Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 05 November 07 >

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. ✗plicit 23:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations[edit]

Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations (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 stubified WP:POVFORK by now indeffed user.[1]

Block was specifically for creating this page to circumvent consensus against it on Washington and Old Dominion Railroad That had to do with issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists of stations, external links, etc. that was already attempted at the parent article[2], so there is nothing to merge from the article history, and isn't a useful redirect for search terms since it's redundant. Technically not available for CSD because it's in the very short period between blocks, and the PROD was removed. KoA (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can have any opinion that they want. The creator of the AfD under discussion *here* has no other place to put their thoughts on this AfD other than their talk page since they are now blocked. Longwinded or short & succinct....why should the length have any bearing on this discussion.
Also - what is this "horrid sourcing" you speak of? If some of the content is sourced to unreliable sources, then that content could be removed leaving the rest but I am not seeing a widespread overarching issue. A few examples of unworthy sources would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an entire column of ELINKBODY violations in all of the tables, linking to various maps and nonfree images of stations. We have Commons to fufill that purpose. [3] is an image that is A) hosted on Pinterest and is more likely than not than an CVLINK violation, and B) an image that is supporting a reference of text. Images can be interpreted in many different ways, even if you find one to be obvious. An image must be interpreted by a secondary source for it to be usable on Wikipedia, otherwise we interpret the image ourselves and produce OR. Ref #4 in the article (has multiple links within the reference) is entirely to maps, which are not reliable because they can be interpreted in multiple ways. Most of this article is to maps, which does not provide significant commentary to merit a FORK of the main article. The cited pages in much of this ref [4] are to maps and images, which cannot be construed as definite notability.
First choice is to delete as an unencyclopedic collection of links, POVFORK, and a directory, and probably not a notable topic on its own. Second choice is a well referenced, succint, and detailed list with none of the insanity of entire columns containing external links to facebook images in the body. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't know what the term "longwinded" has to do with this AfD but ok. Shearonink (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A map is a reliable source if it is compiled or published by a reliable source. A historical marker is a reliable source if it is created by a trustworthy source. A railroad is not just two strands of steel. It represents an area of economic and social development facilitated by the creation and operation of the railroad. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment doesn't seem to be addressing the topic at hand. Relevant information that already got consensus related to specific locations is already at the parent article Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. The page nominated is just indiscriminate information that already exists as rejected edits in the parent article's page history. If the page creator hadn't been flat out blocked for this creation, then we'd also probably be discussing a full on WP:SALT of the article. KoA (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain's "this comment" is speaking to the deletion discussion at hand. Are previous discussions at another article - yeah, the parent article but a different article - supposed to hold sway over any other particular AfD? Maybe, but maybe not. I am certain whomever is the Closer on this AfD doesn't need any of us to point out how they should do their job or what they should pay attention to. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain's comments were extremely superficial and not really addressing the subject the blocked editor tried to carve out through disruptive editing. Not to mention no inherent claims to WP:N were even made. The actual article, Washington and Old Dominion Railroad, is not up for AfD here and is where relevant information related to those points would be held anyways. If someone wanted to do a true WP:SPLIT they could develop that at the actual article first.
As for your comments, that would violate WP:NOTBUREAU policy. The article was created through disruptive editing to create a WP:POVFORK, and the blocks/ANIs were clear on that. There are no maybes about that on closed discussions. We're just going through the formalities for deletion at this point on something that already wasted a lot of community time. Unfortunately we don't have speedy deletion criteria for instances that fall through the cracks like this, so here we are instead. KoA (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume other editors around here are competent at their chosen level of participation, so I try to be careful of judging others motives or their editing qualifications - that's all. It just seemed that some/many of the respondents were telling possible Closers how to do their jobs and casting aspersions about other editors' comments and I don't understand why that is at all necessary.
It's always so much fun happening upon an AfD or some other pocket of Wikipedia, stating an opinion, and falling into a hornets' nest. Have fun y'all, I'm out. Shearonink (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noncompliant with the policies and guidelines mentioned by nom and all above. Avilich (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete conduct of the creator aside (and see his Keep on his Talk), this article's content is not in line with policies. Wikipedia articles to not exist to be a repository of useful information, if it's not notable and documented in reliable secondary sources. There is no doubting that these stations exist, or that Facebook and Pinterest house article that mention them, but no case has been made for encyclopedic notability. Star Mississippi 15:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 14:50, 13 November 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. LFaraone 09:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chad Knight (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 represented in a museum collection, no monographs, no reviews of exhibitions. His claim to fame is apparently a viral video purportedly showing a kinetic water sculpture. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Should the previous AfD discussions be listed on the article's Talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the first one. The second AfD was about a different person who goes by the same name. (And I, personally, would put off listing the first AfD on the talk page until we see whether this article gets kept. If this AfD concludes as "delete", then the talk page will be gone too.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The rationale for deletion seems to be vaguely gesturing at point #4 of WP:ARTIST, or perhaps the failed proposal for artists. There are three other points there (as well as WP:BASIC), and I believe he passes #3: his work being the subject of independent periodical articles. In addition to the pieces already mentioned, I found some more coverage of his sculpture series:
I would also not be surprised if there was coverage of him as a skateboarder from the '90s, but so far I haven't found any, just suggestions that he was a figure known enough for there to be some elsewhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm also finding additional coverage. Including the indication of a longer article on his skateboarding career. And another specialized source on his digital art. As for more recent stuff, he seems to have been getting more recent coverage over his involvement in NFT nonsense with his art. SilverserenC 03:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks a well-known and notable figure. We can find a lot of coverage. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 11:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Striking sock !vote Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep As a primarily digital artist, the absence of exhibitions of collections is not unexpected and similarly not unexpected is a lack of monographs or other academic writing. The sources already present in the article, however, demonstrate WP:GNG coverage, which trumps any lack of SNG compliance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That may seem plausible, but it's not true: Artists who work primarily digitally do exhibit, and their work is in museum collections. And articles about them get nominated for deletion. See Maurice Benayoun and Rafaël Rozendaal for example. Vexations (talk) 14:08, 10 November 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 , it's snowing. No indications from anyone besides the creator that it's notable. Star Mississippi 22:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augean software[edit]

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

Contested PROD - doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augean is a notable piece of genealogy software, as it is the only desktop genealogy software designed to help persons with vision problems. Most other genealogy software listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software have wiki pages, Augean is feature equivalent to the other genealogical software, but has the additional advantage of being the only vision accessible desktop genealogical program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augean doesn't have a lot of web coverage it is a new piece of software, designed to help persons with vision problems what is the reason, why it is flagged as WP:NSOFT ? Does the article need improvement? the article follows the same format as other geological software wiki's see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software how is it inferior, or different from the other genealogical software wikis? Yes, Augean is new, but it is feature equivalent to the other genealogical software that has wiki's what is it, that they are doing right, that we are doing wrong? Please advise, thanks.Francis1864 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis1864: At a glance, it appears to me that many of the programs listed at Comparison_of_genealogy_software do not meet NSOFT and they should be deleted too. Danstronger (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


For nearly two decades genealogists have listed their software on Wikipedia, without any problems
Please see [[5]]
When Augean releases a free vision accessible piece of software, designed to help those with low vision there is an immediate call to delete the Wiki.
Augean is feature equivalent to the other software, the only difference is that it is free, and was specifically designed to help those with vision problems. (please refer to the comparison chart at the above link).
Augean should not be treated differently on the basis that it is a free piece of software, designed to help persons with disabilities.
Please be formally advised, that it is illegal in the USA to discriminate based on disability. Please see [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised you on your apparent conflict of interest on your talkpage. Please understand that no publication, including WIkipedia, is obligated to provide free publicity for a product under the ADA. Acroterion (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry if the above sounds a bit direct, but it has always been my experience, that persons with vision problems have to fight for their rights. Sometimes, people forget what it is like not to have good vision
I just don't understand what is the problem, in trying to help persons with low vision Obviously, I need to list my software, the same as all other genealogy software providers did (for the last 2 decades). I was very careful to use the exact same format.
Please, consider the needs of persons with vision problems, Please, thanks !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable software, no reliable third party coverage. Also promotional self-admittedly created by software's creator (though this is actually incidental to the fact the software is not notable and doesn't have reliable sources and WP:SIGCOV.) We are not a software listing or directory service, we're an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is the last stop on the notability train, not the first. Also article is just a product brochure and not an encyclopedic entry. Slywriter (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Other genealogy tool makers listed their software, and did so for nearly 20 years, with no objection from WikiPedia
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software
Augean, which is a free visually accessible software designed to help persons with disabilities, lists the software and suddenly Wikipedia treats Augean differently than you did the other genealogy software makers.
I listed the software in the same format as the other tool makers.
I feel this is grounds for claiming discrimination, and the American disabilities act would provide protection.
Also Augean is not treating Wikipedia as the first stop on the train, but previously exhibited at Roots Tech in 2021 https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/rtc2021/speakers/augean/en
I will gladly revise the wiki if you can provide an example of what it should look like
thanks
Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis1864, the argument you've repeatedly put forward has a shortcut, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Do you need me to clarify the low opinion generally held for this line of argument? Also, your use of HTML rather than Wiki syntax is screwing up this page.Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that other crap exists, as you put it, but that in the USA it is illegal to treat people differently based on disabilities.
For 20 years, other genealogy programs were listed, without any objection from Wikipedia. But, a genealogy program designed to help persons with vision problems, as been flagged for following the same format as the other programs did.
There is no need, to start insulting the other vendors, or their content.
But, I would ask Wikipedia editors to respect persons with vision problems and those that try to help them.
I will remind you again, and the other editors, that it is illegal in the USA to discriminate against persons based on a disability.Francis1864 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis1864:, we are not discriminating against people with disabilities because our standards for the notability of topics are the same whether or not the author of the page is disabled. If you had no disabilities and created a page about this software, it would still be nominated for deletion. Passengerpigeon (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise you to not bring up anything about legal matters. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For 20 years, Wikipedia had no objection to the other genealogy vendors listing their tools.
They only get upset when a genealogy program to help persons with vision problems is listed.
This seems a very clear-cut case of discrimination to me. I followed the exact same format as the others.
The above behavior is illegal in the USAFrancis1864 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop messing up the AFD page, learn to indent properly & sign your posts properly. PS - I'm seeing a WP:CIR situation, here. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis1864, please read our manual of style for accessibility. Since you appear to deeply care about the rights of visually impaired individuals, you may be interested to find that there are several tags you're using are likely to break this page for people using screen readers. Even for someone like me who isn't using a screen reader, the formatting makes it harder to read. Would you be willing to please properly indent your edits going forward? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NSOFTWARE and GNG with no secondary coverage JW 1961 Talk 22:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no non-trivial coverage of this software in reliable sources; as such it does not meet the notability guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search turns up irrelevant companies and nothing about this software specifically (string: "augean software"). The argument advanced by Francis1864 is at best hypocritical given their obvious disregard for screen-reader software and at worst an attempt at legal thuggery worthy of a block in and of itself, on top of being absurd on its face. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. — Czello 08:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNGPianoDan (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably the creator is confused. Wikipedia is not a place to "list" your own software as a form of promotion. Wikipedia has articles on topics (including software) that are already notable, and are written about by third party sources. I can't find any third party sources about this piece of software. ApLundell (talk) 21:53, 8 November 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, obviously bad faith nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Trause[edit]

