a WP:AfD process until I've discussed the issue in the talk page. The problem is not simply a matter of a content dispute because as I have stated above: You can't simply undo the 2013 edit, it would cause other issues in redundancy and WP:CFORKING. My question to you is the following: Can you fix the article by finding relevant resources that groups the GCC + Iraq in a notable subject and produce relevant content that is not simply just a WP:Synth of countries summaries? Currently the article is an empty shell with no insightful notable content since the article inception in 2005, with the exception of the frequent edit wars and article locking for the renaming dispute, simply put there's a reason why the article failed to address any notable content for the last 16 years. I sincerely believe that the ongoing vandalism is a symptom not a cause for the current state of the article, it's time its notability be discussed throughly here. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 05:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’ve been thinking about Goldsztajn’s points for a few days. I see what they are getting at and, per their comment, it is messy. There are sources to support multiple, overlapping and historically varying descriptions of most of the states in the region. So much so indeed that I have a (only very slight) temptation to create an article about that very topic. But ultimately I still agree with Contemporary Nomad. We have articles about the individual countries and one article that discusses virtually the entire group, so this comes down to an issue of content management for the encyclopaedia: how do we present information in ways which are clear and avoid multiple forks, where those forks don’t really serve any real purpose. Mccapra (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restructure: Are we seriously going to remove an article for a commonly spoken about? Yes the article is messy, and I think we should rewrite parts of it and remove overlapping statements. Ridax2020 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we seriously going to remove an article for a commonly spoken about What does 'commonly spoken about' mean? If you meant the title, as we indicated in this discussion the term 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' refers to many different subjects: British Empire colonies/protectorates in the Persian Gulf in the early 20th century or GCC countries or Eastern Arabia. You can check @Goldsztajn thread with the relevant sources. Yes the article is messy, and I think we should rewrite parts of it and remove overlapping statements. keep-and-clean is not a strong argument against deletion. However you're free to try and clean the article with relevant content and it might help us in this process as long as it's not merely a synth of a group of countries summaries whose grouping is based on facing a particular body of water. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample evidence this is a notable grouping of countries. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Potential renaming or article restructuring should be dealt with at the article talk page, not AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash[edit]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every fatal automotive accident is notable. This is tragic, but as per WP:NOTNEWS, delete. Onel5969 TT me 20:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, this is WP:NOTNEWS, no idea why this had been de-proded CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Searching for sources for this article, I found articles a plethora of bus crashes deadlier than this in Ghana over the past few years. These are not small tragedies; they are in line with the severity of the bus crashes found at Category:Bus incidents by country. The president of Ghana often makes statements expressing his condolences to the families of the victims. I think eventually, these crashes should be dealt with in an article called Bus incidents in Ghana, or on the pages of the notable Ghanaian highways where these crashes occurred, but these articles have yet to be created. Mottezen (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 19 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp; the notion of the deaths of 19 people makes it notable enough for Wikipedia - we can't particularly discriminate when we have similar articles from other areas of the world with equal or even less deaths. On the other hand sourcing could be improved. Nightfury 10:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Neither of the keep !votes address the GNG concern. Onel5969 TT me 00:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in fact until now nobody has mentioned a "GNG concern". But, actually, I think it does meet GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a single incident resulting in 19 deaths seems exceptional. NemesisAT (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple independent secondary sources about the accident can be found. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Claremont Colleges#Clubs and organizations. Missvain (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Shades[edit]

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

This is a college a cappella group that somehow slipped through page curation in 2015 despite having inadequate sourcing. They host an annual festival that draws regional interest and is covered in detail by the college newspaper, e.g. [62], but per WP:RSSM, given their local audience, student media may be challenged or discounted during notability discussions about topics related to home institutions. A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable. The best I could find from media unaffiliated with the Claremont Colleges is this article from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, but it is unbylined and appears derived from a press release. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Apolinario[edit]

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

Does not prove notability and completely unsourced. There are no online sources except for his death, and they are all from local newspapers or from his network's news. De-PROD'd by the article's author alongside the addition of 1200 bytes of self-promotion. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his death, an indication of WP:BLP1E. I'm willing to change my vote if anyone can provide sources about him which are not related to his death. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristofor Brown[edit]

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

Mainly puffery, with a healthy dose of self edited COI. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR Pipsally (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Gaming League[edit]

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

Non-notable e-sports platform with no multiple secondary sources or WP:SIGCOV. nearlyevil665 13:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 13:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 13:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Consists entirely of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content. IceWelder [✉] 13:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a notable and well renown esport brand of India, consider a Google Search for the same. Also finding more information that has to be added in the article. This submission was just a beginning and will be improving it time to time, so please consider it to be kept on the wikipedia article space which needs improvement. Nirupammathur (talk) 13:29,3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Draftify: This is a very new page, let it grow before deleting it. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The page's creator already created a draft of this article. ColinBear (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage, fails GNG ColinBear (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vague pages should not be draftify which have zero chances of creation. Non notable, Cant find sources. Sonofstar (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Giving a Google search will provide you the notability of the subject. Nirupammathur (talk) 04:35,7 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: For the sake of furthering your argument, would you be willing to cite which sources you are referring to exactly? nearlyevil665 08:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Awaiting a closure on this comment, kindly respond. Nirupammathur (talk) 04:31,8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also there is some similar brand to this company already existing in Wikipedia Article Space by the name Mobile Premier League that you can check as a reference to this article. Nirupammathur (talk) 11:38,7 May 2021 (UTC)
    MPL appears to be another possible deletion target. Having a myriad of sources with no actual coverage of the company (just some trivial event, usually just quoting company press releases) does not make notability. IceWelder [✉] 00:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are nothing as such company press releases, if you have given close attention to the press releases, each and every press release is written by a renowned editor of the publication. Which eventually make them less of a trivial information and more of the notable facts. Nirupammathur (talk) 11:34,9 May 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruf Automobile[edit]

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

Pretty obvious advertisement, no "controversies" section or anything of the sort. Quantupediholic (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable car mfg. Many Ruf models have their own pages with sufficient sources, so while notability is not inherited, having many notable products leads me to conclude this company deserves a page of its own. The sourcing is not great (lots of associated sources) but it only needs 2-3 good sources to pass GNG. And at least that many exist. I think the company is probably past its prime, but that does not meant it should be deleted now ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition to what El Cid of Valencia has said: here are the sources required to meet WP:GNG: [63] by Augsburger Allgemeine and [64] by Autozeitung. Yes, the article needs improvement but it is certainly on a notable topic. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle (2017 film)[edit]

Whistle (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM. PROD removed by article creator without adding any explanation or citations to justify notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster Yale Beach[edit]

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

The sourcing here is clearly inadequate. I did a deep sourcer search. I was able to find a brief mention of his sourcing the earliest actions of the Associated Press in archival outlook, but I would not coniser that substantive. I also was able to find basically a church bulletin mentioning him becoming education director for the Episcopalian Diocese of Delaware. I also came across a mention of him in a geneology book that listed all the descandants of someone much earlier no matter how prominent or not promient they were. The claim of his uniquely deep understanding of Jung's work does not amount to notability and is seeminly sourced to a work by Beach himself. I just do not see any actual claim to notability here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 14:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main claim for notability is correcting an error in AP's founding date in 2005 (from 1848 to 1846). Beach was related to one of the founder of AP. This led AP to publish a short obit on Beach's death mentioning the relationship and error. I don't think the previous dating error of AP's founding deserves a mention on the Associated Press page. At most this would be a clarifying footnote there.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete with a short mention in Associated_Press#History. --hroest 17:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article which appears to be more appropriate to a family history site. That the subject retrieved an 1872 memo written by one Moses Sperry Beach describing the role of Moses Yale Beach in establishing AP does not confer biographical notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Nor do the subject's roles in a Center for Jungian Studies and at Lithgow, New York#St. Peter's Episcopal church credibly indicate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The material in the article boils down to: he had some notable ancestors and found a small correction to a historic date among his family's papers. That's not cause for notability. The obituary also mentions founding a center for Jungian studies but it seems not to be notable (or even to exist any more). There's more detail in another obituary but that one appears to be the written-by-the-family type of obituary and still lists nothing that suggests notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Chittagong Division cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rony Chowdhury[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Chittagong Division cricketers 4 FC cricketers, but we're struggling for sources for him to pass GNG. If sources were to exist they'd likely be in Bangladeshi language sources. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Din[edit]

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

Non-notable umpire, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Umpired in 4 ODI's. StickyWicket (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source please. Störm (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really, because he's not listed anywhere on the Cricinfo list of officials by number of ODIs. He did however officiate 2 Women's T20Is in 2011, [65]. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is an international umpire as StickyWicket states, there's also some coverage of him in reports from umpiring in Europe. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NBIO. Being international umpire is not enough. "Just a job" with no visibility/significance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not just anyone can turn up and officiate international cricket, it's a specialised role - so certainly not "just a job". StickyWicket (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments of StickyWicket and Rugbyfan22. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 10:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to his Cricinfo profile, he's
  • Delete. My mistake. He was a reserve umpire, so changing to delete as his one LA match isn't sufficient. StickyWicket (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks StickyWicket. Störm (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete had a good look, can't find any significant sources about him. He was reserve umpire in 2010 Cricket Europe competitions, and cannot see anything significant about the 2 W20Is that he umpired in 2011. Fails WP:GNG therefore. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Jayamahamudali[edit]

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

Non-notable umpire, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only stood in 3 FC matches. Perhaps we should have lists for cricket umpires like we do for players? StickyWicket (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 3 FC matches officiated as StickyWicket states, nothing for GNG coverage comes up in a search either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leon James (musician)[edit]

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

No indication for pass of WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. References as they stand are to primary sources such as Youtube and Facebook, as well as three Times of India pages, which are all videos as well. nearlyevil665 11:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 11:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do you didgeridoo? Grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk)
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a talented guy who specializes in dozens of obscure instruments, and he can be found in industry directories and credits related to his region's movie industry. But I can find no significant and reliable coverage about his career in its own right. This article looks like an attempted resume or promotion, and is hideously written to boot. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete He is a Notable person among Multi instrumentalists. I have Provided Sources in Citations. Please look in to it. If Administrator permit we can change the title of article from Leon James(musician) to Leon James(Coimbatore) or Leon James(Multi-Instrumentalist). Even after renaming if the article doesn't meet the Notability Guidelines, Administrators can do the required action according to Wikipedia Policy! BhaVekad (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Page Title I suggest renaming the Article Title if The article followed Wikipedia's Policy! BhaVekad (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about the musician's notability and whether he qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The title of the article is fine, and changing it would have no relevance for this discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was merge to Gain of function research. I'm going to support merging here. If there is anything of use, please merge away and redirect. Ping me if you need any help with redirecting. Missvain (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Working Group[edit]