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

Reason- This article is about a guy who did nothing more than serve in the us military like millions of others. There are thousands if not millions that have died which are not listed here. Hence does not meet WP:GNG.Bobbybob2021 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The nominator, who appears to have made an account just for the purpose of deleting this article, is making a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument about an article and comes up with a big swing-and-a-miss in a failed attempt to tie that to GNG. There's no valid argument made by the nom for deletion; the fact that there is plenty of significant coverage of the individual across several decades in the forty-five sources in the article are clear evidence that this individual meets WP:GNG. They include multiple in-depth pieces on the individual from reliable newspapers while he was alive, a government-issued biography on the individual, and multiple bylined obituaries from independent WP:NEWSORGs, as well as international(!) coverage of the individual's graduation from high school at age 92. There's good reason why this article was accepted at WP:AfC and moved to the mainspace. While there were indeed a lot of people who served in World War II, it is significant coverage that determines this individual's notability, and the nom fundamentally makes no claim that could, on its face, be taken as a reasonable deletion argument. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you know this guy MikeHawk10. Am I right or live on the street named after him. It’s not special he has a street named after him. Tons of service members fire fighters and police have streets name after them. It does not hurt to have this article It’s just there is no interest in this guy and he has been mentioned on occasion in newspapers one of the highest ranking articles is this guy’s obituary. He Is not notable. I just use my IP address to edit and have never nominated an article. Half way through they required an account. I feel so strongly about your friends article being deleated that I actually made an account. Honestly, do you think anyone cares who this guy is regardless if he passes GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybob2021 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bobbybob2021: While I am familiar with who he was (it's kinda hard to write a biography article without knowing that a guy exists), I did not personally know the guy. You seem to think that I'm his friend, though I'd remind you that there are very few 90+ year-old Wikipedia editors and I'm not one of them. If you're going to argue that he's not notable, then please give a reasonable policy or guideline-based article for his deletion rather than pursuing an WP:IDONTLIKEIT style of argumentation. Regarding your do you think anyone cares who this guy is line, yes, I do. Certainly the newspapers that dispatched reporters to write about his passing thought so, as well as the various other sources that have provided him significant coverage throughout his life. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And, again, it's not that he has a street named after him that makes him notable. What makes him notable is that he's received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent from him. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mike, When I type “ Vito Trause” into the search engine google on the first page comes up two obituary’s on him one copied the other and then I see a link to his Wikipedia article and a very small town news paper. He is not noteworthy. These sources are not well known or reliable. Type his name in for yourself. -bobbybob2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4B00:2F40:D810:1517:E27:4F97 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the nominator does not appear to understand WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Legrand[edit]

Barbara Legrand (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 BLP on a subject who potentially falls short on WP:GNG. A search of German sources only yielded database pages and coverage on Fan Soccer and Die Glocke is just basic match report mentions. Clear consensus that this sort of coverage is not sufficient for an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:34, 6 November 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, nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (WP:SKCRIT#4). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Lozada[edit]

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

Non-notable Person. Article contains zero source. As for WP:BEFORE, theres nothing can be found about this topic, which it fails WP:GNG. VladimirBoys (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't blame you on WP:BEFORE. This guy's career was from 1954 to 1993, just a year before internet in the Philippines was a thing. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to be found about this topic? What happens when you click on the word "books" above? And I note that the nominator tried to change the comment above to say "delete". Clear battleground behaviour, rather than a good-faith attempt to see whether this article meets our criteria for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above reasons. He meets the minimum requirements for actors: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." And as pointed out above, there are numerous sources about him. I would also like here to suggest to the nominator to please familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability. An article having "no source" is not a legitimate justification for proposing it for deletion. There are numerous stub articles on Wikipedia. Proposing an article for deletion on the basis that the subject is not notable has its own requirements and "the article not having enough sources for my liking" is not one of them. Koikefan (talk) 00:53, 12 November 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornmeal (band)[edit]

Cornmeal (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 and completely unsourced. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 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 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pirbod[edit]

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

Cross-wiki promotion (Special:CentralAuth/مدلینگ ایرانی) of a living person relying purely on press releases. There is no indication of the article subject passing WP:NMUSICIAN, and looking for significant independent coverage in the WP:BEFORE sources doesn't yield useful results.

Nominated after a notification by Johannnes89 at my talk page (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Also references full covered WP:NWSRC.The following is in accordance with the WP:NMUSICIAN of paragraph one (Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.) like the

This person has been widely mentioned in all sources. With this vast amount of resources and having more music resources that have talked about this person's albums and their distribution In my opinion easily the subject meets wp:GNG. And this distribution is completely in accordance with the policies and there is no advertising clause in it.Thanks.--Modeling (talk) 11:02, 9 November 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. Clearly met A7. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC) ===Brent mather swan===[reply]

Brent mather swan (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 autobio, only sources are a bunch of Blogspot references and his website. To my knowledge it doesn't seem to qualify for a CSD (i.e. has a claim to notability) and PROD would be controversial. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:47, 6 November 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Akasoy[edit]

Anna Akasoy (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 appear to meet WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, etc. I did not find significant coverage of the subject in independent sources and I see no indication that she is especially influential in her field. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 6 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Tien-chang[edit]

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

SOAP, autobiography AINH (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, the reason of nomination was not notability but soap. Especially in the "works" part, which is full of comments-AINH (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns about the tone of an article's content can be addressed through normal editing. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the main substance of this article was contributed by a WP:SPA who may or may not be connected with the subject, and it probably still contains excessive details on some works (which can be reduced further by editing), I think there is enough in the available discussions on the subject's early paintings (for example in the Inside Out: New Chinese Art book that I have referenced) and in the subject's selection for Taiwan at the 2015 Venice Biennale to demonstrate that WP:NARTIST criterion 4 is met. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources cited in the article, including this and this establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 13:26, 9 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin A2[edit]

Vitamin A2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, insufficient secondary sources. WP:WITHDRAWN I'm withdrawing my nomination. Wow, this is embarrassing—shouldn't have nominated this in the first place. I've now looked deeper into A2, and, while at first glance this article had the same issues as Vitamin A5, Vitamin A2 is well-supported by other sources not in the current article.rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article meets several criteria for deletion, WP:DEL-REASON: 1) it is an hypothesis evolved from speculation for which there is little evidence of subtype A2 existence, remaining an unverified mechanism, WP:CRYSTAL, 2) it is a non-notable concept in the general vitamin A literature, as no independent reviews discuss a vitamin A2 subtype, failing WP:N, 3) it contains only primary research at the lowest quality of evidence for biological mechanisms, failing WP:SCIASSESS and WP:MEDASSESS, and 4) it has had no substantive edits since 2019, indicating it is a stale topic in vitamin A science. Zefr (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG due to being discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

References

  1. ^ Shantz, E.M.; Brinkman, J.H. (1950). "Biological activity of pure vitamin A2". Journal of Biological Chemistry. 183 (2): 467–471.
  2. ^ Provencio, Ignacio; Loew, Ellis R; Foster, Russell G (1992). "Vitamin A2-based visual pigments in fully terrestrial vertebrates". Vision Research. 32 (12): 2201–2208.
  3. ^ Cama, H.R.; Dalvi, P.D.; Morton, R.A.; Salah, M.K. (1952). "Studies in vitamin A. 21. Retinene2 and vitamin A2" (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 52 (4): 542.
  4. ^ Edgar M. Shantz (15 October 1948). "Isolation of Pure Vitamin A2". New Series. 108 (2807). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 417–419.
  5. ^ Suzuki, T.; Makino-Tasaka, M.; Eguchi, E. (1984). "3-Dehydroretinal (vitamin A2 aldehyde) in crayfish eye". Vision research. 24 (8): 783–787. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(84)90149-4.
  6. ^ Morton, R.A.; Creed, R.H. (1939). "The conversion of carotene to vitamin A2 by some fresh-water fishes" (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 33 (3): 318.
  7. ^ Lederer, E.; Rathmann, F.H. (1938). "A physico-chemical and biochemical study of vitamin A2" (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 32 (7): 1252.
  8. ^ Karrer, P.; Bretscher, E. (1943). "Vitamin A2". Helvetica Chimica Acta. 26: 1758–1778.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, SailingInABathTub, all those sources fail current evidence with no reviews within the past 5 years, indicating this topic is not evolving in the vitamin A community. Zefr (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not required to show notability - but there are plenty of sources from the last five years on Google Scholar. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:51, 7 November 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. ✗plicit 23:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ecolojovem[edit]

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

Youth-wing of a Portuguese political party. The article don't pass WP:ORG. No coverage from independent or reliable sources whatsoever. The only "source" in the article is the organization official website, hence WP:PRIMARY. No article in the Portuguese Wikipedia (where the party comes from). Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:58, 6 November 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 draftify. See Draft:Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up! (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up![edit]

Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up! (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, all coverage is simply a publication of a press release, no actual WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The DTV films rarely get big media coverage (with the exception of Willy Wonka), but it's not impossible. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify As per what DonaldD23 said. Pahiy (talk) 00:38, 13 November 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. ✗plicit 23:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vika Kuropyatnikova[edit]

Vika Kuropyatnikova (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 Ukrainian model who appears to have relocated to the West. The English article and its Ukrainian equivalent, uk:Віка Куроп'ятникова, are supported by the identical references. Ref. 1, New York Magazine, is threadbare. Ref. 2, Cake Magazine, is pure puffery ("Vika is the very picture of summertime elegance in gray and tawny hues", etc.) Almost nothing in the article is supported by the citations. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a couple of résumés ([hxxps://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/vika_kuropyatnikova/], [hxxp://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/wiki/vika-kuropyatnikova]; http → hxxp to evade the spam filter) and an interview in Ukrainian (3); none of which is WP:RS. Fails WP:NMODEL, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 6 November 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa H. Arriola[edit]

Theresa H. Arriola (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 independent, in-depth coverage. Does not pass WP:PROF. Filetime (talk) 17:49, 6 November 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) Acousmana 19:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel de Joode[edit]

Rachel de Joode (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:NOTABILITY per WP:ARTIST, WP:SOAP-like article that's more PR and CV than encyclopedic entry. Acousmana 17:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: [13][14], [15], [16] There's a helpful list (most artists do this in their CVs) of press coverage at [17]. When nominating an article for deletion, please make sure to check for such coverage as part of WP:BEFORE. Vexations (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanupTheredproject (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
one shouldn't have to "do their research," should be readily apparent from article content and associated sourcing why subject exists, if an AfD gets people to improve said entry, job done. Acousmana 20:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. You shouldn't nominate articles for deletion so that others do the work of fixing them. That's why WP:BEFORE exists. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators are expected to carry out certain checks before nominating an article for deletion. I'm not sure that that qualifies as research, but my guess is that anyone who carried out those checks would have found at least something. If you're not particularly well-versed in the visual arts or have you have no idea where to look for sources, you could perhaps ask for advice at WP:WikiProject Visual art first when you consider making such a nomination? Or if you're really eager to nominate articles about very much not-notable people for whom we really have no sources; just ask me. I've got a list of soccer players somewhere. Vexations (talk) 21:30, 6 November 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. ✗plicit 00:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guaranito[edit]

Guaranito (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 cola brand, fails WP:NCORP; no significant coverage to be found. Unsourced and tagged for notability since its creation in 2012. Lennart97 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 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 Erysimum odoratum. Sandstein 11:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erysimum hieracifolium[edit]

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

These taxonomic synonyms are spelt differently, so the potential ambiguity is better resolved with a hatnote. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I have no objections for deleting. Solution per user:1234qwer1234qwer4 --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, redirecting to Erysimum odoratum seems to be appropriate as a {{R from alternative scientific name}}. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
convert to redirects --awkwafaba (📥) 14:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per IPNI there are 5 Erysimum hieraciifoliums (note the "ii" version already redirects to E. odoratum). Linnaeus originally spelled it with a single "i" (see BHL link at IPNI), and his name has priority. Seems reasonable to redirect the "i" version to E. odoratum, but I'm not sure whether it is better to tag as an alternative scientific name or as a misspelling. Plantdrew (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - 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.
Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 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 18:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Kumar (activist)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good work or good people. The sourcing doesn't indicate notability. Source 1 is an interview with the subject and is therefore not independent, source 2 doesn't even mention him, source 3 is a Facebook link (not a reliable source), and source 4 is his own website. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete fails WP:GNG. (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Tnawang (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vinodtiwari2608 (talk · contribs). [reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saeid Jamali[edit]

Saeid Jamali (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 promotional article about a subject that has questionable notability. Current sources also do not seem to be RS. WomenProj (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...also noting that per the article-talkpage, the book is self-published.[18] I just checked Amazon, and it lists publisher as "Independent". DMacks (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems TOOSOON for bio but some reliable sources have published about his work, so I don't think so deletion is the right option, but User:Clarkson001 seems to be a paid contributor as per talk page. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 16:52, 11 November 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 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchener and District Soccer League[edit]

Kitchener and District Soccer 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 amateur soccer league in Canada. Clearly fails WP:GNG and the football-specific guidelines (WP:FOOTYN). This topic does not receive routine coverage and details can not be verified from reliable, secondary sources. BLAIXX 16:05, 6 November 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 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omprakash Pandey[edit]

Omprakash Pandey (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 an autobiography of a politician who seems to have contested the assembly election from Isauli but lost. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines for politicians WP:POLITICIAN. (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Tnawang (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vinodtiwari2608 (talk · contribs). [reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takayuki Kubota (artist)[edit]

Takayuki Kubota (artist) (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 poorly sourced biography has languished in CAT:NN since 2009 and makes no explicit claim of notability. None of the cited references constitute significant coverage of any kind, nor can I find any significant coverage online; it may exist in Japanese sources, but the lack of a jpwiki entry doesn't seem promising. Lennart97 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' It's not quite an A7, because Kubota's work has been exhibited and written about, but the most recent news I can find is that he graduated from Hunter's MFA program in 2016 and started an artist-run-space called Fig. in Tokyo in 2017. Vexations (talk) 17:35, 6 November 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 14:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beta. Scandinavian Journal of Business Research[edit]

Beta. Scandinavian Journal of Business 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)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal, tagged for notability since 2014. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD challenged on talk page because Beta is "a serious and respected academic journal published by Norway's leading academic publisher". However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and being "serious and respected" does not make a subject notable. GScholar does not show much citations to articles published in this journal, hence PROD reason still stands. Therefore: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This journal appears to have published about 7 articles per year in the past few years. That is fine, but in my opinion, these articles are not particularly weighty or scholarly. Since there are so few I am able to browse titles and abstracts. One article is a comparison of a financial process at two banks during one year; several of these articles seem to be essays which would require no conventional peer review; and some of these are speculations on how to do more research. I have not read these articles, just the abstracts. This alone is not a reason to delete, I feel that I am unable to offer a rationale to keep when also this article fails other notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indexed nowhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 6 November 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. ✗plicit 00:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Aferi[edit]

Bright Aferi (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 businessman that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus fails to meet WP:GNG. WP:ANYBIO is also not met a before search links me to self published and user generated sources all of which do not constitute nor prove notability Celestina007 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:15, 6 November 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. Sandstein 11:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza (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 article about him was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese. He is not notable because the Brazilian imperial throne does not exist any more since 1889 (and that's one of the reasons the article about the succession to the Brazilian throne was deleted. In 1993 people voted the possibility of changing the form and system of Government in Brazil to Monarchy or Parlamentarism and the result was that the vast majority of Brazilians did not want to change them that after more than 100 years of Republican Democracy. In Brazil, monarchist movements are very weak. The Brazilian imperial family has basically zero political power after more than 100 years that the throne does not exist. That is the reason why articles about them are frequently deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (AfDs Wikipedia in Portuguese). Nowadays members of the imperial family are basically normal people, most of them are not even close to be celebrities. In addition to these, most of the sources on the article are actually not about him, they are mostly about his father, the imperial family, or his son.) Bolhones (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greenshed "Covered by a range of reliable sources" Have you read the sources? Most of them are not even about him. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST does not apply to this case because the article from Wikipedia in Portuguese was deleted per "lack of Notability and WP:GNG" which also applies here since there is no significant coverage of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 It's about his father, nothing about him.
  • 2 Pedro Carlos, the great grand son of princess Isabel and his wife visited a museum.
  • 3 It's about the imperial family, nothing about him.
  • 4 (archived) Prince Pedro Carlos was selling objects from the imperial family.
  • 5 It's about his father, nothing about him.
  • 6 It's about the imperial family, nothing about him.
  • 7 It's about the imperial family, nothing about him.
  • 8 Prince Pedro Carlos was selling an object from the imperial family
  • 9 (archived) Pedro Carlos, was responsible for a property fom the imperial family. The newspaper try to contact the prince to ask why part of that proprty was transformed into a parking lot.
  • 10 Pedro Carlos is interviewed and says that "I believe we are republicans because we have to adapt to reality and that our family is respected for working hard". He said that he had to work harder to honor his family name.
  • 11 It's about his son, nothing about him.
  • 13 (archived). Pedro Carlos and his sister Cristina lived in the Grão Pará Palace. The news os about his son (Pedro Thiago), who stole her dishes.
  • The only source which is not available online is #12. The title indicates that it is some news about his son ("Police raid hideout near Rio and liberate a teen Prince").
In conclusion: The sources either do not mention him or mention very little information about him. Bolhones (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article titled "In Rio de Janeiro’s Museu Nacional Fire, Brazil Lost More than Just the Items on Display. Aside from the troves within it, the building's museum itself was a treasure" by Mitchell Owens (5 September 2018) in Architectural Digest - see https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/rio-de-janeiro-museu-nacional-fire-brazil-lost-more-than-jsut-the-items-on-display - mentions that the "Palácio do Grão-Pará, in Pétropolis, ... is the home of Prince Pedro-Carlos of Orléans-Braganza, a forest engineer who might be emperor if the monarchy hadn’t been overthrown". Living in and owning a palace seems noteworthy to me. I'll try and dig out some more references. Greenshed (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noteworthy != wiki-notable. Plenty of people live in and own palaces, doing so is not inherently notable. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to garner occasional passing mention but no significant coverage, so not notable. I think here we take our lead from pt.wiki. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also mentioned at [19] which describes how Pedro Carlos is not interested in becoming Emperor of Brazil. Greenshed (talk) 17:35, 13 November 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 against keeping. Whether to redirect anywhere is up to editors. Sandstein 17:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare knot[edit]

Shakespeare knot (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 stumbled on this article, and have looked for sources. I have found none, though I did find the sources to start Shakespeare's signet ring. The ref in the article [20] doesn't mention "Shakespeare knot" or that the design on the ring is "The Shakespeare badge", so this article appears misleading. There may be a Shakespeare knot garden somewhere. Afaict, the article fails WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Looks to be 'just a design on a ring' that has been puffed up into something formal. The only cited source simply refers to a ring held at Stratford with this knot portrayed, that "is said to have belonged to Shakespeare." It says nothing about it being a heraldic symbol nor its derivation. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet has an entry for 'Knots' where he shows 'the principle heraldic knots' but does not name or depict this knot. The only Google returns for the string either derive from Wikipedia or refer to 'Shakespeare's Knot Garden', which should parse as Shakespeare's Knot-Garden, not Shakespeare's-Knot Garden, and 'Shakespeare's knot-grass'. Even if it is real, and I find no evidence it is, its exclusion by Brooke-Little suggests it is not a notable heraldic symbol. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shakespeare's signet ring, which covers all the sourced information in this article (basically, that the ring is a signet ring and that the knot on the ring is a true lover's knot). Or delete; can't imagine who'd be searching for "Shakespeare knot" anyway, if they're not interested in the ring. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect -- It might be worth adding a few words about the Dacre knot which is more similar to this than the Bowen knot. This is clearly about a signet ring, which is worn on the 4th finger. Men have not habitually worn wedding rings in England until quite modern times, so that that theory is not credible. How the ring became lost is equally mere speculation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 7 November 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 13:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Megan MacDonald[edit]

Megan MacDonald (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 fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN. There's no significant coverage found, only passing mentions. Less Unless (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: independent sources include coverage in national press and evidence of performance in relatively prestigious and notable events, although overall fairly minor. I think this is borderline but lean towards keep. Foonblace (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Aside from one source, none of the references cited in the article discuss MacDonald herself in any detail and BEFORE searches do not return any additional sources that could be used to build the article. I originally PROD'd this article but the PROD was contested. So I support this AFD as I really don't think GNG or MUSICIAN are met here. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Have been tracking since an apparent newbie SPA created the draft and moved to mainspace bypassing AfC scutiny. I did a little technical clerking but had notability concerns at the time. I noticed on dePROD there was a suggestion a band might be notable, and despite a single award that didn't seem to be an alternative move/target. Should other RS be found happy to change mind. Doesn't seem a TOOSOON article to draft either, again happy if I am proved wrong. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG test Coldupnorth (talk) 09:53, 9 November 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 not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12, Tughlak Road[edit]

12, Tughlak Road (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 reason to think notable 'doubtful even as a redirect DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlike 10 Downing Street, this one is not a permanent official address of a high-ranking official but just one of government-owned residences in Delhi that are offered to various VIPs. Additionally, sources refer to it as Tughlak Lane. — kashmīrī TALK 20:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think there is any genuine need of this article.
    • This is my first participation in AFD discussion so apologies (in advance) for any mistakes or not doing it properly. Lilybts (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless evidence is provided that the residence itself is notable, this fails WP:GNG. A residence does not automatically inherit notability by virtue of a notable person residing there. The sources provided are a literal directory listing and two throwaway mentions. --Kinu t/c 16:12, 9 November 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 Steam (service). Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Chat[edit]

Steam Chat (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 reason to exist as an independent article. All of the content (once cleaned up and removed of cruft/trivia) can simply belong within a minor section within the article for Steam (service). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No need for this to be an independent article from the main Steam one. Foonblace (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has only two sentences of content that could very easily just be mentioned on the main Steam page.  Nixinova   T   C   19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, procedural keep, that is. The nom is proposing a merge, not a deletion, and AfD is the wrong venue for merge proposals. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when has merging been considered an invalid proposal for AfD? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SK#1 says: "Absence of delete rationale. Normally the nominator will provide grounds for deletion in the delete rationale, but if (a) the nominator withdraws the nomination, perhaps because of improvements to the article that happen during the AfD, or (b) the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging)", which I interpret as a nom suggesting only a merge is grounds for speedy keep. The alternative to deletion WP:BEFORE C4 says: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term." So that BEFORE step was not followed by you. Also, as far as I can tell, you still have not notified the article creator User:Baratiiman of this AfD. I urge you to read WP:BEFORE and follow its guidance. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't read the nom cmt as fitting that criteria, Steam (service) already talks about the chat in much more detail, and so there is no content actually to merge -- "once removed of cruft/trivia" leaves no content. Also, I've notified the article creator.  Nixinova   T   C   21:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for notifying the creator. And fair enough, your interpretation of the nom cmt seems reasonable, too. Perhaps I misunderstood their intent. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically I was trying to be generous and save something from this attempt at an article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NEXIST. WP:BEFORE shows it has a decent amount of coverage from reliable sources, over a long period of time spanning years. At most it should be redirected to Steam (software) as a section thereof, but outright deletion would not make sense considering it's a viable search term.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It's covered as a feature of the service, not as an independently notable entity. AfD has been a de facto fine venue for high-visibility merge proposals ever since the WP:SK#1 rules changed. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This service is part of Steam. There is no reason why a feature should have its own article when a section in Steam would already suffice. I don't think it is independently notable. OceanHok (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Steam (service): No need for a feature to have a standalone article. It's best to talk about the feature in the target article. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Steam (service): per the reasons that others have provided. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. It's just a feature of Steam Client/Service. Redirect it to Steam (service)#Client features and functionality or its own sub-section. Mann Mann (talk) 10:51, 12 November 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 14:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CosmoPop[edit]

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

Promotional fluff, attempting to portray the music of a single individual, Gabriel of Urantia (born Anthony Joseph Delevin, and subsequently known by multiple other names, including TaliasVan of Tora) as a 'genre'. It presents no substantive evidence that anyone else contributes to the 'genre', or even uses the term as a description for a musical style. A web search reveals that the term 'Cosmopop' is used elsewhere, but as an unrelated brand name etc, rather than as anything connected with the supposed subject of this article. Rather than describing a recognised genre, the article merely duplicates material already found in the (bloated, over-promotional, and questionably Wikipedia-'notable') Gabriel of Urantia biography: there appears to be nothing of any significance, backed by suitable independent sourcing, that would merit merging to that article. Much of it is best characterised as new-age waffle from Gabriel himself, repeated more or less verbatim by local Arizona media where it is even sourced at all. A bad article about (or vaguely about) a non-existent 'genre'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've sent Gabriel's article to AfD as well. wizzito | say hello! 02:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A supposed genre that has been trademarked, that has indication of being notable, particularly since many aspects of the genre seem to have been invented, or better created, of discovered perhaps is a better word, elsewhere, inclding in America, UK, Germany and France. scope_creepTalk 12:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has a lot of "sources" , but on closer investigation they are almost all PR announcements from the guy's own organization, softball interviews in which he was allowed to glamorize himself, and concert announcements in which his group performed the supposed "genre" of music. The article also takes pretty comical liberties with "influence" and "recognition", as if holding a concert somewhere or being mentioned by a minor DJ equates to widespread notice of the "genre". Well it is not a genre until someone in the reliable music media reports on its influence, and nobody has. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 10 November 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.