The Cambridge Working Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly passing mentions in sources, no evidence of in-depth significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged this article for {{notability}}, as the sources were almost entirely passing mentions. It's not so much an organization as it is a list of signatories to an open letter. It would make sense to have an article on a group that, say, holds a series of annual conferences that receive sustained coverage in the science press. This isn't that. The only substantial coverage of this "working group" after its initial announcement was a small study that compared it with the statement issued shortly thereafter in opposition. (A sample from their conclusion: [S]cientists who are more familiar with biomedical experiments are more likely to endorse maintaining current safety protocols. The combination of weak peer effects with strong specialization effects suggests that these scientists are drawing on disciplinary knowledge in making their choice, perhaps reflecting greater familiarity with the laboratory risk mitigation techniques, and thus judge the risks as acceptable.) As they were both covered to roughly the same extent, having an article on one group but not the other violates NPOV, as does including one group merely as an afterthought in the article about the other. But neither the Cambridge Working Group nor Scientists for Science rise to the level of needing a stand-alone article. Anything that needs to be said about either can be said more usefully in a more general article about biomedical research. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subject of this entry can best be described as something between a think tank and an open letter, not an organization. Since you tagged the article, I have added a number of reputable sources, including O Globo, Le Monde, Science Magazine, Forbes, Scientific American, the Guardian, Wired, Nature Magazine, CIDRAP, Vox, the New York Times, and NPR. Most of these articles mention the group as an integral part of the subject, as did the New York Magazine article, which you removed, and which I feel should be included as a reference. The group was formed informally, a number of years before it wrote its consensus statement, and it has gained attention due to the current scrutiny around the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is subject to controversy as the site of a possible biosecurity event. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the group is an integral part of the subject, then it should be described in an article on the subject. The fact that it took them a long time to issue a statement after they first started talking about it doesn't make them more worthy of note. Passing mentions and blurbs that just recycle their statement (like Wired) are not enough to build an article on. Nor do any of the sources indicate that the group, as opposed to the general question of research risk, is of continuing interest. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources I provided. I just added a new one from Science magazine. It is untrue to say they give the group only "passing mentions and blurbs". Furthermore, the question of continuing interest would be best resolved if you reverted your deletion of one of the sources that mention them. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all of the sources (I even contributed one); my evaluation of them stands. The New York Magazine story you mention is by a non-subject-matter-expert and has had its reliability questioned (currently being debated in a slightly different context at WP:RSN). I should perhaps say that I generally prefer when articles at AfD can be improved to the point where they're kept, and I like documenting odd aspects of the scientific community: unusual research groups, niche journals, eccentric books — writing about somebody's obscure passion project can be quite emotionally satisfying. And, of course, the general topic of medical-research risk is a socially important one. If I thought the sources on the Cambridge Working Group justified telling its story as a stand-alone article, I'd be fighting tooth and nail for it. But it's my honest take that they don't. In fact, given the story that the sources do lay out, dedicating an article to it in this way raises a fundamental POV problem, which nobody has addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for reading the sources. Sorry if I insinuated that you don't understand the topic at hand. I have observed a problem with some editors with a certain POV who don't even bother to read sources supporting a contrarian POV, and then the discussion just goes nowhere, and this is a problem that is playing out in other threads. While I understand why you don't think the New York Magazine article isn't relevant here, I don't think it's fair to disqualify a reliable source based on its authorship, as it would have gone through a rigorous editorial review process. The author also wrote a book on the subject of bioweapons research by the US government, so it would be incorrect to say he doesn't understand the topic of virology, and can't write on it as a journalist. I believe the source does meet the criteria of WP:RS, though perhaps I need to create a new section, on its recent notability regarding COVID-19.
I agree that there can be a POV problem if we don't also create an entry on the "Scientists for Science" group, but I would point out to you that they were mostly created in reaction to the Cambridge Working group, and there is now some middle ground between them. Another point I would like to make to you is that I think it will become increasingly more important for Wikipedia editors to understand the different classifications of emerging infectious diseases, and that the accidental release of a virus undergoing gain of function research should not be conflated with the deliberate release of a virus constructed as a bioweapon, and consensus of the Cambridge Working Group is very valuable for making this point.
ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not much sigcov, more small mentions or just standard reporting, but I think I think it is notable enough for pressurising the federal authorities to bring in the memorandum, and that it has been quoted by many scientific papers since (which if an academic individually would probably swing it).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The analogy to a group that made one position statement would be an individual academic with only one publication; such a person would almost certainly fail WP:PROF (and, for that matter, would have WP:BLP1E issues). XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to refrain from badgering the views of those who are arguing different from your view point. This is a talking shop where editors can express their views to the AFD. Each editor puts their case, and is not designed to be a personal attack on each others opinions. So far you have continued to personally challenge the arguments of the editors for Keep. It is not your place to make the decision, it will be the closer based on the arguments made. You have made your point, le others make theirs. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is anything that I've said a personal attack on anyone's opinion? I've replied to people, people have replied to me, and I've replied to them in turn. New arguments have been brought up (counting Google hits, appearances in some books, etc.), which have required additional discussion beyond my !vote above. I'm not expecting to make the final decision; I rather think this is one of those cases where the standard of sourcing that I find reasonable is higher than what the consensus settles on, and the article is eventually kept in spite of anything I say. It's happened at least once before, and it might happen again, as such is the way of things. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group was effective in getting a moratorium on dangerous virus experimentation in 2014. But then the experiments were resumed in 2017. And now we have a novel virus causing a global pandemic. The matter has naturally attracted attention such as this at each stage and this large group of scientists seems to be a significant part of the story. I'm not finding another article on Wikipedia which covers the history of this controversy in a more general way. If there is one, the worst case would be that we merge into it. Otherwise this will have to do as a start and we should be considering expansion. WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The overall debate about how to manage the hazards of medical research could be described in, for example, Medical research. The link you provide is yet another passing mention that provides no details about the organization as an organization. Does anyone have better? XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst perhaps of less relevance now, the Group has a place in history at least. As a result of the COVID pandemic, people might now come to Wikipedia to find out about the Group. It therefore seems reasonable to have an article about it. Arcturus (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We can speculate all day about what people might come to Wikipedia for, but without WP:SIGCOV, we can't write an article to meet that hypothetical need. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, the Google search (i.e. the link at the top of this page) delivers over 2600 results. As to what "significant coverage" means is a bit subjective. On balance, I would say this article has it. Arcturus (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Counting Google hits is not a reliable indicator of pretty much anything. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's indicative. That's why it's included in the Find Sources facility. I did say it was subjective. Anyway, just out of interest, and off-topic in a direct sense, but when I looked through Google Scholar results I found this one: [66]. Arcturus (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's included in the "Find sources" tool because it's a way to find sources, not because counting the total number is helpful (usually, it isn't, which is why it's literally listed at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Forbes "contributor" pieces are not reliable sources, since even when written by subject-matter experts they have no editorial oversight — and oversight and review matter even more for medicine than for most subjects. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have given the impression that the Forbes article was relevant to the discussion - as I said, it's off topic. However, some contributors here might find it interesting, that's all. Anyway, check out the contributor [67] and then have a look at what Wikipedia says about subject-matter experts at Forbes. Arcturus (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Biotechnology risk. From what I can see reading the sources (e.g. this one [68]), the actual notable topic here is the scientific and public debate about benefits and dangers of gain-of-function research in life sciences. Section Biotechnology risk#Regulation addresses the matter rather briefly but it really deserves to be substantially expanded or perhaps an extra section added in that article. Both groups, The Cambridge Working Group and Scientists for Science, ought to be mentioned there. However, from the sources discussed so far (and from those that I myself have been able to find), I do not see the amount and depth of coverage of the CWG as sufficient to justify a standalone article about it. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my comment, after the close has been reversed, to merge to Gain of function research#Biorisk concern, which is a new article, created after the start of this AfD, which looks like a more plausible merge target here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The group is visible and covered not only in Science (journal) ([69]) and news, but even in books [70]. Importantly, it includes a number of high-profile scientists we have pages about (see here and list on the page). Yes, it is obviously related to Biotechnology risk, however, this is a specific organization that seems to be sufficiently notable by itself for a standalone page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those Google Books hits are false positives, even predating the actual announcement of the "working group" (which, again, was more an open letter than an organization). The rest appear to be the same kind of brief, passing mentions that we've already seen. One news story that does little more but state they exist is not WP:SIGCOV, and supplementing it with a smattering of name-drops doesn't exactly help. Why should Wikipedia say more about this group than anyone else? XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what do we have about this organization (no, this is not a letter, but an organization)?
  1. First four books (link above) mention this organization in a meaningful way, fifth book is not about it; I did not check other books.
  2. Article in Science ([71])
  3. Article in PNAS (Disparate foundations of scientists’ policy positions on contentious biomedical research), and it mentioned this organization as important.
  4. This article tells: "The debates continued into 2014 and a series of significant biosafety lapses at U.S. government laboratories spurred different groups of scientists to organize to provide a collective expression of their views about the implications for what had now become known as “gain-of-function” (GOF) research.16 One group, called the Cambridge Working Group after its founding meeting at Harvard University, issued a consensus statement in July focused solely on biosafety concerns that recommended: "For any experiment, the expected net benefits should outweigh the risks. ..." etc. This statement was soon followed by a competing statement from another new group, Scientists for Science, which argued "Scientists for Science are confident that biomedical research on potentially dangerous pathogens can be performed safely..." etc.
  5. Forbes: [72]
  6. this
  7. [73] - an article in The Lancet.
  8. this article
  9. And so on. I am tired to count. My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first four books. None of them give details about the organization as an organization. Books three and four give them parity with Scientists for Science, indicating that the two groups should not be described in separate articles and that the later should not be treated as a footnote to the former, but rather, that both are part of the story of a legitimate scientific debate. The article in Science is a short news item that notes the CWG's existence. The article in PNAS is one that I found and added to the page the other day; like the book mentions, it indicates parity of significance between CWG and SFS. It's probably the best source of the bunch, and it tells us to write about the two groups together as part of the larger story. The Forbes item is a "contributor" piece; it might have some value as an self-published source by a subject-matter expert, but it's also WP:PRIMARY, because the author is a signatory of the Cambridge Working Group. The CIDRAP story is OK, but its focus is on the Scientists For Science. Again, at best, it's evidence for merging this tiny part into the larger whole where it fits better. The Lancet story allocates one sentence to the CWG itself and quotes founding member Marc Lipsitch once. Nothing wrong with that, but it also says nothing meaningful about the CWG as an organization. Source #8 is coauthored by Lipsitch and is WP:PRIMARY. Applying our everyday standards for when to write an article about an organization and when to discuss a small topic as part of a larger one, the available sources make it plain that the CWG doesn't need an article. Write about it at Biotechnology risk or Medical research. A dedicated, stand-alone article is simply suboptimal, and whatever deserves to be said can be rewritten from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To perhaps clarify: when I say that the sources don't detail the organization "as an organization", I mean that scientific organizations do things like hold conferences, where papers are presented that are then published as proceedings volumes or special issues of peer-reviewed journals; they get funding by securing grants; they may conduct research or re-distribute their funds to support research elsewhere. The sources presented so far have been noticeably light about any details of that sort. Instead, we get a position statement, and various quotes from people affiliated with it. That's fine in principle and could all be useful somewhere, but it's not organizational information. XOR'easter (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, but Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), tells: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement: A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,..." [this is just an example, obviously]. There is indeed a hugely significant controversy/dispute, with regard to which views by this organization were discussed (rather than simply mentioned) in multiple 3rd party RS, such as Science, PNAS, etc. Hence my vote. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:NORG: Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company. That's more or less the situation we're in with this. The coverage is of the scientific/ethical controversy, not so much the CWG as an entity. What meetings did the CWG hold? Did it acquire grants as a group effort? What, beyond issuing a statement, did it do? Et cetera. XOR'easter (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company". OK, but in this case the entire organization was created to advocate a specific public policy position, and the publications are focusing on this organization as advocating such position. Saying that, I agree this is a borderline notability and would not worry if this page will be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have looked at the sources, both included in the article and some mentioned above, as well as conducting a WP:BEFORE search. I see nothing that specifically brings this group notability outside any other activist group that made for a single purpose. Some are notable and some are not. The question remains, does the specific subject, the entity, receive significant coverage, not of its ideas but of the entity itself, in multiple, not numerical but those in which a wide range of view points is discussed, reliable and independent secondary sources? Nothing in the notability guideline WP:N states that a thousand mentions equal a significant coverage, in fact, it reflects the exact opposite. Mentions are not stackable nor do they build to notability. The entity fails notability. If there is an appropriate redirect or merge I would not be opposed to such action. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This group and what it stands for represents one of the most pressing global issues in decades. Given sarscov2 and the devastating global effects of the virus, one must pause to consider their wisdom. These events are of course not trivial and I am shocked that any reference to this group is deleted. Strong keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyanja (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Garyanja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete — this is a letter that has received brief coverage in the news in the past. Per Tsistunagiska, I believe the content contained in this article is noteworthy, but the "Group" itself is not. I think some portion of the content here should be merged to Gain of function research. -Darouet (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —S Marshall T/C 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion was previously closed as "keep". The close was analyzed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 2 and was self-evidently unacceptable. I have reverted it and relisted for a clean discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable organisation failing WP:NORG. There's a lot of ref bombing but many of the refs don't even mention this "Cambridge Working Group". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with any merge/redirect outcomes as well. The article should be deleted, and merging some of its content elsewhere and creating a redirect to that page is entirely compatible with this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Admittedly a cursory search, but I couldn't see that the group had, well, done any work... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the material here is essentially interesting, but the article overall is problematic. The title of the group named is little enough used that the article risks falling foul of our rule against neologisms, quite apart from the high bar WP:NORG sets that I don't think the article has a chance of clearing. I think the task that faces us is to find a better home for this material. I note the article Moratorium on Research Intended To Create Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens by Lipsitch and Inglesby coins the term Potential Pandemic Pathogens for the specific concern they have, to distiunguish the heightened concern they have compared to prior gain-of-function work. A GScholar search for that term does not yield many highly cited results, though: two clear the 50 gscholhits bar, one by Lipsitch and a coauthor, one with Nassim Nicholas Taleb and a coauthor. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC) (Postscript there is RS-quality media coverage of the group under the article's name, so point about neologisms retracted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Delete - it's a notable group, with lots of coverage and even has Professor Lockdown as a member. As per editor Chalst the "Moratorium on Research To Create Potential Pandemic Pathogens" concept is even more noteable. But I'd prefer plain deletion to merging on IAR grounds: CWG is often referred to in arguments advancing the lab leak "theory". Regardless of how credible one finds the idea, theres several reasons why wikipedians might not like our platform to be used to support that position. If it was widely believed, it would inevitably result in more ill will towards innocent Chinese & Chinese looking people. Also, now the vaccines are out, biotech is supposed to the hero of the Covid story. If it was widely believed the pandemic arose from an artificially enhanced (gain of function) virus escaping from a certain lab, it might hurt not just public trust in biotech, but in science itself. And we can't have that can we? I mean, we scientists are pure as the driven snow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FeydHuxtable: I am Chinese and I don’t believe that deleting this encyclopedia worthy article will save my people from malice. Most rational people understand that not all people of Chinese appearance are responsible for the Communist Party of China's actions, which could include covering up the root cause of COVID-19. To your point about the purity of scientists, George F. Gao said at the Gain of Function Symposium back in 2014, that scientists are human beings, and sometimes they want to hide things [74], which could be what is happening here. Fangpila (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC) — Fangpila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Other than us both appreciating good professor Gao, I fear we have too different perspectives for us to reach agreement on these matters, at least not without very long discussion. But coming from someone like yourself, these words have much weight and make me doubt elements of my thinking. So thank you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always nice to see a new user familiar with Arbcom after having made only a couple of edits, even if they are revolving around the same topic. Getting to grips with things quickly! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is just not true. The sources in relation to this Group, including those two, are literally namedrops. Those two don't even discuss the group, they discuss something else and mention the group in passing. They don't even come close to demonstrating GNG never mind WP:NORG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gain of function research. I looked at the first 11 sources in the article. The sources weren't in depth at all. In my opinion, not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. A paragraph or two about the Cambridge Working Group could be added to the article Gain of function research. That seems like a good spot for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to new section in Gain of function research, perhaps 2015 moratorium on research synthesising novel potential pandemic pathogens. I think the sources as they stand do not defeat the verifiability concerns raised by XOR'easter: we can't as it stands write an encyclopediac article on the group. The material is interesting, though, and I would prefer that we did not lose it. Having the target be to do with the moratorium would help resist the slanted coverage feared by FeydHuxtable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge. On the basis of the group's public impact. and the coverage in the books, it would justify a separate article, but it may be more, not less visible and useful as a. section of gain of function research--except for the usual problem, of the WP article not showing up in the Googles. I do not think that should influence us--we're making an encyclopedia, not content for Google. . In either case, it would be appropriate and necessary to include information about the opposition to the group, which will deal with the question of nPOV. . The discussion above seems to have gotten entwined in the discussion of other issues, bu the problem of Covid-like pandemics (or worse) was very real before Covid . DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: could you elaborate on which WP:NORG-meeting 'coverage in books' you refer to? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard about the group in Senate testimony during the questioning of Dr Fauci about gain of function research with regard to Covid-19. It's an important topic and it was nice to be able to find a relevant article. 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group 4 Networks[edit]

Group 4 Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company with not a single reliable secondary source to attest for notability. nearlyevil665 11:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 11:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 11:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:NORG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A BEFORE brings up nothing. JBchrch (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The footnotes here are directory entries and the company's own self-published press release about itself, not reliable source coverage about the company in independent media outlets. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a company's own founder is entitled to start his own article himself for an publicity boost — it's an encyclopedia, on which an article doesn't happen until the media confer notability on the company by covering it as a subject of journalism. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 03:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garrick Cooper[edit]

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:PROFESSOR. H-index not a pass. nearlyevil665 10:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dryden, Missouri[edit]

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

I'm inclined to think this was just a fourth-class post office, not a community. The Ramsay source says A post office ten miles northeast of Doniphan, established by Daniel Fagan and kept in his home. A Dr. Douglas, relative of the Fagans, suggested the name for a lawyer, Nathaniel Dryden, then a member of the legislature. Searching is surprisingly noisy, but I'm getting a couple results from 1891 and 1892 related to the establishment of a fourth-class post office and the appointment of a postmaster. A few of these Missouri ones in the past have proved to just be isolated post offices with no communities. FWIW, topos show nothing here and GNIS is sourced to "New World War Chart - Map of Missouri", which is probably a bad sign. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baldwin and Thomas' 1854 Gazetteer does not have it, but it does have three other Drydens. Robert Allen Campbell's 1875 Gazetteer of Missouri has a Dryden near Troy, almost the other side of the state, population 50, 1 store, 1 church. The 1895 Lippincott's Gazetteer of the World has just two Drydens, neither this one. Interestingly, the 1990 The National Gazetteer of the United States of America is back to three Drydens again, none this one. I cannot find this Dryden anywhere. Uncle G (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a Dryden Cemetery, near Purdin, FWIW... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that that Dryden Cemetery is on the other side of the state from this one, I think it's safe to say it's unrelated. Hog Farm Talk 13:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Long distance facility? ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Category is a great idea. Missvain (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles released by Manga Entertainment[edit]

List of titles released by Manga Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:LISTN since no source talks about the titles in a group. Manga Entertainment also had no involvement in the shows themselves, just distributed them. Also per WP:NOTCATALOG, Wikipedia is not a sales or product catalog, like this list appears to be. A similar article, List of anime distributed by Bandai Visual, was also deleted. Link20XX (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's possible that there are sources that talk about the titles distributed by Manga Entertainment. Manga UK was the only really accessible source of most anime in the UK in the years following the appearance of Akira in home video and therefore effectively decided what titles appeared on the British market. Possibly in one of the publications by Helen McCarthy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is possible. That doesn't mean they exist. Link20XX (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Folu Adeboye[edit]

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

no apparent notability , besides publishing of some religious tracts; essentially no indpendedent source that are not pr. One of a group of similar articles DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I love how her notability is defined as being his wife. Not. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This is very much similar to this now deleted article which was correctly AFD’ed by DGG. Individuals aren’t notable due to their proximity to notable individuals they are notable because the satisfy our general notability criteria for inclusion or the relevant SNG. The subject of the article doesn’t seem to satisfy any/either. Celestina007 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tigray Defence Forces[edit]

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

Declined AfC draft had been moved 1:1 into mainspace by other editor, then deproded after adding some NYT Sources which do only mention the TPLF (which is the party), should be merged into the TPLF article, on its own fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep; the nominator is incorrect to state that
  1. it is only the TPLF (the party) that is mentioned in the sources when he nominated the article for deletion. {One of The New York Times direct quotes that I specifically highlighted by including a quote in the citation template was "Now 66, he is back in the fight with the newly formed Tigray Defence Forces, battling the Ethiopian army he once commanded."}
  2. I removed the PROD template after adding the NYT sources. If the edit history of the Main space article is examined carefully, it will be seen that the citations are unchanged. (However I did highlight the relevant quotations before removing the erroneous "failed verification" tags. This is not intended as a criticism of the nominator - it can be difficult sometimes to see the wood for the trees.)
  3. I moved the draft article "1:1" into main space after it had failed review; after it failed review (for inadequate sourcing) more and better sources were added before I moved it.
As for the truly bizarre notion that a guerilla force with a quarter of a million combatants under arms fighting a major civil war is "not notable", that is simply ludicrous!
In this regard please note that, even if the New York Times and Reuters sources were considered unreliable, English Wikipedia Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article at a particular moment (WP:NEXIST) and that The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. --BushelCandle 10:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep; in line with the argumentation above. References indicate that TDF is different from TPLF. And I think there is a sufficient number of citations of international newspapers that triple-check their information.Rastakwere (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the history of national liberation movements, there has always been an organisational separation between the political and military wings of the movements (the latter most frequently subordinate to the former); and I cannot think of an example of a significant liberation movement where the military wings were not notable per se (and we are talking about a significant movement here). Given the political history of Ethiopia (and Eritrea) in the last quarter of the 20th Century, it is unsurprising that there should be organisational parallels with other liberation movements. That said, we cannot escape RS requirements. I've not had a chance to examine the sources, but those arguing delete so far have not presented any analysis that demonstrates why the sources being cited do not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I concur with User:BushelCandle. --Lord ding dong (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebra Computers[edit]

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

A poorly sourced article; fails NCORP. Although it is a WP:LISTED company, I could not find any non-trivial, in-depth coverage on it. Its market capitalization is a modest ₹591 crore (US$71 million) [75], so I don't expect any quality sources to exist. M4DU7 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only coverage comes from stocks. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak, rationale: "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:RS WP:COI WP:Notability (people), one of several versions with different titles)" (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Ghimire(सन्देश घिमिरे)[edit]

Sandesh Ghimire(सन्देश घिमिरे) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an autobiography about an obviously non-nonatable individual. There's hardly any coverage I can find for the passage of WP:BIO. JavaHurricane 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 08:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 08:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 08:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 08:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Cerezo Osaka season[edit]

2015 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As discussed here though it technically passes NFOOTY, it comprehensively fails GNG, is possibly a COPYVIO and does not even contain a line of prose, so deletion seems to be the only option here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same issues:

2016 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can't COPYVIO statistics. These are all valid articles, but they fail WP:NOTSTATS, but failing WP:NOTSTATS is a very easy thing to fix by adding even a little bit of prose. SportingFlyer T·C 10:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added prose to the 2015 season article. It's not great and I'm not sure I can do much else given the language barrier, but the topic's not non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for 2017, when they won a double. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Thanks for expanding those. I'm happy to withdraw the nom if you have an appetite to expand these but am unsure what to do with the hundreds of ones like this. Perhaps I could move them to draft space for the time being or something like that. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Microwave Anarchist: Well, I'm not actually happy about having to expand them. I wouldn't mind starting a conversation somewhere about these sorts of articles, more in depth than the one I posted on the football wikiproject. I might support redirecting these somewhere but there's really no perfect answer: it's a type of article which can fail WP:NOT as written improperly, which places these in some sort of weird notability zone. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Yeah, a wider discussion would be helpful, but imma withdraw this for now. I might go about moving some of these to draftspace, as some other editors have done the same. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minor party. As necessary. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third party (politics)[edit]

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

Although it opens with In electoral politics, a third party is any party contending for votes that failed to outpoll either of its two strongest rivals (emphasis in original), this is untrue; this is an exclusively American definition of "third party" that is not used elsewhere, for the simple reason that other countries (even those with two-party-dominant systems) tend to have a range of parties that command varying levels of support and have varying levels of relevance. You can find some instances of "third parties" being used in this sense internationally, but it's very uncommon (likely picked up due to American influence); "smaller parties", "minor parties" or similar are overwhelmingly preferred.

Third party (Canada) was already deleted a few months back for the same reasons (see its AFD here), but this escaped my notice until now. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reason given. The page does make mention of some democratic systems away from the USA, it's very USA-centric. Athel cb (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • … which is ironic, really. What is now third party (United States) was the original page (originally at third party), and then this page (replacing it at third party as an umbrella, then moved to third political party, to be replaced by a disambiguation at third party, then to here) and third party (Canada) were split off it. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The history isn't really relevant. What needs to be considered is the page as it is now, giving the appearance of being set up by someone only barely aware that there is a whole world beyond the borders of the USA. Athel cb (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The history is very relevant, especially when one is opining to get rid of it. ☺ It shows that what happened here is that the one subject that does exist got split into three (by SimonP no less, whom that charge cannot legitimately be levelled at) out of a sense that there should be an umbrella topic over the top of the United States and Canada. The fact that the U.S. one is the only actual topic is why this umbrella and the other article never really worked, and why this umbrella ended up so lop-sided. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Third party (United States), as in its current state this article is nothing but an unneeded Content Fork. Changing my vote to Merge to Minor party per the below discussion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this needs cleanup, and AFD is not cleanup. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is that this needs cleanup. "Third party" means something different in the US than it does in the UK. Once we have targets for both those concepts, this needs to be disambiguation page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete? (The one "keep" makes no real argument.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This page is fairly relevant to international politics, though it has an obvious American bent. As an example of its relevance, the Lib Dems are (were) often called the UK's third party, while the New Democratic Party are often called Canada's third party. The page does need a rewrite to internationalize the subject, but a deletion is way too overboard. Curbon7 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you square that with the argument put forward in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third party (Canada) that that often and not always is simply because that party came third at that particular time? Where's the documented definition of this outside of the United States? Where is it for Canada, for starters? Where is the evidence that this can be internationalized? SimonP made a good faith effort in 2004, but that was mainly shifting around other people's Wikipedia writing. Indeed, I can find an OUP book (ISBN 9780198834205 chapter 4) telling me that Canada has a three-party, not two-party, system, and that in the U.K. the two-party systems of the 1860s and 1950s are actually, historically, an aberration. So there, at least according to one politicial scholar, is not the two-parties-and-everyone-else-"third" as there is in the U.S.. Indeed, the book states unequivocally on page 78 that the U.S. is an outlier in this respect.

      So, I have Ross McKibbin. Where's your expert?

      Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nobody disputes that countries have a "third party". However, this page specifically says that a third party is any party contending for votes that failed to outpoll either of its two strongest rivals, which is to say it's a collective term for parties below the top two, and— at the risk of repeating myself here— this is a definition only used in American politics. US political discourse can talk about the Greens, Libertarians, et all collectively as "third parties" because they have approximately equal strength, relevance, impact and a similar 'outsider appeal'. But other countries have their own political dynamics where it doesn't make sense to lump together every party below the top two. So in Canada, yes, people will call the New Democratic Party "Canada's third party"; but nobody would collectively refer to the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, and any party not represented in parliament, as "Canada's third parties", because the parties have varying levels of strength and relevance (and because Canada's politics can be somewhat volatile, and the top two are not always a given— witness the NDP overtaking the Liberal Party in 2011, only for the Liberals to jump from third to first in the next election). I am not deeply knowledgeable about British political discourse but I have to imagine it's a similar situation there. You can't internationalize the subject because the subject isn't international to begin with. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to third party (United States). Most countries do not have two-party dominance the way the US does. In proportional representation, used by a large number of Western democracies, this concept is totally irrelevant. Even in first past the post jurisdictions there may be dozens of parties - in the UK, for example, there are multiple mainstream parties (Lib-Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru etc) contending many elections, and several single issue / fringe parties that also stand in multiple seats, including the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, Brexit Party, UKIP and more. There may be scope for an article on spoiler candidates in two-party systems (e.g. Ross Perot), but this is not that article. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs cleaning; the Ross Perot thing fits in perfectly, for example, but AFD is not cleanup. Also, this is not suitable to become a US article only. For example, I have added well-sourced material about the third party win in Korea (2016) that broke traditional two-party politics there. XavierItzm (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept is an important one in the field of political science and there are more countries than the US who do not use a proportional representation system. --Enos733 (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Draftify Idk, the three sources here are all about Korea, and they don't really establish this as a parallel concept there. The rest of the article is unsourced and reads as original research conflating the US meaning with elsewhere. Just because there are other places that aren't proportional doesn't mean they use this term similarly. Reywas92Talk 17:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of academic work on the role third parties play in electoral politics across the world (in Ghana, Canada, multiple countries, the UK, Australia, South Africa, the European Union, Israel, and Spain. Now some of this may not exactly fit, but the concept of third parties is well recognized. --Enos733 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote. Partial Merge to Minor party. Assessing these sources, I fail to see why we should have two mediocre articles on essentially the same topic rather than one article that may be better able to integrate or summarize aspects of diverse political systems. Reywas92Talk 19:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has mentioned that article I hope it's okay to ping prior voters @Athel cb@Curbon7@Devonian Wombat@JzG@Kawnhr@Uncle G@XavierItzm:@力:. Redirect to Third party (United States) is probably not the best idea, but for a general topic meant to give international examples there's not enough of a clear enough definition of or distinction between "third" and "minor" parties to warrant separate articles. Reywas92Talk 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reywas92, that works for me - I think this is a merge job, I am happy to let others decide the very best target. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me, Reywas92. My objection was always that the phrase "third parties" is not internationally widespread, not that no other countries have smaller parties in an effective duopoly. Minor party does indeed seem like a good place to cover that. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rewas92's view. Athel cb (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer a redirect to a merge, but it does seem there is lots of overlap between the two topics (and until there is work done to distinguish the topics, having it all exist in one place makes sense). --Enos733 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is really more of a content issue than a notability issue. I think it's functionally the same as "minor party" but used in a different context. The term itself is probably notable, but the article needs clean-up and I agree represents an American view of the subject, as most places they're just "minor parties." I think we can have a page "third party (politics)", but whether that's a reverse merge from the US page, a redirect to the US page, a disambiguation page, I'm not sure - I don't really think it's this page as written, with its clearly incorrect definition - for instance, a quick search of mine shows the Lib Dems have even been called the "fourth party," which goes against the lede as written. I haven't bolded a vote, but essentially: notable topic, page needs clean-up, deletion of this specific page is probably warranted. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Minor party, since this is just a subset when there is only one other significant party aside from the "big two". None of the sources support that "third party" (as distinct from minor party, fourth party, etc) is a notable concept. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Minor party: As others have suggested there is a lot of duplicate, overlapping content here. It doesn't make sense to have these as separate pages and thus merging seems like the best course. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Flavius Egnatius Placidus Severus[edit]

Quintus Flavius Egnatius Placidus Severus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, no indication of notability (what offices he held, what he did that makes him stand out), and lacks significant WP:COVERAGE in sources. The creator was known for creating articles of the sort indiscriminately, and is long since banned apparently because of it. 11 years later and nobody has even bothered to place the article in a Wikiproject or relevant categories. Avilich (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Subject was co-head (vicar) of the diocese of Italy in 365. Does this qualify him for WP:NPOL? 15 (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". We only know him as a footnote of sorts, no WP:COVERAGE of any actual activity of his. Avilich (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source (Settipani) isn't academic, it's a work on genealogy of very questionable reliability. The only primary source for Severus is a compilation of 4th-century AD laws which only mentions the man in passing. I should also mention that the full name, "Quintus Flavius Egnatius Placidus Severus", seems to be partly made up by Settipani. Avilich (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written, the article uses the noun "politician" as his occupational label in the first sentence, but then fails to say a single word about how he was a politician — it otherwise focuses entirely on his family genealogy, without any reliable sources or any discernible notability claim. As for whether being vicar of a diocese would get him over WP:NPOL or not, I'd have to say no — it might get him over our notability criteria for religious figures if there were actual reliable sources present that counted toward WP:GNG, but it's not an "inherently" notable political role that would exempt him from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - If 15's information is correct, he should be notable. The vicarius was effectively a provincial governor, or rather one rank above that, governing a Roman diocese consisting of several provinces, in principle 1/12 of the Roman Empire. This is not a question of the kind of diocese that has a bishop. Being a senator in a period when the senate had little power would certainly be NN. NPOL is a useful guideline, but applies primarily to elected officials, not appointed ones. "Vicar" means a deputy. In the church sense, the person is the deputy of the rector. In this case, it means the emperor's deputy for ruling Italy. If that is what he was, we should no more delete him than we would the governor of North Dakota or Georgia. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't or shouldn't have single-sentence articles which are just X person was governor of Y place and nothing more. Whether he was elected or not is irrelevant, since all high officials of the empire were appointed. Most vicars known to us are sparsely documented nobodies. Don't make this more complicated than it is. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do dislike the way this kind of article creates pages of online cruft based on no sourcing whatsoever. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 22:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2037 Bomber[edit]

2037 Bomber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COATRACK article about what Clinton-era Congressional crystal gazers thought the U.S. bomber fleet should look like in 2037. The concept (if you can even call it that) was dropped within a year in favor of a stop-gap solution. Nothing worth merging. Schierbecker (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no article is perfect, more sources could be added, but this one is adequately sourced. XavierItzm (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is being nominated for deletion because of its lack of notability. Quality is irrelevant. Your comment seems out of place. Schierbecker (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now that you just vote keep on every AfD with the same boilerplate argument, whether it fits or not. Makes sense now. Schierbecker (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great ad-hominem, instead of addressing the issue, which is that the article is well sourced enough, with coverage across years in media such as Popular_Science, Wired (magazine), etc. We go by the sources here. XavierItzm (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the Next-Generation Bomber if we're looking for something more contemporaneous. Intothatdarkness 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Next-Generation Bomber. Not enough on its own but will improve the Next-Generation Bomber page. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to most applicable other article. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - there is nothing on the TP about a WP:COATRACK issue.
    It is false that the concept was "dropped in one year". The article itself makes it clear that it was the official policy of the US Air Force from 1999 to 2006 to have a 2037 Bomber; i.e. from the 1999 Bomber Roadmap to the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. On these grounds alone the AfD ought to be rejected with prejudice.
    Furthermore, consider the sources over the years (among the other sources in the article):
If we go by sources, the notability of the topic is well established.XavierItzm (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037. However, changes in planned force structure and deletion of most B-52 low-level flying may have invalidated previous service life conclusions and require new analysis. The Air Force is beginning the Long-Range Strike Aircraft X (LRSA-X) study to examine bomber replacement timelines. Study goal is to start an acquisition program in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe.

  • There is also no evidence that any development work began before the timeline was fast-tracked. The 1999 white paper said that defining the Mission Area Assessment—the very first milestone—would need to begin by 2013. If this bomber was alive c. 2006, which it wasn't, then development wouldn't begin for seven more years. All the 1999 white paper does is ask lawmakers and Pentagon officials to hold their pennies for a new bomber project 15 years down the road. It does not a development program make. This bomber never existed. Schierbecker (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When the article was nominated, it had six sources from 1999 to 2008. It now has twice as many sources, ranging from 1999 to 2016. It really is incredible how sources written in three separate decades, i.e., the 1990's, the 2000's, and the 2010's keep citing the 2037 Bomber. This might be a WP:HEY case. In any event, no evidence was ever raised for the original claim for deletion: that this was a WP:COATRACK and a subject that "was dropped within one year". XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll need to do better than these sources.
  • Wired, 2007; A blog post which does no original reporting, quotes a Defense News article's source, an analyst, saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus and I don’t believe in the 2037 bomber. It’s a mythical beast. It’s just not there. I don’t know why the Air Force even talks about it.” This source was being used on the Wikipedia entry to claim that specific technologies would be included in the bomber. The author's apparent inability to separate their own speculation and opinion from Defense News's reporting makes this an unreliable source. Moreover, Air Force sources I have read do not make specific claims about technology readiness in the 2037 timeframe. Defining mission requirements would not happen until before 2013, as I have already stated. This should have been a tip-off to you.
  • Popular Science, 2009; mentions the mythical 2037 bomber in passing but goes on at length to describe the 2018 bomber competition. It seems the editor who added that source failed to read the Popular Science article properly and thought the unmanned, undetectable fully-fleshed out future aircraft was the 2037 bomber. *facepalm*
  • Future Timeline Celeb birthday/horoscope-tier web portal that contains a WP:CIRCULAR reference back to Wikipedia and no original reporting.
  • The US Air Force, for its part, predicted in a controversial 1999 report (Bomber Roadmap) that the replacement of the B-52H (entered service in 1961) and B-2A (1993) bombers by a new generation will not take place until 2037.
  • The service later changed course in 2004 saying it would need a new medium bomber from 2020 (without canceling the 2037 Bomber program) in order to cope with the proliferation of new

anti-aircraft systems (anti-access / area-denial)[...]

  • The provenience of this information from events that supposedly occurred nine years prior is not explained. The claim that the bomber was alive until 2004, especially when it contradicts contemporaneous American reporting on the Long-Range Strike white paper three years earlier, is highly suspect.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I agree that the source futuretimeline that was there was not a WP:RS, and which someone had baselessly added in 2017. See, you really help improve the quality of the article when you constructively edit instead of nuking.XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge - More than enough coverage and sources for an article. (This could be covered in another article if needed.) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there was no consensus (or no discussion either), the Jan. 2021 attempt does not count as valid attempt imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor correction: The content I summarized on the B-2 Spirit page is still present in the form I wrote. The redirect was the only edit that was reversed. Schierbecker (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - per WP:HEYMANN, the article ought to not be deleted. It's had 55 edits since it was nominated to AfD. At nomination the article was 4,193 bytes. It is now 11,503 bytes. Since nomination, the article has been edited by 11 different editors, by my count. It has more than twice as many sources. Sources have been eliminated where warranted. And this is not to mention the serious vices in the original nomination, which include lack of a WP:BEFORE, unsubstantiated claims, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buddy, I've stalked this page for well over a decade and spent several days trying to find any evidence that this concept was ever pursued beyond one service life projection 22 years ago. I didn't parachute into this AfD with no understanding of the issues. You did. Schierbecker (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, buddy. So you should know that per Wikipedia policy you were required to check the repeated attempts to delete or merge the page in 2014, 2016, 2018, and January 2021, all of which failed. But it appears you failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE. You may or may not have parachuted in, but you certainly didn't follow procedure. Besides, you continue to misrepresent that from 1999 to 2006 the Air Force's official plan was to develop a 2037 Bomber.XavierItzm (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you freaking kidding me?? This article was PROPOSED for deletion twice and nominated for Speedy Deletion once, all by the same user (who is now blocked). Contesting a Proposed Deletion or Speedy Deletion does not carry any prejudice against further discussion regarding merging or deleting an article at AfD. RTFM.
The termination date of 2001 is sourced within the article, but go off sis. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have struck and removed my 'Merge' vote. Article now explains a clear concept. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sourcing has improved, but the WP:COATRACK issue identified in the delete rationale remains. I do not think we should have an article entitled 2037 Bomber since not only does no such bomber exist, no specific plans for one were ever drawn up. What is of substance in the article is documentation of the requirements planning of US air defence policy, and neither the title nor the categories the article belongs to should suggest otherwise. I'm open to renaming this article, but rather than have this article remain under this title, I would !vote to merge it to Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider as the least distant article, under which the material could exist under the history section. Note further that if we cannot find several RSes that refer to this idea under the term 2037 Bomber, then the term falls foul of our policy per WP:NEOLOGISM; specifically, the Congressional sources I looked at do not support this as an established usage. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2037 bomber" has a fair amount of common usage in primary sources, but it shouldn't be capitalized as a proper noun. Schierbecker (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Darwish[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of her or of her band. Lennart97 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. The only hits on Google are from self-published and user-generated sites such are Instagram, SoundCloud, and Spotify. The recordings have not charted on national music charts or have received any certifications or accolades. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tournier[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Only 3 FC and 1 LA matches, but there is a lot of coverage in match reports and other bits from all over his career, from club cricket to FC cricket. There's this in the telegraph about his uni cricket, and there's lots of coverage of when he played against international sides, which I imagine will have been covered more in Wisden. No real redirect as played for 2 different sides if needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Finding what Rugbyfan22 has found also, I'd say it satisfies GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources in the article at present are the usual CricInfo/Cricket Archive, and I only see a couple mentions of him in game reports here and there, mostly the Telegraph. Easily fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LendUp[edit]