Withdrawn. VladimirBoys (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Delgado[edit]

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

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't for Memorial. Google search shows sources only about his death. VladimirBoys (talk) 06:48, 6 November 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 The A-Team characters. Consensus the article shouldn't be retained (across Delete & Redirect options), but taking this one as an ATD. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Mad Murdock[edit]

Howling Mad Murdock (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 fiction trivia. The article is written so much from an in-universe persepctive that it lists the numerous medals and decorations this fictitious character has. Lack of notability/cultural impact outside of the series indicates that the character should be summarized in The A-Team, but not in a standalone article. Geschichte (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Room is not actually limited here, so if you think something else needs adding deleting another article actually has no bearing on it. Artw (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep topic is notable due to RS coverage. No objections to editing it to condense and improve. Personally not seeing the need to describe fictional awards of real ribbons and medals. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens Could you link those RS? I don't see any mentioned here and the references in the article look bad (two out of four are primary, there is a passing mention in a newspaper and a presumablu some other in a documentary-ish TV show). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the two already in the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tidy per above. Artw (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to the redirect if that ends up as the outcome - it DOES need a major pruning, and have a suspicion that a if no new material is added it will look a lot like what is already in List of The A-Team characters once that is completed. Artw (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV in RS has been shown to exist that establishes notability. Please ping me if better sources are found for a review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Character from the A team - definitely not independently notable, and the character has been in no other show. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The A-Team characters - There is not actually enough coverage in reliable sources to justify a separate article (the one actually valid source currently in the article is literally only being used to confirm that he was one of the four protagonists of the show), but as a valid target exists, redirecting would be preferable over straight deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails WP:NPLOT and WP:WAF, there being no significant out-universe coverage. Avilich (talk) 17:47, 9 November 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. ✗plicit 13:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Espinosa[edit]

Elizabeth Espinosa (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 working at a number of television and radio stations and having been on a reality show, I can't say that the subject meets the WP:GNG. Mentions Emmy awards—which, in broadcast journalism, typically means regional awards that do not confer notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 6 November 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. ✗plicit 13:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military unrest following the 2000 Fijian coup d'état[edit]

Military unrest following the 2000 Fijian coup d'état (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 evidence of notability separate from the article on the coup itself, almost completely unsourced, and BLP problems GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 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 International Game Developers Association#History. Once discounting SPAs, this is a slim consensus, but there is one to redirect. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest W. Adams[edit]

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

Most sources are just for the books. It's written like a resume. It says known for "Founding the IGDA", and the organization could be notable, but not sure whether Adams is independently notable.

He is a "senior lecturer / associate professor" at a Swedish university. https://katalog.uu.se/profile/?id=N13-98, so WP:Academic may apply. I'm not familiar with his field to evaluate notability, so hoping to get some feedback from those who are more familiar of the game design field. Swil999 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— JoeKazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • ... Mister or Ms. Anonymous, given that you have admitted that you know nothing about the subject, you should stop proposing edits about it. "I've heard of Atari, but I've never heard of Nolan Bushnell, so I suggest that we delete his page." Your own ignorance is a poor excuse for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWAdams (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't attack other editors. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 15:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinBear: It's not suppressing that he wouldn't want his own article deleted. It looks like the last commenter is an SPA account. You might want to look into if this AfD has been mentioned anywhere outside of Wikipedia or if the SPA is a sock of EWAdams. I wouldn't be surprised if either were true. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that proposing a delete when you know nothing about the subject is not a very sensible approach to take. I report that Adams is well-known in the computer games field not only as the founder of its leading association for game developers but as a senior theorist and educator in the field. He is also the author of a whole set of well-regarded books on games topics, of which the best-known is probably Games mechanics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthaylett (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ernest Adams is a noted figure in the video game industry for many works, including being a founder of IGDA. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ernest W. Adams is a pioneer in the Games Industry. It is absurd to consider deleting his Wiki page. The person that proposed this deletion has disqualified himself and this should be removed on that basis alone. "Well-known" in the field is an understatement. In some regards he is the Asimov of Game Development writing (and creating) (both prolific and an exceptionally well-known pioneer in the field). Fundamentals of Game Design alone (now in it's 3'rd printing) is enough in and of itself to warrant his inclusion in Wiki. To just about anyone in the business of Game Development, the guy is a legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKazz (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC) — JoeKazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • Academic; notable in field.
  • Author and co-author; subject of research by readers.

[1] Basicporch (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.google.co.nz/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Ernest+Adams%22
  • Redirect to International Game Developers Association#History as a WP:ATD. So far I am seeing numerous interviews but little in the way of WP:SECONDARY sources. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I would like to see pretty much any of the people voting Keep put forth WP:THREE best sources (that aren't interviews) to demonstrate that this article is unequivocally notable beyond a shadow of a doubt.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm. It seems like his claim is pretty much the IGDA and its probably for the best to redirect him to that page. GamerPro64 05:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the other people who recommended it. Most of his notability seems to come from the work he's done with the IGDA and the coverage of him outside of that is mostly primary and (or) trivial. So as a stand alone subject he clearly doesn't warrant an article, but redirecting it as an alternative to deletion is perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion with blocked socks Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • 4256 citations in Google Scholar. WTF does it take to satisfy the Wikipedia oligarchy? EWAdams (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argue best by analogy. Let's redirect "Neil Armstrong's" page, to the Space Program or the Moon's wiki page because he doesn't seem to have had much impact beyond that "Small Step for Man" thing. All the counter arguments seem to come down to..."I've never heard of the guy, so he must not have had much impact as an individual" - It's Dunning-Kruger at it's finest. JoeKazz (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the above because I was told I wasn't civil enough. It's now as civil as I can be while still pointing out the basic wrong-headedness of this entire discussion. It's really quite silly.JoeKazz (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One last question: Why is there both a Harper Lee and a To Kill a Mockingbird Wiki pages?JoeKazz (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a ridiculous comparison because the subject of this AfD is simply not on par with Harper Lee or Neil Armstrong in terms of prominence and societal impact. If he was, he would absolutely merit an article. Notability not being inherited, the person must prove that they are worthy of covering independently of what they created. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily have to be by notoriety, but by infamy as well. SOME kind of significant coverage is necessary).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ridiculous. Within the members the world-wide Game Dev. Community, Ernest is a Pioneer on par with Neil Armstrong, and much more prolific as Harper Lee. 25,000+ people attend the GDC each year at Moscone in San Francisco (Pre-Covid). I'd wager that most of those attending know and have read Ernest, and that at least a third of them could pick him out by sight. I don't think you can say the same for Neil or Harper. He's even more famous than Rami Ismail (who's Wiki-Page is quite sparse in comparison (yet not challenged)).JoeKazz (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old "keep because some people from a random tech conference know him" argument, classic. Like ApLundell says, your not doing yourself any favors here with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, The comments by new users are clouding the issue and will probably achieve exactly what they're trying to prevent simply by depleting everyone's patience. However, if anybody in the field of game design qualifies for WP:AUTHOR#1 for being a widely cited author within his field, it would be Adams. He is a respected and widely cited author of both academic and practical works in his field. ("Weak" because the article, as it stands, is just a CV. There's no discussion or his work or its impacts and no criticism of it. I believe that Adams is notable, but not much actual content is in danger here.) ApLundell (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Adams has three books with hundreds of citations. Somewhere between WP:NPROF C1 / C4 and WP:NAUTHOR C1, I think that this meets notability. Weak, because I would normally expect to find book reviews of notable books, and I did not quickly find such. The article needs significant reworking to focus on his notable career telling people how to design games, and less on his work for game studios, but I don't think it's quite so bad as for WP:TNT. The article may require watchlisting from neutral editors against the pattern of COI and sock editing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes people confuse WP:NAUTHOR with direct proof of notability. Just because a subject seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR doesn't mean they are notable, just that they are more likely to be, as stated in the section's description. Its not a free pass if the article still clearly fails WP:GNG, as seems to be the case here, since nobody has put forward any proof to the contrary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about WP:NAUTHOR. WP:NPROF, on the other hand, explicitly does not require GNG to be met. I also comment, per ApLundell, that the SPAs and socks may have distracted from the business of searching for significant coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this guy's books and articles come up all the time when I search for video game related topics and I think you could write an article just summarizing his scholarship very easily. Jorahm (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. There has to be actual secondary sources about the author, not just things he wrote that one can summarize and make original research. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:29, 14 November 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) Anonymous1941 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House Hippo[edit]

House Hippo (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 are a lack of references to this article and it fails WP:N. Anonymous1941 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plenty of sources available in addition to the ones already in the article, eg [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a few book sources. This fake hippo meets WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2005 according to the talk page but I assume the current system for AfD pages did not exist then. Just a note for those confused (like me) for why this is a "2nd nomination" page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources found check out. [30] [31] Dream Focus 01:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article meets notability and it seems good sources were added since it was nominated for deletion Safyrr (talk) 15:26, 7 November 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, nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (WP:SKCRIT#4). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Alive[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. VladimirBoys (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I clearly think the nominator didn't do any WP:BEFORE here; this is undeniably one of the most well-known dolls sold from the 70s into the 2000s, and currently an IP with a new television series. Sources are certainly needed, but are easy to find here once you cut pure retail links. The fact we have to detail every damned G.I. Joe figure down to some character named 'Tombstone' no one has ever heard of, but a long-running doll for young girls gets an 🤷🏽‍♀️ from us is something that needs serious rectification here. Nate • (chatter) 08:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This AFD does not fall under a SKCRIT; closest would be SKCRIT3, but that's not obvious to me. No comment on the actual AfD. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage in reliable sources. Listed in the top 100 toys by Time. Seems easy to me and especially in the context of a Wikipedia preference for "boys" toys. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Question I don't see how this "clearly fails WP:GNG". Could you please specify? Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:37, 9 November 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 13:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsons Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Nominated in the Allen Shop Corner AfD but not mentioned past that. Looks to be a road corner near someone's house?

Possibly relevant newspaper results: https://www.newspapers.com/image/189488974/?terms=%22Wilsons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/230810974/?terms=%22Wilsons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 wizzito | say hello! 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take this opportunity to emphasise again that, even if it were populated at some point, we would still need evidence of legal recognition by e.g., incorporation for this to be a WP:GEOLAND #1 pass. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 6 November 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's rough consensus that a list of this type presents NOTNEWS problems (a list of historical eruptions by year would probably be OK). I'm discounting the two "Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes" opinions because they make no arguments. Sandstein 10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of currently erupting volcanoes[edit]

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

It is really unclear what is meant by "currently erupting" here, since no dates are involved. The article was dates back to 2009: is it a list of volcanoes that were erupting then, or since then? Are all the volcanoes on this list really erupting right now? You can't tell from the article, and there are no references. What happens if you find a cached version of this? I think if this was to be saved, then we should do things by year, e.g., List of volcanoes erupting in 2021, then it's clear when the eruptions were taking place. But if we're not willing to create that kind of list, maybe this should just be deleted. Mike Peel (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator has not provided a valid rationale for deletion; an unclear (to them) title is certainly not a valid reason. Like many other similar pages, "currently" means as of the version date, so today's version should be those that are erupting today, and the article should be edited whenever a volcano stops erupting (to remove it from the list) or starts erupting (to add it to the list). Of course a 2009 version from the article history would be a different list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnitedStatesian: Remember that we have offline Wikipedia browsers, like Kiwix, you can't assume that the version of the page is being read today, you have to write it to last. Happy to see alternatives to deletion - as I suggested, 'by year' may make more sense. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the nominator's confusion, "currently erupting" means erupting currently. The nominator's claim of "there are no references" is so false it's embarrassing: the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program has the definitive source for this, which is used to source the article as a footnote four times! It would be easy to make into a sourced table with start dates from that, though I am somewhat uncomfortable with an article that merely duplicates one source. I see no reason to do this by year, though List of large volcanic eruptions in the 21st century could be expanded beyond major ones. Reywas92Talk 19:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92: See above about offline versions. Adding start dates to the eruptions would be a good start. Looking again at the references, it seems that one reference per section header has been used, which really isn't enough, it needs to be one reference per line to make it clear that the reference covers that eruption. Otherwise, someone can come along and add a volcano to the list, which happens, and it's not clear if this is still from the reference or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, good suggestions for improvement but I see no basis for deletion. Very easy to add "as of"s or whatever to aid in keeping updated and accurate for offline or cached views. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Reywas92: A move / split would be my preferred outcome here rather than deletion, but "currently erupting" is very problematic, so if we can't move/split then deletion is best. Having specific pages per year of eruption would avoid the issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A list of active volcanoes makes sense because it changes relatively slowly, but eruptions start and stop all the time, so that this article ought to match the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program current eruptions page. And of course, it does not. And they say that "Detailed statistics are not kept on daily activity, but generally there are around 20 volcanoes actively erupting on any particular day; this is a subset of the normal 40-50 with continuing eruptions." (their emphasis) They don't take an eruption off their list until it has been quiet for at least three months. It seems unlikely that someone is going to commit to checking the GVP page every week to keep this "current" list actually current. This is a case where an external link to the actual authority makes much more sense. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just browsed the Lists of volcanoes and it's puzzling that they don't seem to distinguish the active and extinct volcanoes. I agree with Mangoe's point that it would be better to focus on the acive volcanoes than have this half-baked real-time tracker. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course that's because as Volcano#Volcanic_activity says, there's not a clear definition for an active volcano. But most of these lists do provide the most recent eruption, which is the key indicator for such classification. It makes sense to have a place for recent activity vs. having had some activity in the last century or more. Reywas92Talk 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think a list of erupting volcanoes is notable enough to be kept as an article; however, I certainly see Mike Peel's point here. Perhaps the name of the article should be changed to "List of volcanoes that have erupted since (certain date)?" As Mangoe said, volcanoes stop and start erupting all the time, so it's almost impossible to keep track of which are erupting at a given second. (side note: I did create the article so naturally I am biased toward keeping it) --THFSW (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, or repurpose as an article on every erupting volcano in 2021 or the 2020s. That way, it isn't a live update ticker, and can actually be maintained to proper encyclopedic standard. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as currently erupting is reasonably clearJackattack1597 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, as this seems like it will have to be updated every time a volcano is erupting or stops erupting, classifying it as more of a news ticker than an encyclopedia article about something that already happened.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete has to be updated incessantly forever to stay useful, failing WP:NOTNEWS; per some above this could easily just be a list of eruptions in the current year which is then capped and archived for future reference, which is far more encyclopedic. Also indiscriminate, since there are loads of eruptions that are, say, at the bottom of the sea or slow and perpetual like Hawaii, that don’t make the news. Dronebogus (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list has several "slow and perpetual" eruptions, it is not based merely on the news. Reywas92Talk 17:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lugnuts: That would be an improvement, but it wouldn't solve the issue with exactly when the volcanoes were active/erupting. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the list would have to be constantly updated, adding new ones and deleting old ones, forever. Wikipedia is not a news site and it isn't its job to try to record every change as it occurs and then forget it, that's simply not an encyclopedia's job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have converted the list to a table which should present the information better with clear dates so less likely to become substantively out of date and addresses some voters' concerns. I don't believe NOTNEWS applies to this: being based on current information that can change is not a restriction on articles' topics. Since there is not a clear definition of what makes a volcano "active" the suggestions for that above aren't great, but this could also be converted to a List of volcanic eruptions in the 2020s without a deletion. Reywas92Talk 17:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on recent updates, but rename to List of active volcanoes. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Nobody's going to keep this listicle even close to up-to-date, which makes it functionally useless and unencyclopedic cruft. Strongest possible delete. AlexEng(TALK) 06:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete it's just confusing. I don't think this exact topic merits its own article - who's going to bother keeping it up-to-date every day and account for every eruption? On the other hand, another related article such as "List of active volcanoes" per Caleb Stanford would work better. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 10:27, 16 November 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 Amelia, Virginia. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scotts Fork, Virginia[edit]