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

Generic payday loan company. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 14:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but due only to the broad coverage of multiple legal actions against the company. I just overhauled the article to reflect this. (I accepted this article via AfC in 2013 when it should probably have been declined.) JSFarman (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cited significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a payday lending company. There are about 60 in the UK alone, so it is entirely generic. We will go through the dreadful list of references. scope_creepTalk 12:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't come across the articles from major publications it's because (as I just discovered) LendUp is incredibly good at burying bad news. Articles from the Wall Street Journal, LA Times and the Christian Science Monitor, among others, should show up on the first page of a Google search yet they didn't appear until I hit page three. The Wikipedia article is on the fifth page of Yahoo!, and ten pages in I have yet to see any negative coverage. JSFarman (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Showing the company in the negative, isn't a particular decent way of proving it is notable, all it is, is proving it is bad at business. That is an entirely different criterion to the one that is needed here. I'll do the references tomorrow for this Sock-generated article. scope_creepTalk 20:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope creep, if it is bad at business and that is reported in the Wall Street Journal, LA Times and the Christian Science Monitor, then it is notable. ~Kvng (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same language in all three references, which means likely it comes from a Reuters report, and is essentially the same reference. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references:
  1. Launches today Fails WP:ORGIND. Not independent as it is press-release.
  2. The online game of borrowing money Rosenberg is chief technology officer of Lend Up. He took the job after the CEO — his step brother — plied him with a grilled cheese sandwich. Fails WP:ORGIND. Not independent.
  3. LendUp uses ‘big data’ to bring better small-dollar loans to people in need Any company that works at web-scale uses big data. Launching today, the San Francisco-based startup.. It is an annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as its not independent.
  4. Aiming To Disrupt Payday Lending, a16z-Backed LendUp Now Offers Instant Online And Mobile Loans Co-founders Jacob Rosenberg and Sasha Orloff tell us that they’re Not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  5. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Sues LendUp Loans Notice of injuction. Not to reference to prove notability. Effectively non-rs.
  6. Payday loan alternative LendUp to pay $6.3 million for misleading customers Its an announcement. The company will also pay $1.8 million and $1.06 million to the federal bureau and California department, respectively, to cover penalties and other costs Originally printed in NerdWallet, so it is an affiliate link, making it a press release.
  7. Fintech Upstart LendUp Fined by CFPB It is the same exact announcement.
  8. Google-backed LendUp fined by regulators over payday lending practices LendUp, based in San Francisco, will pay refunds of about $3.5 million — including $1.6 million to California customers — plus fines and penalties to the Department of Business Oversight and CFPB It is the same exact announcement.
  9. Can't access it, but assuming WP:AGF by this sock-generated article likely fails WP:SIRS as not independent. And WP:ORGIND
  10. PayPal & LendUp Bridge Financial Inclusion Gap “Through the process, I met Dan Schulman [then] at American Express. He was a big champion of financial inclusion. He had been tooting the horn at AMEX for a long time and had been leading their financial inclusion revamp,” said Orloff. Completly non-independent. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND

Here is another reference: [77] which indicates that the CFPB comes from an press release making it a standard announcement. This makes it an announcement failing WP:ORGIND and is not independent. According to this reference, [78] in Dec 2019 there were 23000 payday lending companies in American, make an entry entirely generic. This SOCK-generated article is a brochure for advertising. Its fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 16:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references have changed again. I will examine them tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 07:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references are really poor, but I think it boils down to the fact whether Wikipedia is reponsible for keeping article that has a human interest aspect. Currently the article doesn't say why it is notable, so its assumed from the comments above that due to the fact that it was fined for a banking scandal. Is it Wikipedias social responsibility to keep an article because of that, particularly when it known, that the average UK bank has a banking scandal on average every 13 months. With 23000 payday lending companies in the US, I don't think it is notable. It is not Wikipedia business to represent this kind of knowledge. scope_creepTalk 14:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, no need to overthink this. If reliable sources have reported on it, it is eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Because there is no space constratint, Wikipedia is not curated the same way other collections are. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: Thanks for that. There are currently 23k payday loan company in the US and core part of the sources we have are not a differentiator to determine notability, in this instance. Payday lenders are some of the most greedy, vindicative, agressive and rip-off finanancial companies that exist. The fact they been found out, when they've ripped off their customesr is nothing new. All of them do that, so the fact they have done it, is not a differentiator, and cannot be used to determine notability. Setting huge interest of 200% or above is relatively common, when compared to some of the ones in the UK, which charge more than 1000%, so that is not a differentiator either. What probably is, is a massive number of customers, with associated coverage, and that is hard to define, because currently the market is so fragmented. So how do you differentiate to determine who is notable and who is not. Firstly it is not based they were greedy and got caught, because on average their backing banks, have a banking scandal every 13 months on average, because they are greedy as well. So They're is not a one fact in the sources that indicate that they are notable, because what happened to them, happens to all, all the time, unless it is somekind of coop, or ethical lending outfit, which in this climate,after the credit crunch in 2008, is few and far between. So there nothing, not one fact, that makes generic lender standout. It is entirely non-notable. scope_creepTalk 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope creep, there is nothing in our notability guidelines that relates to the type of differentiators you're talking about here. What matters is whether there's reliable reporting in secondary sources. That may make more of these outfits notable than we would ever realistically write articles about. That may mean that we can't have articles on larger outfits that operate quietly and don't get caught by the press. The notability guidelines prevent us from writing articles where there are not enough sources to support them. They are not a curation mechanism beyond that. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When something becomes a common occurance, it is not notable. Here is a Guardian report about a whole bunch of payday lenders in the UK charging exorbitant fees, Wonga 2.0? Meet the new breed of payday lenders. So that is not a differentiator. Here is a news report that address payday lender scandals: Without financial regulation, payday loan scandals continue to hit the poorest the hardest Here is a US Report: U.S. Based Payday Loan Giants May Face Legal Action for Huge Scandal It goes on and on and on and on. Reams of reports, an everyday occurance. Completly normal behaviour and nothing special about it. So you can't say that as they had a scandal, were caught, so they are notable. It happens all the time. It common, so is not notable and that combined terrible refs. Its junk. scope_creepTalk 14:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope creep, both of us have repeated the same points a couple of times now. I think we're done here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoogholtje bridge[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Not even sure if the term is legit. It just seems strange that only small province would even use the term. Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claims that this type of bridge does not pass the WP:GNG or is illegit cannot be taken seriously. Nominator has a question about these bridges. That's awesome! AfD is the WP:WRONGFORUM. gidonb (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am serious and WP:ONUS is not on me. If the article should be kept, provide sources that demonstrate its notability. As of right now there are zero sources. If I go to Google and search for the term, nothing comes up.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally hundreds of sources, accessible for example through Google, Google Books, Delpher, the De krant van toen and other databases. Nominator's job is to do an adequate WP:BEFORE and per WP:NEXIST all that matters is that the sources are out there. A hoogholtje is essentially the same as a kwakel or kwakelbrug, in the old Dutch spelling a quakel. I would go for Kwakel bridge as not in a Lower Saxonian dialect but in the language that most readers of English, who are big on travel to the Amsterdam region, will encounter this bridge. I even considered quakel that might have pronunciation advantages but it isn't commonly used in English. What happened to asking a question on a talk page? All people seem to do these days is starting AfDs with any question or requests they might have! gidonb (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:ONUS is not on me. This is a poor quality article that has been unsourced for 15 years! I actually did WP:BEFORE, Google and Google books bring up nothing (obviously you never looked at either). Your declaration of Sources Exist is not helpful when you refuse to actually provide these sources that you claim to exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
False! This is a common bridge in the Netherlands with huge historical and cultural significance and probably well over thousand sources on the web, as detailed before. The three relevant policies are: WP:BEFORE that was badly done. For example, a user below found three sources while using only Google (Delpher has hundreds of sources by each name) and speaks no Dutch. Furthermore, the Dutch article says that hoogholtje is the same as kwakel and is linked to that article. The kwakel article is referenced and kwakel has, once again, tons of sources. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, explicitly saying "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Finally, Wikipedia has no deadline, which you seem to imply. Based on your other AfDs, I assume that you will keep arguing, not withdraw, and this nomination, too, will fail. Once you will do an adequate WP:BEFORE, ask questions on talk pages, be open to knowledge that others, including sources and databases, have to share, and argue less, you will serve WP better or at the very least will finally get your AfD success rates up. gidonb (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already proved to you that I did a BEFORE search, problem is WP:ONUS is not on me. There is no way for me to know what an alternate (and perhaps more popular) name would be for this bridge when it doesn't appear in the article. Doing a BEFORE search does not mean spending hours trying to research a topic. And yes, wikipedia does have a deadline for sourcing, it is when the article is created. Articles without sources should not exist. And why don't you strike your false WP:PERSONALATTACK about my AfD success rate. Its actually 68%.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I searched in several different places. The WP:BEFORE on this wasn't an easy one. SportingFlyer T·C 19:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine that it was difficult to find "hoogholtje bridge", especially because the bridge is in fact just name "hoogholtje". The Banner talk 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No case for deletion was ever made or exists. The idea that these bridges are a hoax is just weird. Really weird. My suggestion was constructive: invest more in nominations, go for quality where the facts speak for themselves rather than quantity where one WP:BLUDGEONES with everyone, and the results will be so much better for all parties involved, including oneself, and above all for Wikpedia! gidonb (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's pretty obvious what the problem is with this, and I'm getting more than a little irritated at the trend towards trying to dismiss AfDs without looking at the article on terminological grounds. Book hit searching for this produces nothing. Nothing. Web searches don't do enough better. Both the Dutch and Low Saxon WP articles are uncited, so they are no help here for refs. I have to say that a type of bridge for which there are no book hits at all isn't plausibly notable. It makes me doubt it is even a thing at all. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a real thing from a books search. Might be hard to find enough though to write an article about. A merge seems appropriate, but not sure where to. Jumpytoo Talk 04:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's clearly a real thing, both the speedy keep and the delete !votes are lacking so far. However, this, this, and this are the only sources I can find so far which would suggest WP:GNG coverage of the term; the second and third sources is lacking, but it's very possible I'm missing valid Dutch sources because of a language barrier. There's an op-ed which I can't access which may discuss the bridges, but the fact it shares a name with a number of bed and breakfasts and schools doesn't help the source search. For now, a weak keep on the assumption there's more Dutch language sources out there. SportingFlyer T·C 15:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not absurd, there were absolutely no references when I nominated this. Also, please cite the guideline that says if a topic has a wikipedia commons category than it must be notable (I haven't seen it). --Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Woefully inadequate Wikipedia:BEFORE. Not Wikipedia commons, but common sense, also considering https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoogholtje, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwakel, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heechhout, which speaks to the "strange that only small province would even use the term". Note the difference between 'legit' and 'notable'. Djflem (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical of you. All you do is scream "BEFORE! BEFORE! BEFORE!" The article in its previous state, appeared to be a possible WP:HOAX. I've already explained above how my before search came up with nothing. Notice how the Dutch wikipedia article is is also unsourced, so no help there. The existence of an article in another language does not equal notability. That project may have different standards and without reliable secondary sources, it simply carries no weight.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And who else is the network of culprits in the conspiracy to write & publish the Hoogholtje bridge article, the other than the creators & contributors of the Dutch articles, the photographers and contributors to Wikimedia Commons, and the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (the Dutch equivilant to the National Registers of Historic Places? If, as you stated, you are "not even sure if the term is legit" or "it just seems strange that only small province would even use the term" to you, do better BEFORE nominating.Djflem (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment Perhaps it is frustrating but while there is at least some sourcing for kwakel (or kwakelbrug), there still is none for the name on this page. And frankly, at this point kwakel could just as well be created as a redirect to a short section in footbridge, and this one still deleted. I do see that the NL article is actually (if not well) sourced, but I also see that the two commons categories are completely disjoint; moreover, the picture in this article is in neither. Finally, I would like to observe that it is lame to criticize someone in the English WP for not searching on a name that is utterly different from that in the article. Mangoe (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm sure you know, notability is different from the state of sourcing in the article - I'd fix it up but have no confidence in doing it right due to the language barrier. But this wasn't an easy/straightforward search, and as I've said before I really don't agree with those who say the BEFORE was inadequate. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination smell like a severe geographical bias, with a negative opinion about the Netherlands and its provinces. With that, the nomination not by far neutral. Back to the issue: this type of bridge is used in multiple provinces in the Netherlands: Groningen, Friesland, North Holland (including Amsterdam) and South Holland (including Rotterdam and The Hague) and Overijssel (Giethoorn). The article is well sourced. The Banner talk 21:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination smell like a severe geographical bias, with a negative opinion about the Netherlands and its provinces. With that, the nomination not by far neutral. Wow, nobody can fool you. I didn't think anyone else would pick up on it, but yes I nominated this solely because I hate the Netherlands. What a stupid statement!--Rusf10 (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for confirming your bias. But could you please discuss the content without personal attacks? The Banner talk 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this nomination originally seems to be prompted by a lack of understanding of the Dutch language and Dutch history/culture. In The Netherlands there are several languages and dialects. Therefor local cultural or landscape oriented aspects can have a different name, depending on the region. For example: the landscape element Kwelder. Where I live people will probably know what I'm talking about when I say "Kwelder". I've I would travel south for about half an hour, people would probably have no idea what I'm talking about because kwelders are called schorren there. Another example, if I would travel as less as 5 kilometres, just to visit my family, people will notice instantly that I'm not from around there. So much can language differ in the Netherlands. Thus it doesn't seem strange to me that this term is only used in Groningen, a province in which the Low Saxon also is an official language. The language the term Hoogholtje originates from. A language not used in any of the other provinces.
Regarding the sources. There is no reason that independent and reliable sources cannot be found. However, you'll have to do a literature search in Dutch and probably visit a one of the major libraries in the Netherlands. The history of Groningen is well researched. Just because a Google search didn’t provide any useful results, it doesn’t mean that no sources can be found. Unfortunately COVID makes it hard for me to visit the Royal Library, but I surely hope that difficulties visiting libraries due to a pandemic isn’t a reason to dismiss an article.
Should pages about similar bridges be merged? No, architecture, local cultural significance or origin may differ significantly. Natuur12 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't good enough to say "no reason that [...] sources cannot be found"; they need to be found, and nobody has found any as has looked, as far as has been said here.
As far as the language variants are concerned: first, I am aware of the issue, but second, this being the English WP, we need what they are called in English. So far nobody has given a source which uses the current name, and the other name at least has some sources, but when all is said and done, it takes no more than one sentence (maybe two) and a picture to describe these things, which is why I'm thinking a section in footbridge is more appropriate, Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, we're getting somewhere. At least understand why it was so hard to find sources for this. There are multiple names for the same bridge and now I understand why. But that's not my fault. If the article was written properly in the first place, the alternate names would have been there. They were nowhere to be found. What I came across was a poorly written unsourced article that has been that way for about 15 years. It did not provide the necessary information that I would need to research the topic without being a Dutch language expert. I know its fun to WP:BlameTheNominator (somebody should write a essay about that), but this is the fault of the person who created this article and the rest of you who haven't cared about the article for the past 15 years, but now have this fake outrage because someone dared to nominate a really poor-quality article for deletion.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can not expect Dutch people to provide sources in English, just because you guys can not handle that. But is is your right to withdraw the nomination now it is an okay article. The Banner talk 09:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can expect them to provide sources though. There were no sources in any language.WP:V is a policy, can you handle that?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really failed to see the 10 sources in the article? The Banner talk 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But beside that, see here:
  1. Het Noorden in woord en beeld, jrg 4, 1928-1929, no 1, 01-01-1928, 1928
  2. Het Noorden in woord en beeld, jrg 1, 1925-1926, no 41, 08-01-1926, 1926
  3. Over de bodem van de Dollard, 2011
  4. Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 1929
  5. Trouw, 1994
There is much more on https://www.delpher.nl/ that can give evidence of the existence of this type of bridge. All can be found under the simple search string "Hoogholtje" (and not the incorrect name "Hoogholtje bridge"). The Banner talk 16:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. This is what the article looked like when I nominated it. There were no sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And how hard is it for you to understand that there are NOW plenty sources. It is not illegal for a subject to have sources in another language. The Banner talk 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, a small correction. Groningen isn't the only province where they speak Low Saxon, they speak a unique variety named Gronings.

The only problem with the original article is the lack of citations. It’s factual correct. Length isn’t a criteria for quality. Regardless, citations are provided and the article contains some more info. The term Hoogholtje is still used. (example).

Can more reliable sources be found? Yes. Example 1, example 2, example 3. Still, for A-grade sources I'll have to visit the Royal Library, but COVID complicates things. Natuur12 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Lieb[edit]

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

GNG fail. After looking at the sources, I am fairly convinced that the book sources are self-published or actually authored by Lieb under pseudonym. I do not trust any of them, reliability-wise. That leaves numerous articles in the local paper, The Courier, many of which are trivial mentions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all coverage I can find is in the local paper. He may be a noteworthy artist in his city, but I don't see him discussed anywhere else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are either suspect per Possibly's research, or trivial.Theredproject (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, many of the books are definitely not self published. At least three are from New Zealand[10][11][12], another three are from Canada[13][14][15], and several are from within Australia, including one published by a researcher at the university of Hobart.[16] There may also be others listed at world cat.[17]— Preceding unsigned comment added by El937 (talk • contribs)
It appears that all of your edits have been related to Ash Lieb, so I have to take those sources with a grain of salt. Unfortunately I can't actually review any of them to check on the coverage but "Surreal pop: the art of Ash Lieb" only returns google 7 results. I have no way of determining the quality of these sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/hungama-hindustan-talkies-invest-in-esports-platform-indian-gaming-league-11614755903431.html
  2. ^ https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/indian-gaming-league-announces-launch-igl-championship-cup-season-1
  3. ^ https://www.indiantelevision.com/iworld/gaming/indian-gaming-league-raises-500k-from-hungama-hindustan-talkies-210303
  4. ^ https://europeangaming.eu/portal/latest-news/2021/03/04/87925/indian-gaming-league-announces-the-launch-of-igl-championship-cup-season-1/
  5. ^ https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366362
  6. ^ https://www.mansworldindia.com/tech/yash-pariani-and-krish-galani-meet-the-men-who-set-up-indias-first-professional-online-and-offline-gaming-league/
  7. ^ https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/hindustan-talkies-hungama-partner-indian-gaming-league-launch-indias-leading-biggest-e-gaming-tournament-awards/
  8. ^ https://digitalterminal.in/news/indian-gaming-league-launches-igl-championship-cup-season-1/21833.html
  9. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/art-and-culture/all-you-need-to-know-about-india-s-first-professional-gaming-league/story-7R7zGgIxmPuW9KZjdZ1EFJ.html
  10. ^ Trey Whitman, "Transgressive fiction", Bent books, New Zealand 2016 ISBN 978-0-473-35229-5
  11. ^ Ella Teller, "The someday book club - Volume 1", Nightfall Press, New Zealand 2016 ISBN 978-0-473-35213-4
  12. ^ Chip Lewis, "Wit: the humour of Woody Allen, Mitch Hedberg, Ash Lieb, Groucho Marx and Steven Wright", Wayward Classics, New Zealand, July 2016 ISBN 978-0-473-36489-2
  13. ^ Kane Martin, "A Critical Companion to The Secret well", Reverie Press, Canada, 2016 ISBN 978-0-9952512-0-5
  14. ^ Adam Greenberg, "Surreal pop : the art of Ash Lieb", Cherry Street Books, Toronto, Canada. 2016 ISBN 978-0-9952518-0-9
  15. ^ Erik Smith, "Absurdists: The surreal comedians", Luminary books, Canada, May 2016 ISBN 978-0-9950820-0-7
  16. ^ James Willow Jr, "The art and times of Ash Lieb", University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. September 2016 page 4 ISBN 978-1-8629587-5-3
  17. ^ https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ash+lieb
I checked the Canadian ones, being Canadian myself. Luminary books is registered in Canada but has no web presence at all. Cherry Street books has no web presence. Reverie has a web site but I am not sure if it is the same company. http://reveriepress.com/ is a self-publishing company. --- Possibly (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I looked up some of these books. Goodreads has an author page for "James Willow Jr." who has written three Lieb books. The most promising one "The art and times of Ash Lieb", University of Tasmania" doesn't show up in web searches. The ISBN does not exist when I search library or ISBN indexes. in fact, none of the ISBNs listed above are accurate. It's a fraud show. --- Possibly (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out the ISBNs do work, so striking that bit. the books are still highly dubious though. --- Possibly (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. Can I vote double secret delete? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. I think you can add "with impunity". By the way, you need to strike the second accidental d*l*te !vote! I usually just put stars in some of the letters when I need to do that. --- Possibly (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will that change fix it? Is that to keep the AFDstats bot happy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's fine. Thanks. It's more to prevent mistakes in manual counting.--- Possibly (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Persuaded by Possibly's solid source analysis, I reckon this is a well-disguised self-promo piece that needs to go. (And as SFR points out, the lone opinion to the contrary is from a largely-SPA with likely COI issues.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm calling WP:HOAX Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Discounting the SPA/IP !votes, the remaining participation by established editors still clearly falls short of consensus for deletion. A reasonable case has been made that sources show the subject to have aggregate notability over his several fields of activity. BD2412 T 03:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Bangs[edit]

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

Appears to be self-promotion by a non-notable author of self-published books Seaweed (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "non-notable ... self-published" - call him an alternative activist, anarchist, anything you like, he's not going to go to the "popular press" to get his books sponsored and published, he has unequivocal views on the capitalist state, so practises what he preaches - self-published, of course, how else is he to get the word out, like, most recently over the sad fate of the Low Weald and its exploitation by developers? (PB)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admirable work, but being mentioned or quoted in several articles isn't sufficient to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG; I don't see any strong depth-of-coverage in third party sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article on a person who does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, which is what he would need to pass to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you are in danger of falling into the establishment trap, why such a formulaic approach to assessing the quality of a listing, based on conservative, traditional principles? (PB)
  • Keep David Bangs might not meet the notability criteria for academics, but Bangs has other notable roles, such as a field naturalist, campaigner and public artist which has been covered in other sources. His mention in The Ecologist has a good level of detail for instance. His latest book has been reviewed five times, including in an academic journal and a national newspaper. His other books have also been cited in a PhD thesis. The fact his books were self-published doesn't matter as it has been critically engaged with. The tone of the piece can be amended. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's quite an endorsement and impressive for an outsider in this pure academic world, the fact that this atypical individual, diverging from the "accepted norms of society" has these reviews should be recognised. (PB)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quite a prominent local ecologist/activist, David Bangs' books are however self-published and his coverage in even local media is incidental. While I admire his environmentalism and stance and note the candour and AGF of User:Paolo.oprandi, I feel Mr Bangs does not pass WP:GNG. I'd have voted to draftify, but having searched I'd say there aren't enough RS mentions out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's not "quite" a prominent local activist, he is one in a very small band at the vanguard of critical strategic local and regional issues, indeed only last month (April 2021) he was the grit in the oyster, the spanner in the works to try and thwart the city council's attempts to control our public Brighton Downs (in a big webinar of ~100 people) (PB)
  • Comment Alexandermcnabb I don't think it is fair to say his coverage in local media is "incidental". He has has been a mouth piece of a number of successful campaigns which have had local and national significance and in most cases where the privatisation of the Sussex Downs has been mentioned they have sought a quote from him. It might be that some of the references that have been added should be pruned and if that is the case, please feel free to suggest/make those changes and we can discuss. Thanks for your help with this. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Incidental" is not a word that I'd recognise when it comes to Mr Bangs! (PB)
  • Keep Pace earlier arguments, this article does not suggest that David Bangs is an academic, and therefore does not need to meet the notability guidelines for academics. Furthermore, the article meets general notability criteria - Bangs has appeared on public radio and television, has been visibly involved in Brighton politics, and his political and intellectual work has been subject to critical scholarly review, as the article notes (see here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10455752.2020.1778243?casa_token=-L4E3XD4Ep4AAAAA:J4YtnxEsTx3qnFkHiDhaR_XvlD9K9FaH1iE0TI5Ra1RS-tAz8rJMWQOTKrcHmdMbexTi764ePwnZXzM). Recommendations for deletion are therefore unmerited. I advise revising the recommendation to suggest the article ensure a slightly more neutral tone. Rapscalian (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I initiated this proposed deletion. I'm still not convinced about its notability. Publishing books, painting murals and being involved in life generally is interesting, but it does not always lead to notability. I mean, we're all notable in some way, just not necessarily for an encyclopedia. Also I'm not sure about the neutrality about some of the edits of the article and even the contributions to this debate. Seaweed (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Solely on the basis of his life as a public artist, when his contributions have a unique significance to politics and the natural world, and have benefitted the lives of the communities where they have been painted, David Bangs meets the criteria for notability WP:GNG, and his publics art works have been mentioned already on wikipedia (Tolpuddle martyrs, Big Splash, ) and cited a number of times in London Mural Preservation Society (e.g. Calthorpe Project, Highbury Grove, Cromer Street Mosaic Murals) and books such as Secular Martyrdom in Britain and Ireland: From Peterloo to the Present. This was not the reason I created the article though, nor was it his extensive involvement in the successful campaigns to save many hectares of Sussex Downs from being privatised that has benefitted tens of thousands of Sussex residents and visitors, it was reading his book and realising the field research was notable in its coverage, knowledge and argumentation. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the original objection gives the impression that the self-published books are of little notability thanks to their being self-published. In fact, there have been reviews by Marion Shoard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Shoard and organisations such as https://www.ruralsussex.org.uk/. He's appeared on platforms with Caroline Lucas http://hoverepublic.blogspot.com/2010/10/latin-america-and-ecosocialist.html?m=1 and has had articles published in the Morning Star https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/books-our-countryside-use-it-or-lose-it. He has been an influence in many discussions and consultations on land use, politics and access in Sussex Identityrsb (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe the tone could be looked at but there is not doubt David Bangs is a notable and influential person. It is precisely because he is not easy to pigeon hole as either an academic, activist or naturalist that his career and output is so remarkable
  • Keep I think the article shouldn't be deleted because David Bang's literary works and social actions represent a significant contribution to the preservation and furtherment of the natural and social history of Sussex. He remains a key activist in the area, working to inform and mobilise the community.
Self-publication is not a reason to delete the article. His books have been critically reviewed by outside sources to great acclaim and are written in a way which both educates and inspires, deserving documentation and preservation in perpetuity.
https://www.ecos.org.uk/ecos-403-book-review-the-land-of-the-brighton-line/
https://www.ruralsussex.org.uk/book-review-the-land-of-the-brighton-line/
as a naturalist, David Bangs continues to make significant contributions to our understanding of the past and present state of the natural history of Sussex. His mapping of remaining chalk grassland around Brighton and Hove represents a resource that can be used to restore and reconnect this internationally important and culturally sigbificant habitat. His writings have been vital to providing an evidence base to inform the ongoing Brighton and Hove City Council City Downland Estate Plan public consultation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.42.228 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite all the obvious SPA/potential sock !votes above, the rationale of the nom stands, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 23:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because there are new voices on wikipedia (for newcomers to wikipedia editing SPA means Single Purpose Account) does not make their knowledge and opinion any less valid or should have any less say of who and what is notable enough for wikipedia entry - in fact quite the contrary. The allegation that these are sock votes (votes cast by spoof accounts) is low and quite frankly reprehensible. The final arbiters of this page will make their own decision. And now you seem to have double voted I am not sure if I should too. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Double vote? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - my mistake Paolo.oprandi (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep David Bangs's publications contain important and original research, and represent a unique resource in the ongoing efforts to protect and restore one of England's most biodiverse and culturally important landscapes. His work makes him eminently notable and certainly deserving of a dedicated entry. 82.27.145.124 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this entry shouldn´ẗ be deleted because A Freedom to Roam Guide to the Sussex Downs and especially The Land of the Brighton Line are impressive works. Bangs writes with passion and scholarship on natural history, geology and history. The books provide far more detail and in a far wider and often surprising range of areas than most field guides. They are probably self-published because few if any commercial publishers would have taken so much trouble over their design and included such large numbers of photos and diagrams Phlogiston72 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please keep this entry- Bangs' contribution to the understanding of Sussex' nature and history is most valuable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeda33 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are a couple of reviews of his books in serious publications, one by an author who is herself notable, which add to the collection of evidence which I think mounts to notability. (I have tweaked one ref, by Shoard, to clarify it, and added the review from Open Space (magazine).) PamD 17:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:- Seaweed I can see what triggered your concern, ip-editors and a single contributor making multiple edits, but in this case I think you were wrong. WP:DONTBITE applies. The man is a polymath, and cummulatively easily passes WP:GNG. Looking at the article you tagged when you tagged it- it was a bit raw and looked as we were discussing a non-notable selfpublished author- it has changed in style and content since then, and the fact that one of this graphic artistsWP:ARTIST, books WP:AUTHOR is the definitive text in this area of downland research and he is a television presenter does make a a difference. (Criteria: 1, 3, 4c) His successful political action viz CROW and street art deserve consideration now. WP:POLITICIAN may be is going too far though. What ever the result of this evalution, I do think it is good practice to give guidance on the talk page first, then use the BLP tag before considering for deletion. WP:RETENTION.ClemRutter (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with PamD's comments. Seaweed commented that "Publishing books, painting murals and being involved in life generally is interesting, but it does not always lead to notability", however the critical interacting with his work (especially the reviews of his books) goes deeper than the comment implies. With those reviews we have multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing Bangs, satisfying the general notability criteria. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I did a news search and found a number of sources that hadn't been mentioned such as this and this. It's "weak" because there isn't a "slam dunk" source like coverage in The Guardian (cf. George Monbiot) but nevertheless there's just about enough to put together a properly sourced article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Iftquar Hussain[edit]