Scotts Fork, Virginia (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 fork in the road at a "Five Forks Road" where an Exxon gas station is, likely not a community.

Possible relevant Newspapers.com results:

https://www.newspapers.com/image/616170124/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (between Scotts Fork)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/615483821/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (Scotts Fork Baseball Team?)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/615803490/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (at Scotts Fork near ... Amelia County)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/615863886/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (Real estate listing) wizzito | say hello! 04:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's 24 articles in five minutes. I think we can say pretty straight forwardly that the amount of care applied in the creation of these articles was minimal. Of course this was all a very long time ago and probably the author has change their behaviour in the mean-time, and Wikipedia was a very different place in 2010. All the same I think a bulk-delete of unimproved articles based simply on GNIS may be in order, similar to what was done with the California GNIS listings created by Carlossuarrez46. FOARP (talk) 16:21, 6 November 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 not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masons Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Was in the Allen Shop Corner AfD, but not mentioned further than that. This is, most likely, just a road corner/junction/waypoint. Possible relevant results: https://www.newspapers.com/image/615945268/?terms=%22Masons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 https://www.newspapers.com/image/615799795/?terms=%22Masons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 wizzito | say hello! 04:10, 6 November 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 not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valley View, Virginia[edit]

Valley View, Virginia (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 not sure what this is or if it was a community. Topo shows a Valley View Lane. I see Newspapers.com results about a Valley View estate in Fauquier County but nothing in Alleghany, but there's also listings for people in "Valley View, Va." and "Valley View, Ky (Kentucky)." https://www.newspapers.com/clip/88428518/valley-view-estate/ wizzito | say hello! 03:37, 6 November 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. I believe that the Keep voters have convincingly demonstrated that the concept is covered in reliable sources and deserves to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. However, there isn't full agreement on exactly where this concept should be covered. Many different merge/redirect targets were proposed, and others argued that it should remain in its own standalone article. In the end, no clear consensus emerged on where this content should reside, therefore it defaults to staying where it is for the moment. It should be noted that the content at Anarchism and issues related to love and sex#Relationship anarchy is currently an exact copy of the content of this article, so something should be done about that soon. I'd encourage further discussion on the article's talk page about the best place to host the content of this article instead of starting more AfDs, because it seems clear that there is consensus for this content to appear somewhere on WP. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship anarchy[edit]

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

Multiple times this article is redirected at sexual identity however no discussion has brought so here it is. Does this deserves moving? YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection to the specific redirect that is that this is clearly not really a sexual identity at all. It is a type or structure of relationship that people of any sexual identity might, or might not, choose to adopt. This makes it qualitatively different from all the other identities listed in Sexual identity#Identities (even "sapiosexuality", which is utter nonsense but does at at least try to frame itself as if it were a sexual identity).
As for the references, not all of them are great but ref 2 is a whole published paper about this very subject and some of the others are OK too. There are other sources that could be used. In books, I quickly turned up this (fairly substantial coverage) and this (not as extensive but still something). In Scholar I quickly found this and this. I didn't look very hard to find this stuff and I'm sure that quite a bit more exists. Given that so much of the coverage comes from Sweden, I'd bet that somebody who speaks Swedish could turn up even more still. I'm not pretending that this is a major topic with mountains of scholarly coverage but there is clearly enough material to justify and support a short article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that Swedish Wikipedia has had an article on this topic since 2009 and there are articles in several other languages too, some more extensive than this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider any of those sources suitable for use in an encyclopedia. The Swedish article is sourced primarily to Dr Andie, a blog. The other links are dead. Then there's the term paper that cites the author's own bachelor's thesis (both unusable). The only source we have is doi:10.1177/1360780418811965, which does not give us more information that could be neatly summarized within another article, whether it's sexual identity or, alternatively, Non-monogamy#Terminology. Per your Google Book links, it would suffice to cover relationship anarchy as those sources did, as a proportional subtopic within consensual non-monogamy or polyamory. Your Scholar links are undergrad student papers—we do not permit those on Wikipedia, nevertheless as establishing independent notability. Every Google Scholar hit for relationsanarki that I could access similarly did not provide any substantial analysis with which we could justify a standalone article. czar 00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free_love#Recent. The number and content of Ghits indicate enough serious independent interest to justify encyclopedic coverage of the neologism "relationship anarchy". That was also the finding of the previous AfD. But it sure doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. There's a good deal of chaff in the sources provided, and with anarchists you're never going to get to an authoritative source anyway, are you? The Midnattssol paper is the most promising as actual social science but it's in Swedish. The Strandell paper is an unholy wreck. (He cites 5 movies, 1 t.v. show and a Pitbull song.) None of the cited sources show any awareness of Fourier or Armand or Emma Goldman. Yes the phrase appears to be notable and verifiable but this idea is 100 years old and already in the encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see the idea of anarchy different from anarchism. I believe there are some relationally anarchal statists just as are anarchists that are strictly monogamous. But I see your point, free love, free relations and relationship anarchy are almost the same thing, with one being more theorized and precisely defined than the other. —YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 15:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Relationship anarchy is not an approach that fits into the category of non-monogamies, nor can it be included under the umbrella term of polyamory since it doesn't focus on refuting affective sexual exclusivity. Instead, it centers on challenging the whole set of authoritarian, normative, individualistic, and coercive attributes of the dominant culture in terms of relationships. The form expressions like non-mono or poly take and their reference to numbers (both make plurality explicit) is important, since it definitely conditions persons interested in new relationship formats, pointing them in a specific direction: to change how many people they interact with, not how they relate. jcperezz (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Merge to Non-monogamy#Terminology - limited discussion with "relationship anarchy" directly in the title of articles. Citation databases Scopus (1), Google Scholar allintitle: (4). Future work growing this section within Non-monogamy could help flesh it out and then, if it becomes too big, then future options could be considered. Jamzze (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a consensus not to keep this article and to either merge or redirect, but there's no consensus on the target. Editors suggesting mergers or redirects should discuss the potential target more so as to obtain consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Consensus is indeed for the article to not be retained, but presently no consensus exists about whether to merge or redirect, and five potential merge/redirect targets have been suggested:
Hopefully more input can occur whereby a merge or redirect target can be more clearly discerned, and so a hopeful consensus can be achieved about whether to merge or redirect. North America1000 04:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors named Non-monogamy#Terminology as satisfactory. And the term's already covered there so no need for merger. The other options are more of a stretch. czar 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: In the discussion, you have cited that link, another user has stated to redirect to the Non-monogamy article, and one other user has opined with a merge !vote. While you may feel that there is nothing to merge, another user feels differently, and I feel that more discussion is warranted so an actual consensus can be formed, if possible, rather than a "two against one" situation where one of the two for redirection discounts the opinion of the one for merging. I don't view that scenario as an actual consensus. Furthermore, three users have opined with keep !votes as well, although the first one is a bit on the weaker side in terms of evidence. North America1000 07:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is nearly that complicated. czar 14:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine, and I don't find it particularly complicated either. No offense intended, but you seem to be applying all of the weight of the discussion toward redirection, while downplaying or ignoring other commentary, in favor of your own point of view. This is not how consensus is formed on Wikipedia. You refer to the other potential outcomes as "a stretch", but this is a bit ambiguous. Ultimately, it is much more important for discussions to be closed accurately based upon a close inspection of the evidences presented, relative to various guidelines and policies, and based upon an accurate determination of WP:CONSENSUS, rather than siding with one "camp" or another and then performing an executive decision based upon personal preference. North America1000 16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Non-monogamy#Terminology. For me, it shouldn't go in Sexual identity#Identities because, as already noted it is not a sexual identity. I believe it is already sufficiently covered in Non-monogamy#Terminology given the lack of RS on the concept. The concept doesn't seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main Anarchism page (Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love) or in Free love#Recent which seem to be more about giving an overview of some of the most notable developments. It is appropriate for Anarchism and issues related to love and sex - although only a short summary of the term is warranted based on the lack of RS and not a full merge. Vanteloop (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Merge to Anarchism and issues related to love and sex as done by Alalch Emis (talk · contribs) is a sensible enough compromise, given the improvements to the article since my first vote. Vanteloop (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mere fact that people think that any of Sexual Identities, Non monogamy or Free Love are acceptable places to redirect/merge shows how much this article needs lacking, because all of those completely miss the point. I'd strongly prefer for this article to be improved to make that much clear, but if it is merged with something else it should probably be one of the anarchism pages. LeonT85 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept is well-established and notable by a wide margin, it's a fairly common relationship-philosophy and has been for many years. Many of the merge-proposals are nonsensical and demonstrate that the people proposing it do not even understand what the concept is about. The article is fairly poor though, so it should probably be tagged with one of the "needs improvement" templates. For example merging with Sexual Identity is absurd since RA is orthogonal to sex, you can organise your life according to RA principles regardless of what your sexual preferences and identity are. Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closer Note that the two users above have not edited anything except the article in question (and their own user pages) since January 2021, they may be SPA. Vanteloop (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing by SPA you mean a sock puppet account, but I am amused to see that is none of the expansions listed at the linked page. If you did not mean that, then which of those expansions was intended? Vttale (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean sock puppet account. I should have linked WP:SPA. When you click on SPA the very first line says "On Wikipedia, SPA may refer to a single-purpose account." which is what i was referring to. A single purpose account is not the same as a sockpuppet. It is merely an account which seems to be focused almost exclusively on one article or area. It doesn't discount their opinion but is useful context Vanteloop (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um what? I'm accused of being a "single purpose account" on the basis that I've been an infrequent contributor in recent years? That's not what the term means at all and I strongly resent that accusation. This seems like a deliberate attempt to discount my voice not for any valid reason, but instead simply because I voted in a way that the user happens to disagree with. Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also https://www.reddit.com/r/relationshipanarchy/comments/qlkwmy/wikipedia_has_flagged_ra_page_for_deletion/ czar 05:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the basis of being an infrequent contributor, on the basis the account has been used for a single purpose since January. I do not think you vote should be discounted and I have said as much in my original reply. I do think it is important context, especially given the canvasing that has gone on in regards to this article. Vanteloop (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not describe either of those users as being SPAs. Neither account was recently created for the purpose of promoting a POV. They are both infrequent contributors who, while they may be less familiar with our specific policies than some, are clearly participating in the AfD process in good faith. I see no reason to discount their !votes. We let anybody !vote on AfDs, even IPs, excluding only those who are being intentionally disruptive. This is as it should be. Infrequent editors have a right to give an opinion on the odd occasion that they feel moved to give one.
I also see that Reddit thread as fairly benign by Reddit standards. The OP is clearly assuming bad faith in an unhelpful way but the people underneath (of which there are only a handful) don't seem to be buying that line. It has been up for 10 days now and it hasn't lead to an influx of angry SPAs. If it was an attempt to get a brigade going it seems that the RA people are level headed enough not to go along with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As i said above: 'It doesn't discount their opinion but is useful context'. I am not doubting the editors are voting in good faith neither have I argued that their votes should be discounted.
If the accounts were simply 'infrequent' accounts I would not have said anything - it's the fact that the only mainspace articles either account has edited since January (at time of original comment) have been this page. That's the 'important context' I referred to. Especially given the proof of canvasing we've seen from someone who is obviously aware of this discussion. Vanteloop (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep abundant coverage in reliable sources, it's clear to me that it meets notability guidelines. Proposed merge targets are not satisfactory as RA is not limited to romantic or sexual relationships but is a method of envisioning/managing all personal relationships, even platonic ones, and does not necessarily involve non-monogamy. Nor is it necessarily related to anarchism. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a further reading section with additional sources showing the notability of this concept. (t · c) buidhe 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Editors here may want to review some recent changes I made to improve the article. I have done some cleanup of the article, removing bachelor and masters thesis as primary sources such these are generally not considered RS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have also removed duplicates in the 'further reading' section as this is discouraged except for articles with reference sections containing 'very many entries' Vanteloop (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two academic references to International Conferences also added. Jcperezz (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the several academic & reliable sources. Merging to another article would lead to this information being eroded/confused, this seems like its own distinct concept. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, somewhere. Content forking by slightly different perspectives. Probably Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love per Iskandar323 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. No brainer. Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love is basically the same thing, but since there's a main article, it needs to be the target. Merge is needed as the article is short and unlikely to be expanded. Oppose redirect as there is content not found elsewhere worth preserving. Other proposed targets are bad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See de facto merger for an illustration of the argument: diff. Pinging SmokeyJoe who was unsure about the target. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:00, 17 November 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 13:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks Mill, Virginia[edit]