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

Syed Iftquar Hussain does not satisfy mixed martial arts notability, any other part of sports notability, or general notability. An article should speak for itself and should state how the subject is notable. Nothing in this article as written addresses any of the points of any section of sports notability, and there is no discussion of significant coverage such as would be necessary for general notability Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 07:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear notable as per the above. Item was declined at review and subsequently moved to mainspace without improvement. 'Google' search seems to reveal only own website and social-media results. Eagleash (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no indication of WP notability. Neither the article nor my own search shows any accomplishments that meet any sports notability criteria and there doesn't appear to be any significant independent coverage. Belonging to organizations, his own web page, and social media all fail to make a case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. There's clearly a COI problem, and the article is effectively unsourced, but I think there's more to it — could it be a hoax of some sort? Makes wild claims about multiple national and international championships, yet a search nets nothing more than social media hits, and not many of them, even. Anyway, as per nom, fails every definition of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, as per the concerns raised by DoubleGrazing. Fails WP:GNG and the SNG's. Onel5969 TT me 03:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 05:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brake test[edit]

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

Don't think there is enough sources or information to prove notability here, borderline Speedy but it's been around since 2006 so worth a 2nd opinion. James of UR (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. James of UR (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Xtremewood Press[edit]

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

Non-notable publication, founded less than two months ago. Cannot find any secondary sources (beyond the usual social media etc.), so this is pretty much unverifiable, and certainly fails WP:GNG. I previously PRODded this but it was removed, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there appears to be nothing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has only been in existence for a month! Deb (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Baggs[edit]

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

Non-winning (or runner-up) reality show contestant who is not notable for any other reason. ... discospinster talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fulfils WP:GNG as well as WP:SUSTAINED by the fact that in addition to being the subject of coverage from several reliable 3rd-party sources, that coverage includes more than just the Apprentice appearance. You could also make a case of him being notable under WP:ENT for his appearances on several other TV programmes as well. Plus the information on his death was extensively covered and not many get several articles on their death from the likes of the BBC. Even after his death, more coverage was available. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, had been deleted per AfD before and only his death had been added, no idea why this not had been G4 CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because as @Black Kite: said, this is not the same PROMO piece that was deleted 10 years ago. Since then more sources that assert and affirm notability have become available. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. The current version has a number of additional sources. Whether those sources affirm any additional notability than they did regarding the previous version (especially as Baggs is obviously deceased) is what needs to be discussed here. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 03:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, somewhat contrary to my usual deletionist tendencies. Satisfies WP:GNG with solid RS refs. Doesn't fall foul of single-event, on account of the TV appearances and the widely-reported death, albeit only just. Not intended to promote anyone's career, etc. I'm not arguing that the subject is the most noteworthy, but it does seem notable in the WP sense, and I can't really think of a good reason to delete. And given the publicity this chap generated, if I were to come to Wikipedia and not find an article on him, I would be at least mildly surprised; an entirely unofficial inclusion criterion, perhaps, but somehow to me that feels like the proverbial litmus test. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources listed in the article are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sun8908 Talk 15:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant coverage from BBC, Radio Times, The Independent and other major national sources Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pinocchio (1940 film). Missvain (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Figaro (Disney)[edit]

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

This was nominatd for AfD on pl wiki and I tried to see if it can be saved, sadly, after over half an hour of digging for sources, I have to conclude it is not. I added a bit, but in the end, all I see are few-sentence long mentions (hence, WP:SIGCOV failing) in a number of books about cats (a very popular topic although the books seem to de facto just copy nearly identical content from one another [88], [89], [90], etc.) that only say he debuted in Pinocchio (where he was one of the two original characters added to the classic story by the Disney team - this is also true for his entry in The encyclopedia of animated cartoons, which is two-sentence long, not including the listing of the three 1940s cartoons he appeared in) and according to one source, he was popular enough to make occasional appearances in other Disney media. That popularity claim, however, comes from only one source of borderline reliability, and common sense is simply dubious: the list of his appearances, present in the article, and likely copied from Disney wikia here confirms the likewise unreferenced claim present in the article that he had "a 50-year hiatus of not being in any new Disney cartoons" (hardly a fate we would expect from a "popular character"). Further, he only had 'starring roles' in two short films ([91], [92], neither of which appear notable; List of Walt Disney Animation Studios short films makes a claim they are part of some 'Figaro series' but this concept seems to be a Wikipedia-only construct - I can't find evidence that any reliable source identifies such a series, which in either case would consist only of said two episodes, amusingly marked in our list of short films as "the first" and "the final" entries in this "series"). There is also trivia about him being used as a fighter emblem by a WWII pilot. I am not sure if there is a valid redirect target and as for merge there is, well, no referenced content to merge that isn't discussed elsewhere (I've added a note about him being original character to the 1940 movie entry). Maybe redirect to Pinocchio (1940 film) where he makes his first appearance, which seems like the only one worthy of any mention? Or the linked list of short films. PS. Also, note that most of the content here is unreferenced OR/FANCRUFT plot summary... PPS. The way I see it the only redeeming claim of notability he has is that he has dedicated entries in the cited books. But if we cut away all the unsourced/OR content we ended up with the length of three or so sentences - which is the length of his entry in cited sources. Having an entry for such a minor character seems reasonable for a Disney fan-wikia, but I am afraid it is not good enough for us (WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFICTION fails). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty notable character... ~ HAL333 04:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You can hardly expect this gray cat lady to vote otherwise. Aren't all cats notable enough to be in an encyclopedia? If he is in a book or encyclopedia, remove the unreferenced parts. Better to have three sourced sentences than nothing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Without a dedicated character list for minor multi-work characters, the film seems like the best place. The legacy section is a good place for any minor but non-trivial appearances of the character. The current sourcing seems entirely insufficient. It seems that it is memorable because of the work in which it appeared rather than for its own mass appeal as a character. TTN (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the film, as per TTN's rationale. Clearly does not meet GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Without the mumble jumble of it being a "obvious" not notable character along with the silly keep votes. As a Disney fan, I analyzed the Disney core characters and then I researched this character probable notability. This (and Julius the Cat) on google searches don’t have much to go on. At least not yet. Though I feel they are too significant to be deleted and are worthy of having their own section topic if the consensus is not notable enough for stand-alone. Jhenderson 777 19:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "a 50-year hiatus of not being in any new Disney cartoons" (hardly a fate we would expect from a "popular character"). Not that surprising, I am afraid. There is a hiatus of one or two decades even for characters like Mickey Mouse. In the 1950s, Disney terminated several of its short-film series, and phased out previously popular characters. In the 1960s, the last short films to feature Goofy and Donald Duck were produced, phasing out the last of the classic characters. Most of them would not reappear in animation until "Mickey's Christmas Carol" (1983). Dimadick (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pinocchio (1940 film) as a valid search term, but lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) for us to do justice to the topic without veering into original research. czar 05:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rileysburg, Missouri[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable location. Ramsay says Many years ago John Riley ran a store "and kept the post office." as the sole description of Rileysburg. This old newspaper article says Mr. Riley was postmaster at his farm, known as Rileysburg, until the post office was discontinued, after which the Rileys opened a grocery store. Snippet view of this calls it a post office.

I will note that I did find a couple instances of people being "from Rileysburg" and a statement that the Rileysburg P.O. served 59 people. However, the (fairly trivial) coverage seems to suggest that the statements of people being from Rileysburg or served by the P.O. reflect Rileysburg being a pre-RFD rural route P.O., especially since there's a newspaper mention stating that the Rileysburg P.O. was discontinued because of a RFD route out of Clark. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsay's source is doi:10.32469/10355/80564, which cites the Herald Statesman and an oral history interview with M.G. Proctor, a "former county collector", and says pretty much only that. An 1893 State Gazetteer says "A postoffice in Boone county, 20 miles northwest of Columbia, the judicial seat, and 8 from Sturgeon". There's even less at https://thelibrary.org/lochist/moser/boonepl.html , something that is proving to be true every time that I check it for one of these places coming up at AFD. I haven't turned up any in-depth history. Uncle G (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be nothing more than the name for a post office.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clear consensus to delete. GirthSummit (blether) 12:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sink Salad[edit]

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

Phenomenon that has no claim to notability. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. — Goszei (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Delete per nom. Article has no references nor categories, and is a stub. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not one of the Project:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, my bad. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did wonder whether I should have pointed out also that Project:deletion policy does not support deleting stubs simply because they are uncategorized. Please find a policy-based rationale that the closing administrator can hang xyr hat from. Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a compromise solution, I can categorize the article and gradually expand it with more sources. Egyptian jew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • More sources? It currently has none. If you can find sources to satisfy WP:GNG, that's precisely what's needed here, and what's lacking. Cats etc. are nice-to-haves, once (if) notability has been established. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made me chuckle, so thanks to the creator for that. Love the optimistic "The phrase has yet to appear in the OED" at the end; also the initial caps in the title: it's not just sink salad, but Sink Salad! :) On a more serious note, delete as non-notable neologism, possibly joke/hoax. (BTW, there is something called 'kitchen sink salad', which this might be a riff of, and which also makes finding any sources - assuming any exist, which I doubt - tricky.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any significant coverage of this phenomenon to demonstrate that it warrants an article on Wikipedia. Seems to border on being WP:ONEDAY Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, obvious fail of WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added categories and am working on the references. Note that there is no Wikipedia page for gunt even though a Google images search pulls up 3.7 million results. I would point out that by contrast, the Sink Salad article is at least acceptable to a family audience. It is somewhat out of touch with the times to insist on absolutely zero articles that deal with informal subject matter that is too crude for Harvard academics and college-educated journalists to engage with. Some of these issues are very real concepts for billions of working people, many of whom may not necessarily come from the same demographic as your average editor who is working on the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptian jew (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have restored the WP:A11 tag which was removed inappropriately Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Generally accepted concept in certain cultures and communities. Some even have a single word for it. — Mr Bulmer (talk)
  • Delete per DoubleGrazing. EpicPupper 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard this term used abundantly. On a related note, "Kitchen Sink Salad" is used also as an actual recipe. A quick google shows a plethora of yummy recipes you can try out - albeit that the names derives from the expression "everything but the kitchen sink" in reference to the vast range of salad contents, rather than the horrible gunk you get in your sink drain! Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like something made up one day. Article has no references whatsoever. JIP | Talk 18:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DoubleGrazing. Amusing: rather. Hoax: absolutely. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2021 (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/2021 May 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Search results get swamped with all kinds of recipes for "kitchen sink salads" (i.e. All The Ingredients salads), but even after I went to some effort to exclude everything, one by one, that could throw up false positives (it's an interesting search term :p) there are only the faintest indications of use - a few photo captions, basically. This is not nearly enough of a thing for an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources that show notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2021 (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/2021 May 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable WP:SOURCES to demonstrate that article meets WP:GNG. Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism with no independent sources seemingly discussing the usage of the phrase. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:MADEUP. A search turned up plenty of mentions of "Kitchen Sink Salad" (as in "Contains everything but the..."), but precisely one mention of "Sink salad" in the article's sense - and that was in distinctly non-WP:RS Urban Dictionary. Narky Blert (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Grove[edit]