Hooks Mill, Virginia (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 doubt this is a community. This is the only Newspapers.com result, and I very much doubt it applies to this place: https://www.newspapers.com/image/315531643/?terms=%22Hooks%20Mill%22%20Alleghany%20County&match=1

There looks to be a road named "Hooks Mill Lane", so this might just be a mill that got a road named after it. wizzito | say hello! 03:23, 6 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. The typo in the original article title threw off my attempts to find Google search results. The correct title does indeed yield multiple reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dg nanoha okiku[edit]

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

Absolutely zero hits for this subject in a Google search. Likely a WP:HOAX (though CSD was contested). If this subject does indeed exist, they must be under a different name. I note that there are three "sources" for the article, but since none of them show up in a Google search, I can't be sure if they are authentic or not. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:28, 6 November 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. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anshula Kant[edit]

Anshula Kant (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. Most of the sources are PTI reprints and are not independent. Appointment at World Bank doesn't grant automatic notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion. But from what I know, you can get anything published through PTI if you are willing to pay. Hence, I am concerned with independence when it comes to PTI. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that the news agency isn't independent and reliable? pburka (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See in a Quora discussion here [32] - seems to be a common knowledge that there are paid routes for PTI. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Press Trust of India isn't currently listed at WP:RSPSS, but all newspapers and news agencies receive press releases. Reliable sources do their own fact checking before writing a story on the topic. If you want to challenge the reliability of a major news organization this is the wrong venue: you should start a discussion on WP:RSN. pburka (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think if they would fact check etc, they would at least write 'edited by' and put a staff writer. But yes, there is no clarity at PTI thing. This should be discussed. Also reading Deccan Chronicle article - very clearly a rewritten piece of supplied information. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you're right about the Deccan Chronicle piece, it is rewritten and by-lined. The newspaper clearly thought she was notable enough to spend time doing that. pburka (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with pburka.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I also found pburka's reasoning convincing. Also, World Bank Group is extremely notable and CFO is important enough to deserve an article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in the article constitute significant coverage from reliable sources, allowing the subject to meet WP:BASIC. I'm not convinced that the assertions about PTI have enough evidence to challenge the reliability of the sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 15 November 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 Unit of time#List. There's clear consensus that this isn't notable and is functionally just a definition. There is good cause for a redirect, but it's currently an even split. Rather than extended for a week just to settle the redirect issue, since I'm not sure if a cross-wiki redirect is viable under policy and there's a viable regular target, I've selected the unit of time.

If individuals want to further discuss that on the redirect's talk page (or another appropriate forum) then, subject to policy, that's fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrennium[edit]

Quadrennium (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:DICDEF. The article is basically a dictionary definition and can't conceivably be expanded beyond that. (Similarly, we don't have an article for biennium, though there is a disambiguation page.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Per request at WT:AFD, nominated pro forma on behalf of the above IP by Extraordinary Writ (talk) at 03:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with this. There's a brief section on Quadrennium at Olympiad#Quadrennium, but probably shouldn't redirect there given that the term is not exclusively used for the Olympics. Also happy for the term to be replaced with plain english where it just means four years and doesn't have the technical sense that the Olympics apparently uses. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:46, 13 November 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 that neither NPROF or NAUTHOR is met. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil H. Baum[edit]

Neil H. Baum (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 significant coverage per WP:PROF, SL93 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 02:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grigor Danielyan[edit]

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

nothign more than a basic resume, doesn't meet WP:NENT or anything else. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By a quick Google search in Armenian language, I can see significant coverage that demonstrate his notability, But article was written in resume format which is not suitable for a encyclopedia. Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there is not too much news, he meets WP:ENT by being in several Armenian TV shows and Series. I also removed a big chunk of un-sourced material. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 6 November 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States[edit]

List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States (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 of these political holders cross-categorisations (in this case, "holders of political offices X and Y" and "ethnicity")? Not only are the few sources used for unrelated facts, it is impossible to be sure whether this is accurate as it does not meet WP:V or WP:LISTN (the only coverage I can find is of how the US has elected only two Black governors [34]; which, beyond not even matching with the article as it stands, is not enough to create a list of them or support the rest of this); and because it is found nowhere but on Wikipedia, it is OR by definition (are there some missing? is everyone's ethnicity here properly recorded? ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the WP:OR in creating this cross-categorisation and lack of sources discussing this group meaning it fails WP:LISTN. There are sources discussing African-American governors but the definition of “minority” here is original and doesn’t appear to be based on a sourced one. Unclear why a hispanic white is any more of a minority than someone of say Bosnian or Greek descent. Two examples of the issues with this categorisation: 1. The inclusion of Louis A. Wiltz because his mother came from Spanish nobility. 2. This discussion on whether Sephardic Jewish Americans are Hispanic enough to be included in this list. Clearly the “minority” categorisation is not workable and most importantly isn’t sourced. Importantly WP:NOTCATALOG advises against "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y'". Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The definition of minority is based on the US Census categorizations. Bosnians and Greeks are considered non-Hispanic white, which is not minority, while Hispanic or Latino is a separate grouping, so this accusation of this distinction being original research is baseless. Louis Wiltz was Hispanic on his mother's side, just as someone today from Spain is Hispanic, so I don't see the issue here. Pointing out a discussion about Sephardic Jews likewise is irrelevant because there would not be any listed here anyway. Recognition of minority governors and lieutenant governors is a notable topic, with discussion including [35], [36], [37], [38], [39][40], [41], [42], [43]. These should correspond to Category:Hispanic and Latino American state governors of the United States, Category:American state governors of Asian descent, Category:African-American state governors of the United States. Reywas92Talk 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the definition matches the US census doesn't matter if there are no sources which explicitly discuss the grouping of governors by ethnicity, and then explicitly discuss the subset of those that are from minority ethnicites. Many of the pages you link merely focus on the fact that, yes, US governors are not historically diverse, or more openly only focus on Black governors (for ex., beyond those where "back american" or a variant thereof, is in the title or the URL, places like Investopedia (is that really a good source?) only have the following:

Nowhere is lack of diversity more evident than in governors’ mansions across the country. Today, only two of the 50 states are led by someone who identifies as non-White: Hawaii, where Okinawan-American Dave Ige is governor, and New Mexico, whose chief executive is Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Latina.91011 There are currently no African American governors, which has been true for most of American history. There have been only four Black governors, and just two—Douglas Wilder of Virginia and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts—were elected. The other two, including David Paterson, who served as New York’s governor from 2008 to 2010, assumed the job after their predecessor was pushed out of office.

  • That's not enough to contextualise anything but a list of African American governors. So as I said, there's coverage of African-American governors, but not much of the others, and the African-Americans are few enough that they don't really warrant a list which will be limited to only a couple of entries. And ethnicity, if it is really the important, can be mentioned in the relevant pages at Category:Lists of state governors of the United States (if it is non-obvious from the picture). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some points in response:
  1. The use of US Census categories is not discussed in the article or sourced. Nor is this definition used in the sources you provided. I also think this is a fudging of how race is recorded and anachronistic to apply this changing category to historic figures (never mind BLPs).
  2. As explicitly stated by the US Census, individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification. We have no way of knowing how people identified and this is problematic for BLP. Also quite funny to think Wiltz, who fought in the confederate army, would have self-identified as non-white.
Who said anything about Louis Wiltz being non-white? He is listed in the article because he was Hispanic (who can be of any race, including white), not because he wasn't white (for the record, he was white, and Hispanic). And it is the U.S. Census, and myriad federal employment, education and discrimination laws, that deem African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc. to be racial or ethnic minorities. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Talk I linked to names several Sephardic Jewish people who would be eligible such as George Allen. Do we need to wait until his census is released before we add him?
4. Sources provided here are not adequate and mostly speak about Africa American politics which is a different topic altogether. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom and @Vladimir.copic. Almost everything in this article is unsourced, and a List of minority governors and lieutenant governors exists only on Wikipedia (nothing remotely like this exists in the real world), so a clear fail of both WP:LISTN and WP:OR. I would add the article was created by an indeffed sockpuppet, which is yet another (six articles here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age and one here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of governors of Texas by age) Trivial cross-categorisation article created by corrupt editors. It's time to delete them all and stop indulging frauds. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a good faith argument, as many editors in good status have contributed since the creation seven years ago, and that is not a comment on the article itself. I'm not usually the one to say this, but AFD is not for clean up and more sources can certainly be added. I believe minority status in a majority electoral system is much more notable and commented upon for representation than age is. It is much more trivial to list age statistics for every person who've held an office than to provide the significance of how rare it is for minorities to be elected to a state's highest office, with this being a finite list that spans all the states. Reywas92Talk 20:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently ignored my Wikipedia policy based arguments, and made an appeal to wokeness to keep the article, despite multiple people explaining nothing like this article exists in the real world (so fails WP:LISTN). Some editors in good status have edited the article since, so G5 doesn't apply here, but how is it bad faith to point out this article was created and nurtured for years (to this day?) by a prolific sock-master, not unlike many similar articles? You're entitled to your own opinion, but there is factual evidence this WP:OR Trivial cross-categorisation article is the haunt of many socks, and grossly lacks reliable sourcing or any real-world equivalent. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these sources discuss minority governors and lieutenant governors though? Like I said above, maybe we could instead create an article about African-American or Hispanic and Latino American governors and lieutenant governors which are actually spoken about in sources. Better still just use the sources to improve this article. The catchall 'minority' is not reflected in sources and does not have a stable enough definition to be used for this kind of cross-categorisation particularly when it involves WP:BLP. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean none discuss minority governors, they do. They discuss, respectively, the racial makeup of governors, the history of African-American governors, and the absence of women people of colour (ie the presence of men POC). But, wait, there's more: There has been little diversity among US governors: "Historically, there have been remarkably few minorities to reach that height in politics — only four African American men and two non-white women. There have also been a number of Hispanic, Asian-American, and two Indian-American Governors." Can We All Get Along? Racial and Ethnic Minorities in American Politics NB p.181 which has discussion on minority elected officials at state level. Contemporary State Lieutenant Governors: An Initial Review see LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION pp.105-115 which includes a column on racial background on all LGs since the 1970s. As I said at the outset, I agree the title is not the best, but that is not the point of AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the sources you previously quoted spoke about individual identities that are often grouped under “minorities” in the US and don’t use the term “minority”. To use these kind of sources to demonstrate notability of this topic is WP:SYNTH. The sources you have just now pointed to are more compelling but there are still massive issues for me over the varying definitions of “minority” in this article and the sources especially in regard to BLP. Fundamentally I think we agree - the topic’s constituent parts are notable but it’s clumsy and problematic grouping them under “minority”. I just fall into the WP:TNT camp and you into the WP:FIXABLE one. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issues your raise would be more apposite if we were discussing an article rather than a list. Nevertheless, allow me to acknowledge your genial, collaborative response. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I am basing all this off WP:LISTN which recommends groupings be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as well as WP:NOTCATALOG which explicitly advises against 'non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y'". To me that last quotation makes it a pretty open and shut case. The topic would be better served as an article or section in another article rather than a list. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me finish your quote from WP:NOTCATALOG: "…unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Given the significance of race in America, I think this list passes that hurdle, no? (If not, what would?) -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are people really thinking of politicians like John Garamendi (who appears on this list) when they talk about US minority politicians? Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They might not be, but even if they are not, that has no relevance in determining whether to delete the list. Demonstrating that a list has areas of uncertainty (as against a list which is entirely ambiguous on inclusion) is not a reason per se invalidating the list. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add U.S. Census definition of minority to the introductory section. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe such a statement is already at the top of the article? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not WP:OR as that requires making an argument and reaching a conclusion, which few (if any?) lists could do without prose. Saying it's incomplete or lacks more sources is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. "Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." Please WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM rather than blow up a perfectly good list that passes both WP:LISTPURP#Information and WP:LISTPURP#Navigation. The latter also makes it WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, refuting WP:TRIVIA. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OR doesn't require making an argument; The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. It's also not particularly difficult for lists to perform WP:OR without prose. Inclusion in a list itself can constitute WP:OR if no reliable sources verify that the entry actually belongs to the set of things that is being listed, for instance. The order in which things are listed can also be WP:OR if the list order is used to convey some kind of information. TompaDompa (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a difference between general research and "original research." Writing an article on WP requires some research -- akin to what in academia is called a "literature review." WP:OR stipulates that some conclusion was reached by this research that was not reached in any of the published sources. So you may be correct that some people on this list constitute WP:OR, but not the entire list itself, most of which pass WP:V. And according to WP:LISTN, a list should be kept regardless of the demonstrated notability of any individual item. Thus, we should be debating whether to refine this list, rather than delete it entirely. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usage of the word minority here, and arguably in a wider American context, is very fatuous. Like the other guy said, why is a Confederate White Hispanic American more deserving of being listed as a minority governor than some Greek American? Census categories are a likewise malleable category both in the sense of self-identification and official state agency-backed language. Also, what to do when everyone is considered a minority some years from now? That said, I wouldn't be opposed to pages restricted to specific ethnic groups but that too can be covered by broader pages listing members of ethnic groups or categories which are usually very specific like African-American male actors. Killuminator (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like the concerns about "who gets to be a 'minority'?" or "is using that definition of 'minority' here synthesis?" might be resolved simply by retitling the page or splitting it into sub-lists with more specific titles. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really agree with a lot of the arguments made by yourself (above and below) as well as other keep voters. I just am put off by the idea of editors acting like Victorian anthropologists going around WP with their callipers and separating people according to their race (which of course is a set of ever changing, pseudoscientific categories). The term minority usually includes religious, sexual orientation, disability groups so at the very least the page needs to change it's name. But the WP:V issues are so massive when you look at people like John Garamendi. He had Basque paternal grandparents so is included in this list. Who knows if his grandparents identified as Hispanic (they might have seen themselves as French and Basque isn't a Hispanic language). Who knows if Garamendi considers himself as Hispanic or a minority (no sources call him a minority)? As said above, on the US census ethnicity is done by self-identification which is not something we can always verify. Listing BLP like this has huge WP:V issues and result in considerable WP:OR. Maybe this just needs massive cleanup which is not a discussion for here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The New York Times famously did this blood count of powerful Americans and here are some of their findings. Rashida Tlaib - not white, Justin Amash - white. Both individuals are of Palestinian descent, something that will likely get a fatuous umbrella ethnic term MENA on a future census form. Even when you have some purportedly serious publication do this kind of research you inevitably get some omission or weird inclusion like Justin Amash and John Garamendi respectively. You sometimes have people with spurious claims to an ethnicity, people with a multitude of ethnic backgrounds, people with declared and undeclared ethnic identifications and sometimes a journalist or researcher has to make a call on what some person may have identified as or how they'd be perceived through a modern lens. In some instances, you have a retroactive labeling people on what's basically a one drop rule. That's literally what the census bureau considers sufficient to mark someone as a minority. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/09/us/powerful-people-race-us.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes --Killuminator (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well honestly, I don’t understand what the big fuss is about. First off, I think people need to read closely at the article to understand the definition of minority. If you read closely “ In the United States, an ethnic minority is anyone who has at least one parent who is not of non-Hispanic white descent”. I think it is clear what it is trying to say. As you can see they are saying in the United States, these are people that are considered minorities. For example, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Pacific Islanders, Black Sub-Saharan African Americans, and Asian Americans (Those of East, South, and Southeast Asian descent), are obviously not racially white. However when it comes to Hispanics it can get a little tricky, for example many Hispanics may have Mixed ancestry, usually a combination of either Spanish, African, or Native American, so it is obvious that they can be considered a minority racially, but what can be confusing is when Spanish considered a minority. Yes they are Hispanic, but they are still Europeans and White, but what some people forget is that any body can be culturally Hispanic, regardless of race. The reason that a Greek American can’t be listed is because, unless say they were born in a Hispanic country or have roots in a Hispanic country or place, can’t be considered a minority since they are considered white by the U.S. Census. For example, John Sununu, as well as his son Chris Sununu are Hispanic since John’s mother was a Salvadoran and he speaks fluent Spanish, however she was ethnically Middle Eastern (Lebanese and Palestinian), which is considered racially white in the U.S., though personally I don’t consider Middle Eastern and North Africans white and believe they should have their own racial category, but anyway as you can see John Sununu can be considered Hispanic. So yes all European Americans including Spaniards are considered white by the U.S. census, but what distinguishes Spanish from others is that they are Hispanic. Remember Hispanics aren’t a racial category in the U.S. like Pacific Islanders or African Americans, they are an ethnic category because as said before anybody of any race can be Hispanic, as long as they have roots in that culture or a Spanish-speaking country, including Spain. And as for ethnic categories in the U.S., there are two categories Hispanic and Non-Hispanic, and only 18% of Americans are Hispanic, so an ethnic minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C807:6D00:C197:2179:823:7DE8 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC) — 2600:8807:C807:6D00:C197:2179:823:7DE8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Unlike some other lists I could name, the inclusion criteria are pretty clear-cut; if the status of any individual is debated in the sources, we can qualify and footnote appropriately. The cross-categorization is not original, and some of the sources mentioned above do expressly include Hispanic and Asian-American individuals, so we're not lumping together groups that haven't already been put under the same heading [44][45]. Change "minority" in the title to "BIPOC" if it doesn't sound specific enough, or split the list. I could see various arguments for trimming or revising (e.g., maybe including the less-discussed topic of lieutenant governors is getting out ahead of what the sources can justify, though I'm not convinced of that). All things told, though, this one is in the WP:DINC bucket. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like this is heading toward Keep, but after reaching out to the Eagleton Institute of Politics' Eagleton Center on the American Governor, which also has the History of Women Governors, the director told me they are in fact this "is something we are working on" and they "are in the process of putting together a list" of minority governors. It probably won't be ready for a little while, but this is a notable topic of research and discussion, regardless of some intricacies of inclusion. Reywas92Talk 15:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92: That will certainly be interesting to look at when it's done especially regarding historical governors and the "non-Hispanic white" stuff. Revisited this source and I note that they do not include Chris Sununu. For some reason this article has decided to call him Salvadoran American (he was born and raised in America) I am guessing because his paternal grandmother was born in El Salvador to a family of Greek Orthodox Christian Lebanese people (which I was earlier told was non-Hispanic white)?? Maybe the WP lab stuffed up the DNA/Haplogroup test results. If this does get kept I think we need some major clean up. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "makes me part Greek American and part Hispanic American. It's a varied heritage, and I'm proud of it." Ethnicity and ancestry aren't black and white (no pun intended), but we're smart enough to sort this out. Can certainly provide more notes here. Reywas92Talk 03:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Reywas92: Erm...that's a different guy. I'm talking about Chris Sununu unless you are suggesting that he should inherit this from his father (but I thought we were using the census description which is a self ID)? As an aside just fascinating how the history of the Ottoman Empire unfolded and the identities formed in its wake. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inheriting ethnicity from one's parents is kind of how it works.....? Perhaps we don't have a self ID for Chris though so may be reasonable to remove him but the article can acknowledge mixed ancestry. Btw pings only work when you save a signature in the same edit, you can't add it separately but I watch my recent edits. Reywas92Talk 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as not indiscriminate and focussed WP:LISTN, usable for navigation and information. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The few sources provided do not substantiate LISTN (as shown, they might substantiate LISTN for African-Americans, but those are too few to warrant a list), and appplying the spirit of MOS:ETHNICITY suggests that this isn't a particularly good way to list this information for other purposes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources provided in this AFD shows that WP:LISTN is met, The primary gripe seems to be with the arbitrary nature of how "minority" is defined, but since it's using the official US definition, for an American topic, that's likely better than Wikipedia arbitrarily creating another definition. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This official US definition is a more recent invention that has been retroactively applied to some curious and spurious cases, like the Confederate from Louisiana. Also, are Basque people a Hispanic culture? This is the census definition - Hispanics or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. The Basque are not a Spanish culture even though their homeland is mostly in Spain, emphasis on mostly. Are French Basque non-Hispanic White as opposed to some Spanish Basque? Is John Garamendi a minority? Why does everyone dance around the shortcomings of this page and even official sources? --Killuminator (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't really matter how recent an invention is if it has been used as a basis for categorization by reliable sources. As for individual cases, it would fall on how they either self-describe or how reliable sources describe them. Extreme examples like Garamendi aren't reflective of the overwhelming majority of entries on the page. The hypothetical French Basque isn't even relevant to Garamendi, who's descended from Spanish Basques. Your issue is with the sometimes arbitrary nature of ethnic identity, and is a content matter largely independent of whether deletion is warranted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They are still Hispanic because they are from a Spanish speaking country or culture. Many Basques speak Basque as well as Spanish. So yes Spanish basques are Hispanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C807:6D00:E068:511:2932:6C1D (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well it looks like actual Basque people disagree with that ([46] [47]) but I'm sure editors who, despite the guidelines, are determined to define everyone's racial makeup for their endless list articles know better. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the Basque people are not Hispanic. Everyone with passing knowledge of this unique nation would laugh at the suggestion. Also, the reliable sources like the New York Times famously did a who is white and who is not white in American halls of power which curiously listed Rashida Tlaib as not white while Justin Amash as white, both persons being of Palestinian Arab descent. Is that really reliable or people doing guesswork with the own biases and perceptions calculating in the decision? Are you familiar with the fact that the Philippines and Equatorial Guinea are Spanish speaking countries? Not the first places you'd associate with Hispanics. Even self-identification has its own limits. Elizabeth Warren identified as Native American based on some family story and some very distant and tiny ancestry might be there but as we have seen, she was humbled by the reactions of people with more substantial claims to that ethnic qualifier. A long time ago pages for ethnic groups used to have these big collages of famous people from that ethnic group until real world identity conflicts spilled on talk pages and they were replaced completely. This isn't that much different with the addition of the word minority carrying a lot of baggage here. --Killuminator (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the discussion above. More broadly, this list article is high quality and notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reywas92. I sympathize with Killuminator's comment that The usage of the word minority here, and arguably in a wider American context, is very fatuous, but this doesn't matter here. Wikipedia and AfD are not the place for original social critique. It is what it is. This is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizaton and NLIST is met. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:20, 17 November 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 Azerbaijan–India relations. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Baku[edit]