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

Non-notable housing estate. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NGEO. Is solely reliant on primary sources. Has been tagged for additional sources since July 2008 with no improvements since then. Dan arndt (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Rufini[edit]

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

I would do a BLPPROD but this has had one before that was added and removed by the same editor so I'll send this to AFD as an unreferenced biography whose unreliable sources were removed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as this should not be here. SunDawn (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Delete per nomination. List of publications didn't establish any notability. Search of Google Scholar do turns up his name, but nothing in the searches turns up as something notable. SunDawn (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder Aviation[edit]

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

Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP. WP:ORGDEPTH is non existent. A before search does show me this which doesn’t do anything to prove notability. Other hits were predominantly in user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article was nominated for deletion less than ten minutes after it was created. Nominator made two edits to the article in between "converting bare URLs". This leaves me with serious doubt that any reasonable WP: BEFORE effort was made. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @RadioKAOS, a before was done alright and it turned up nothing cogent as per RS, if you have proof to the contrary, feel free to provide it. Go on, we have all the time in the world. Celestina007 (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — let the record reflect that a before was carried out which showed hits predominantly in user generated sources which are very much unreliable, if anyone can show me reliable sources that discusses the organization or show how they meet WP:NCORP, let whomever produce the sources to this AFD. I have categorically asked @RadioKAOS who implied that a before wasn’t performed to bring forth any sources that show the organization satisfies NCORP but they haven’t, they wouldn’t be able to do so as such reliable sources are non existent. Celestina007 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the one source that could possibly considered directly written to the company. Otherwise, there are still a relatively substantial number of sources from notable third-party news sources such as Bloomberg, nonprofit organizations, and other third-party reporting and aggregate websites. There are a number of sources that are listed highly in Google search results, many listed directly below the airline's own website and social media channels. I have added a number of new third-party sources, including from sources like Propublica and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, to help confirm the notability of the company.
  • Comment — I have to say as you are the creator of the article you just made it worse. Just so we are clear when you say Bloomberg, you mean this right? Now that is a profile page and does next to nothing in substantiating notability. Furthermore please you are welcome to prove me wrong by bringing to this AFD the non existent “reliable sources” you claim exists. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't really get why a profile page doesn't mark reputability. Putting aside the nature of the page itself, Bloomberg is a reputable enough source that if they're willing to put up information about a company I believe it's a mark in the company's favor. Why would Bloomberg go to the effort of paying someone to compile and/or edit this if it isn't reputable Regardless, here is a list of reputable sources on the page that include things besides company profiles: ch-aviation probublica Better Business Bureau Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Alaska Alliance PRNewswire If none of these are reputable sources, then I don't know what counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowtationjet (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowtationjet, not quite, a Bloomberg profile isn’t sufficient as WP:SIGCOV isn’t met, so like i said it does nothing to prove notability. I have said it severally could you please show us the reliable sources you say exists that proves the organization is notable? If you aren’t going to do that, then your comments aren’t helpful but are in fact disruptive. See WP:RS for clarity. At 29 days old and the article creator you may want to understand policy on notability first before participating in AFD's which require the input of knowledgeable editors who are conversant with our policy on notability for organizations. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- none of the sources cited are both independent and substantial. The ProPublica source appears to be a listing of a government contract, not substantial journalistic coverage. And my understanding is that any business can have a listing on the Better Business bureau; being listed there does not indicate notability. The other sources are either company listings or were written by the company's owner, and my google search didn't turn up anything that would indicate notability. NightS H I F T (49) (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, non notable ORG, there does not exist both independent and substantial WP:RS CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantial sources to help the article meet GNG or any subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Afzal Haq[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPLIT and WP:BIO1E. There's absolutely nothing in this article that cannot simply be merged to the main article at Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. I think it's time to let go of this article and merge any and all relevant content to the main article. Love of Corey (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pinging participants for the previous AfD for this article to stimulate further discussion (not sure if any of them are still active on Wikipedia): @SarekOfVulcan: @NuclearWarfare: @Kuyabribri: @Plot Spoiler: @DGG: @Akcarver: @Elliskev: @Bejnar: Love of Corey (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure why Iwould have said keep in 2010, 11 years ahgo, except that perhaps it had no yet been overshadowed byso man ymore horrific events. As an indivdual person, he has no possible notability outside the shooting, an the details of his life are not of encyclopedic interest. I'm not sure how much if anything should be merged into the article on the event--but looking at it now, it seems way disportionate in the amount of detail. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's barely anything about him in the actual Seattle Jewish Federation shooting article itself, so I personally suggest merging everything to that won't do any harm. Love of Corey (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you need something to merge, just let me know. Missvain (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sabrina Carpenter live performances[edit]

List of Sabrina Carpenter live performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a summarization of many other articles - the tours already have their own articles, both headlines, and support. The TV performances also included in the articles of the songs she performed. Henceforth, the information on this page is covered/duplicated elsewhere and doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion like this. The information here is backed by Twitter, fan sites, facebook and other unreliable sources such as headline planet sources. This is just fancruft and nothing else. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMERGE to Sabrina Carpenter#Tours, which can easily incorporate the annotated tables and the rest could probably be trimmed; that section currently just contains a bare list. I'd caution the nom against these repeated boilerplate copy-and-paste nominations, as it suggests that they are not actually looking carefully at each article and judging its potential as required per WP:BEFORE. Here the headlining tours don't have their own articles, the bluelinks instead redirect to this list (and have for at least two years), so the nomination rests on an incorrect assertion that should have been very easy to discover. Also, as noted in a related AFD by the same nom, even if it were true that the listed tours had their own articles, the whole point of such a list is to provide an overview of a related group in one place, so saying "you can find this information by clicking in and out of a dozen separate articles" is no argument for deletion. I don't see that the state of current sourcing is relevant here either, certainly information about a tour conducted by a notable performer is verifiable. But the nom does not address potential as they must in an AFD, just what they are seeing at present. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but the tours have a list of their in a page, they are not indivdual articles, but they exist and unlike you mention they are not a redirect. It goes into this page List of Sabrina Carpenter concert tours, they don't redirect to the article for AFD. They would be easy to find as it already exists an article with all the tours. No, the point of this list is just fancruft, it looks like a stalker page to be honest. Go ahead dig for the sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I did miss that those redirected to a different page. Your nom would have been better to focus on that (and to link to it). I don’t think that changes my overall analysis and I still think the outcome I urged is the best however. postdlf (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree to some extend, these articles are quite uncessary from my POV. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge per the many reasons I provided for keeping the live performances article of a way bigger artist. I'm saying Weak Keep, however, because Sabrina has had less time in the spotlight than Gaga and Swfit, and thus she has had far less performances at significant events to list. There are also more local radio performances listed here, which I would legitimately argue would fall moreso into the line of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE than the more significant performances listed in both Gaga and Swift's lists. We really need some sort of guideline or consensus on what is considered fancruft with live performances, because (and this is just my perspective and I don't mean to strawman anyone's arguments) users are just throwing the term "fancruft" around or are bowing their heads to more experienced users on what is fancruft or not without questioning anything, even knowing what readers are interested in a topic, or how significant the items in a list article are. WP:WHOCARES is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion, after all. I know users' comments in discussions like these are biased and opinionated to an extent, but we're getting overly-subjective with our decisions when it comes to debates on supposed fancruft articles. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see there's much to gain from merging this content. Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not notable, it’s a list of work. Star7924 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 01:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Johnston (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The Hollywood Reporter obit notwithstanding, there's just not much in the way of coverage, and her credits aren't substantial enough. Not to be confused with the younger actress/stuntperson. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meeting GNG, multiple independent secondary sources writing about the subject. Including main media like MSN. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and most likely also WP:NACTOR #1. gidonb (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She did get entry on imdb, enough to be called Amy Johnston (I), with the younger actress/stuntperson being called Amy Johnston (II), who is in disambiguation page here on Wikipedia but not currently in her own article. Why nominate Amy Johnston (I) for deletion here on Wikipedia just after it's received some expansion here?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDb is not a reliable source. Her being in there in no way adds to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have multiple sources mentioning here death. That is enough alone to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eagle (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Self-created puff article. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR Pipsally (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are primary sources. Nexus000 (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see GNG, AUTHOR or FILMMAKER/DIRECTOR being passed here. So let's pass. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 05:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind (Canadian TV series)[edit]

Rewind (Canadian TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a television news program, not reliably sourceable as passing WP:TVSHOW. Full disclosure, I was actually the original creator of this, over a decade ago when our notability criteria for television shows were very different than they are now -- at the time, simple verification that the show existed was all that was necessary, and independently verifying its significance via coverage in sources other than itself was strictly optional. But precisely because of all the junk that approach left us dealing with, the notability criteria have since been tightened up considerably, and this show — which was really just a "digging random old newscasts out of the time capsule and running them as filler programming at 3 or 4 in the morning" thing rather than a significant newscast in its own right — just never garnered any non-trivial coverage for the purposes of clearing the tighter standards that pertain in 2021. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Falls Road Railroad. czar 05:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara and Western New York Railroad[edit]

Niagara and Western New York Railroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Railroad that only operated for one year. Cannot find any sourcing. Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AlgaeGraphix, what is the relationship between the two topics? ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: The N&WNY operated over the FRR's tracks. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect as a railway that verifiably existed this should be at least mentioned somewhere, if there is nowhere suitable to merge to then redirect to a list article or similar would be most appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melrose Pyrotechnics[edit]

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

A fireworks display company failing GNG. Before isn't showing any coverage in RS sources. It appears to be a small local company. Created by a SPA with likely COI. The refs in the article don't say anything. Desertarun (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find reliable sources showing notability, other than a few brief mentions. Alan Islas (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green theory[edit]

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

There is no "Green theory" subfield in International Relations. As far as I can tell, the entire article is based on one textbook chapter where an author uses "green theory" as a term for any research related to the environment in International Relations. While environment and environmentalism are indeed studied by IR scholars, there is no "green theory" of IR Theory. The body of the article is an enormous essay where all kinds of non-"green theory" scholarship is characterized as being "green theory". While green politics[94] exists and "green political theory" might exist[95], there is no "green theory of International Relations." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is obviously a student's essay that's entirely original research. The entirely unencyclopedic tone throughout, owing in part to the frequent of the use of first person "we" and the synthethic "seems", make this unsalvageable. Reywas92Talk 03:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a textbook or place to workshop your International Relations 101 essay. KidAd • SPEAK 22:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because most of this article is incomprehensible. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck part of my rationale because of the cogent arguments given below. This is a classic TNT case where a useful article could be written, but nobody should first have to try to salvage anything from the attempts that have been made so far. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 08:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually think this particular article needs a WP:TNT level of cleanup, and deleting it outright wouldn't be a huge loss: that being said, a very quick Google Scholar search brings up more than enough sources showing this is clearly a notable topic, see for instance this chapter written by the head of political science at Melbourne Uni and published by Oxford; perhaps this is the one mentioned by the nom, but there's plenty of scholarly works available over multiple countries and textbooks. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By following the references in these works you'll find plenty more. I happen to know IR theory well. The situation with Green Theory could be summarized that it definitely exists, but exists in the margins of even non-mainstream IR theory. In IR, many non-mainstream and even mainstream theories are employed in the sense presented in the nomination: they focus on the study of a particular phenomenon rather than are organized by a common methodology or a "theory" in a stricter sense. But that's simply a feature of the discipline. Many of these Green Theory pieces focus on the question: what exactly is Green Theory, in other words typical metatheoretical discussions of IR. If the article is deleted on TNT grounds, it should be noted that the topic itself is notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Finnusertop points out, green theory is an established fringe perspective in international relations theory. The article ought to reflect that, rather than presenting it as a mainstream 'sub-field of international relations theory' — but this is a concept discussed under that title in IR, albeit quite an esoteric one. It is not merely "a term for any research related to the environment in International Relations" (and we don't delete articles for being badly-written at the point of nomination). Kilopylae (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 California Western Railroad#Route. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burbeck, California[edit]

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

Yet another CWR spot, presumably named after the nearby creek. Some topos seem to show a very short passing siding here though I can't verify that. Not a notable spot. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only documented as a stop on the California Western Railroad that I can see, and is already so in that article. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's likely that both the creek and the spot are named after Charles Leighton Burbeck, who has an in-depth biography in Carpenter and Millbury's History of Mendocino and Lake Counties, California (1914). No mention of the supposed town, though. (It mentions a subdivision set out by Burbeck in Fort Bragg, but that's far from where this article says Burbeck is.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to California Western Railroad#Route, where it is mentioned. All I could find was a development in Fort Bragg, some last names, and Burbeck Creek. Doesn't seem to be a notable site. Hog Farm Talk 18:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 01:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absorbent Ink[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero hits on Google News. Google searches only turns up press releases from the company or company information, nothing that can establish notability. SunDawn (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 08:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The claims in the article (fastest-growing, best places to work) would, even if cited, fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. No evidence of notability found, and the acquiring company has no page which can serve for a redirect. AllyD (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_May_3&oldid=1023370984"