Embassy of India, Baku (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. Embassies are not inherently notable. This article merely confirms it exists and lists previous ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article passes GNGTEST and SNG. State/Country level government organizations as well as Embassies are inherently notable and unique.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Embassies are not inherently notable and lacks third party coverage to meet GNGTEST. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is inherently notable unless and until sources are provided. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability (WR:ARTN). Self-published sources can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Apart from official site, Embassies do get local news coverage and most of them are notable.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNG test
As per SNG
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.
Let us discuss these two criteria in details -
The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
This article is about a diplomatic mission of India to Azerbaijan. By default topic is international in scale.
The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.
Embassy information comes from the official government site as well as other notable media organizations.
As per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.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.
In short, article passes SNG test and is notable.
--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:As per the support due to reasons as stated above.Utkarsh555 (talk)
  • Delete: per nominator, fails GNG and is unnotable. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. the list of ambassadors to Azerbaijan–India relations, but other than that, the embassy building is not notable. There is certainly no guideline or notion in Wikipedia that embassies are inherently notable. Geschichte (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot !vote twice in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America1000 00:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 6 November 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hearns Crossroads, Delaware[edit]

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

All had original prods removed ten years ago under the mistaken belief that anything in the GNIS is automatically notable. These are named intersections, not notable communities [48]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 14:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 14:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Springfield Crossroads, Delaware, site of St. John's Methodist Church, a church listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Djflem (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NRHP registration form for the church says its location is "Southeast Corner of Springfield Crossroads". This indicates it's just an intersection, not that it's a community or a notable place. Reywas92Talk 21:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. That usage in the NRHP document does not suggest it is not a community. Other usage in the NRHP document suggests it is in fact a community and/or notable place:
        • From the NRHP document: "St. John's Methodist Church and cemetery is located in Indian River Hundred, Sussex County, Delaware on the southeast corner of Springfield Crossroads about three miles southeast of Georgetown. The surrounding area is farm land and has been for over two hundred years. The crossroads consists of the church complex, a house and a small, frame, nineteenth century store." (emphasis added)
        • From the NRHP document: "They meet in private homes and in the school that was located near Springfield Crossroads."
        • From the NRHP document: "An acre of land was purchased at Springfield Crossroads in July of 1852."
        • In the bibliography in the NRHP document it is given as a location of publication: "Moore, J. Everett Jr. A History of St. John's Church. Springfield Crossroad, DE, n.d. Collected manuscript."
--Doncram (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet none of these say "in" as you would for an actual community like a village or town. Of course you'd be "at" or "near" or "on" an intersection. If there's just one church, one house, and one store, that is not a notable place. It takes more than one family to be a notable community. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was more than one family, suggested by statements of multiple homes. And who do you think attended the school and the church, and who patronized the store, and who was the post office for? The fact that it is documented there were a church, home, and store at the crossroads itself in 1989 suggests to me, given general trends of depopulation in rural areas, that previously there were more homes and other buildings at the crossroads directly, and more nearby as well. User:Reywas92, you clearly disagree about notability of this place; you do not need to repeat yourself again and again by replying to every statement that does not agree with you. It is tedious. --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quotation with emphasis added "The crossroads consists of the church complex, a house and a small, frame, nineteenth century store" is not a statement of multiple homes. The "private homes" are not said to be in (or at) this supposed community, it says the school was "near" the crossroads. Who attended the church? Maybe the folks who lived at the crossroads of Springfield Ave and Park Ave to the west. Who went to the store? Maybe those who lived south on Gravel Hill Road toward where it crosses Zoar Road. Rather tedious that people think that because people lived in the vicinity of an intersection that the intersection is notable and we need an article to state where a church exists. Reywas92Talk 17:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep I'm seeing quite a few results in the archives about people who were from Springfield Crossroads, indicating that it is a community, as well as being the location of a notable church. Grace Brimmer was a resident of Hearns Crossroads. The others I haven't examined to see if they are actual settlements, but in any event deserve to be nominated individually. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It literally says "of Hearns Crossroads, Laurel..." and "She was a lifelong Laurel resident." So it was a location of reference or even neighborhood but I don't see automatic notability. Reywas92Talk 02:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Sources only use these crossroads as landmarks or to tell us where someone lived; I'm not finding any coverage for the locations themselves. Although NRHP-listed buildings are presumed notable, the places where they're located are not. –dlthewave ☎ 12:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a church listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we're aware of that, but an intersection does not inherit notability from a building located on it. Reywas92Talk 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above response about what the NRHP document actually says. It is a place and a community. --Doncram (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Intersections that fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, not much more to add. Nearby buildings and settlements are red herrings, and the keep voters don't address the concerns of the nomination. Avilich (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the suggestion that Springfield Crossroads, Delaware be redirected to that target?. Not ideal, but acceptable. (Shame about bundled nominations, which make things confusing.)Djflem (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes I missed the other items but yes. – The Grid (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, redirecting to the church doesn't make sense. It is a community which includes the church and more: As of 1989, the date of writing of the NRHP document, "The crossroads consists of the church complex, a house and a small, frame, nineteenth century store." --Doncram (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So one single family lived in this house? I laugh at the idea that this is a notable community then. A locality, whatever, but not worthy of an article. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. John's Methodist Church (Georgetown, Delaware) for Springfield Crossroads, Delaware, delete the other 3 for clarity. – The Grid (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close: The bundling of these nominations makes it kind of inconvenient to participate here, since it requires four separate searches to be done, and I am not coming to the same conclusions about every article. jp×g 23:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hearns Crossroads: undecided, there are at least a couple articles referring to it as an inhabited place ("Ten Churches Involved". The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware. 1952-10-06. p. 26. "Mrs. William T. Ward". The Morning News. Wilmington, Delaware. 1970-01-12. p. 5.).
    • McDonalds Crossroads: two results, both in in huge lists of place names, no indication that it was ever inhabited or notable.
    • Springfield Crossroads: a whole lot of results referring it to as an inhabited place, of which I will link only two for the sake of saving space ("Gunner Accidentally Shot". The Morning News. Wilmington, Delaware. 1909-11-16. p. 6. "E. Grace Brittingham". The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware. 1997-10-11. p. 4.).
    • Whaley Crossroads: at least one article with SIGCOV, being about a guy who lived there and had a sled dog team ("Only sled dog racing team in Del. is winner". The Morning News. Wilmington, Delaware. 1974-01-02. p. 4.) and lots of people are from there ("LeCates Service". The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware. 1995-02-01. p. 14.).
  • I suppose that, if I had to say something, I'd say to delete McDonalds Crossroads and keep the rest, but there's no way for me to make three separate "keep" arguments at once without turning the page into an impassable wall of text. jp×g 23:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think the arguments that these require separate nominations is doing closers a bit of a disservice. Four related items isn't that many; closers are quite capable of assessing different outcomes for each.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Enough of this BS bias that substubs can be mass-produced with zero content or substantive sources but must be discussed one at a time. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the ordeal with trying to delete multiple entities at once regardless of how they were created. – The Grid (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on usage in the NRHP document (see excerpts above), Springfield Crossroads is a community and a notable place. --Doncram (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And per above, it's risible that one house is a community in the first place. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my statement above disagreeing that there was just one home, and commenting that I find it tedious and unhelpful in AFD discussions for an editor to make kneejerk replies to every statement disagreeing with them. --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
info also reiterated in Zelby, Frank R. (1947), Churches of Delaware (PDF), p. 291:Meetings were first held in private homes and later in the Springfield schoolhouse near Springfield Crossroads. Djflem (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt Much of the evidence for these being settlements ends up simply being people from or buildings located near those crossroads, like those places described in the Zelby 1947 source or those two people 'of Hearns Crossroads' who are actually from Laurel. The NRHP document does not indicate that Sprigfield Crossroads is a full-fledged community, as per the last reply by the nom way above. As a note to the closer, there may be sufficient consensus for deleting at least the other three -- Hearns, McDonalds and Whaleys -- but, given the weakness of the evidence, a full deletion may likewise not be out of question. Avilich (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect. All named localities are not populated places where there is sufficient information on which to create an article. Since each of these crossroads may have some minor historical usage, it is quite reasonable to redirect each to the article on the place in which is is located. I'm not familiar with Delaware political divisions, is Hearns Crossroads, Delaware within Laurel or just near Laurel and within Sussex County? It should redirect to whichever is appropriate - with a mention there. But I don't see enough for it to have its own article. Due to Springfield Crossroads, Delaware having a tiny bit more info than the others, that might more appropriately be considered a Merge (again, probably to the county article). MB 04:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/redirect all As per MB. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Site of St. John's Methodist Church, but other than that, not notable. Being an intersection where a location on the NRHP does not qualify notability. As an aside, a lot of keep arguments revolve around WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect all Per Nom. Many of the keep !voters above are labouring under the misunderstanding that any populated or formerly-populated community is notable, but this is resolutely not the case. Only populated places that are legally recognised (e.g., incorporated) get the presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND. Just uncovering newspaper articles saying that someone came from there (or near there) or that a church (or whatever) is located there does not get this over either WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at Wikipedia:PLACEOUTCOMES and other AFDs would suggest otherwise. Djflem (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:PLACEOUTCOMES states that "Populated place outcomes generally follow WP:GEOLAND, which means that they're usually kept if they either have legal recognition or can be shown to meet GNG through significant coverage" (my emphasis). These sites have neither legal recognition (they are not, e.g., incorporated) nor WP:SIGCOV. PLACEOUTCOMES is anyway a guide as to what the outcome typically is, you are not supposed to lean heavily on it as that is obvious circular reasoning ("we've decided that so that's the way things will be, because we decided that"). Never forget that the basic goal of WP is to write encyclopaedia articles, not dictionary references, not directory entries, not database listings, and not gazetteer entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect all As per MB. Articles are stubs and fail notability, redirects are cheap. Vanteloop (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree with Delete/redirect all. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Street directory information, inferior to google maps. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and FOARP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:13, 17 November 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Parkway (Detroit area)[edit]

Metropolitan Parkway (Detroit area) (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:GEOROAD: " Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

Searches for the name in the Free Press turned up only businesses and trivial mentions at best. The other names were little better. The only source currently in the article is a case study which does not convey notability to the road itself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having grown up in the area, I know that this was one of the most significant thoroughfares going from east to west in the northern Detroit suburbs. Part of the difficulty in searching for sources is the myriad of names by which it is known. Detroit columnist Bob Talbert in 1999 wrote about the confusion surrounding the many names by which it is known:

    Many cited 16 Mile Road ... as the ultimate in confusion. It is Quarton in Birmingham, Big Beaver through Troy and becomes Metropolitan Parkway farther east." See here.

Fifteen years earlier, another columnist made a similar comment about the difficulty in navigating Detroit, citing "the six names for Sixteen Mile Road (Metropolitan Parkway, Sixteen Mile, Big Beaver, Quarton, Walnut Lake and Buno)." See here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at this situation, and the analysis provided by Cbl62, I support keeping this article but by a very narrow margin. This is a very significant road to the area -- there's also at least one notable place located on the road -- Brooks Farm. Looking at this I'm confident sourcing exists somewhere, though given the type of routine coverage that exists around roads and the road's numerous names it is very difficult to locate. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this seems WP:Notable, or at least borderline enough not to delete. The material in the article as well as discussion above support notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:41, 15 November 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 Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Clear consensus not to retain, but per Piotr, redirects are cheap. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puny Express[edit]

Puny Express (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 one of a very large number of articles on individual Woody Woodpecker cartoons, almost all of which were created by a user who was indeffed in 2015 for repeated copyright violations and sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. See also [49] and [50] for similar deletion discussions on a similar series of articles for Pink Panther cartoon articles. These discussions closed with a consensus to redirect them all to the appropriate list article, and I believe that redirecting all of these Woody Woodpecker cartoon articles to Woody Woodpecker filmography is called for here.

For this particular article, I could not find anything more than run of the mill coverage. The book cited here that is available online only shows very brief coverage of this particular cartoon, just a voice credit and nothing else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: The subject of the article has a less than 1 sentence mention in Who's who in Animated Cartoons, that's it. That hardly counts as sigcov. See here: [51]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, THREE books is significant coverage, in my opinion. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand SIGCOV. It doesn't matter how many sources have passing mentions, we need 2+ non-passing ones. And we don't have this here, the cited books are barely a sentence or half mentions, some of them are just mentions in the list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; could not find WP:SIGCOV. There must be substantial reference to the subject to be counted to GNG. It does not matter if there are a million books that mention the topic, if they all just mention the topic once in a very brief sentence. DonaldD23 does not convince me. Second choice would be to redirect to a list article. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 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. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Coimbra[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Aerin17 (t • c) 23:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the claim the subject doesn't meet GNG is disingenuous, at best; frivolous, at worst. There are at least 6 reliable independent citations to his work, and at least one major interview where personal details are drawn from. That is enough to consitute "significant coverage". This seems more like an "I don't know who this is" AFD than anything.IcarusATB (talk) 16:08, 6 November 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_November_6&oldid=1055976363"