Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11 March 13 >

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 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevan Drums[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability and fails to meet GNG. I could only find one news article even discussing them, and it was only a trivial mention of who was playing some event. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, seems well written to me and the sources check out. The band itself is pretty notable in Armenia, I believe the issue here is the translation. "Yerevan Band" in English may not yield many results but once translated (Երեւանյան թմբուկներ), there are more sources which confirm notability. Based on a preliminary search, the band preforms internationally quite often, usually for foreign dignitaries and at cultural exchange events. I can try to expand content/sources in the coming days, which I believe to be a better option then deletion. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well sourced? The website's about section, a booking site, and a trivial mention as a participant of a Russian music festival are not sources sufficient for WP:GNG. And just because a group of drummers plays at a couple of international festivals does not make them inherently notable. Most mentions even on Armenian websites are just that: mentions. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom, Fails WP:NBAND.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sourcing. This isn't quite the normal NBAND material - it is more similar to the various DCI articles that came to AFD last year than to an aspiring singer. There is a chance there is sufficient coverage in Armenian to meet GNG. However, it's not that good a chance, and the existing sources aren't good enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thomson (actress)[edit]

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

The actress possibly lacks notability to have her own article. The article itself has zero references and not much can be found about her on the web. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the three sources added a few hours ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Australian Women's Weekly & RNZ are reliable, but NZ On Air? Not sure as it's a list of on-air personalities. Needs more secondary sources to give it a strong keep. SBKSPP (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in wikinotable productions, do Thomson's roles in The Moe Show and Shortland Street (amongst others) meet this? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coolabahapple I think those will do as well. SBKSPP (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Černá[edit]

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

I don't believe she meets WP:NARTIST. I didn't find anything significant about her on a search, and the cz.wiki has worse sourcing than ours does, so all we have to evaluate is what's in the article, and it's not sufficient for a GNG/NARTIST pass:

  1. ND Magazine profiles are submitted by the artists (see [3], top left, "Sign up to be included on this list"), so are not independent
  2. A listing for the Swan Lake performance on the theater's website, not independent coverage of her
  3. Bare-bones bio of her from a workplace, not independent
  4. Bio from her workplace, reliable for facts but not independent so can't support a claim of notability
  5. Even the archived non-paywalled version ([4]) shows that this article is just a large quote from her
  6. I'm not able to access this almanac, but even if it is significant coverage of her, it's only one source and we can't maintain an article on that basis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW, again. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Paintings[edit]

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

Dear Wikipedia administrator,

I, Alan Butler, representing the band The Red Paintings, would like to request the deletion of the Wikipedia article about my client for reasons explained in detail below.
I’m acting on behalf of data subject, Trash McSweeney, prominently mentioned in the said article, and can provide proof of the data subject’s identity and address on request.
Reasons for erasure request
I hereby nominate the Wikipedia entry about The Red Paintings for special proposed deletion (PROD), more specifically under the subcategory of unsourced biographies of living people (BLPPROD), for three Wikipedia policy compliant reasons:
1.      Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify certain claims in the article have failed (please reference point 7 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’).
Ø  The vast majority of the 20 provided references are broken or deleted, specifically those referenced under numbers 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15, 18-20.
Ø  The verifiability of most claims within this article, such as the lead singer’s legal name or the band’s incorrectly stated active years, is questionable at best and relies heavily on original research, which goes directly against ‘No original research’ (NOR), one of the Wikipedia’s three core content policies.
Ø  Some of the landing pages in the reference list are completely irrelevant or unrelated to the work of my client, such as number 20 & 2.
2.      The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and includes neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes (please reference point 6 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’).
Ø  An example of the several false claims in the article is the following statement, “Clashes with their Modern Music label/Sony BMG  label at the time over creative direction saw the band ending its relationship…”, “shows with Alien Ant Farm, Chad Smith (RHCP)…”, “supporting The Posies for their Los Angeles show in July, as well as support for German industrial act Atari Teenage Riot...“ that is referenced by a broken link and cannot be verified by any other reliable source on the internet.
Ø  Such groundless claims go against neutrality, one of Wikipedia’s five pillars, hurt the band’s good name and public image and can be considered slander and/or hoaxes.
3.      The subjects of the article fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (please reference point 8 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’).
Ø  My client hasn’t been active in the public eye or publicly covered since 2013. Their official website as well as all their social media accounts are offline, their music cannot be found on any of the major streaming platforms, and no future events are planned. As of 2022, the band doesn’t exist or generate any new online entries or conversations. I’d therefore like to propose that my client doesn’t warrant their own article.
Ø  Even though Wikipedia’s policies don’t regard notability as temporary, my client wasn’t subject to significant media coverage and was merely of short-term interest even while active. I’m therefore requesting a reassessment of the suitability of the existing article on the basis of ‘General notability guide’ (GNG) and invoking the BLP1E principle.
Ø  Given the reasons stated above, Trash McSweeney is no longer officially associated with the subject of the article and doesn’t consider himself a notable person. Coming up in Google search interferes with his private life, and as an unnoteworthy person, he’d like to request that his personal privacy be respected.
I’m happy to provide any further information necessary for the approval of deletion of the said article, such a thorough analysis of all the false claims and word-of-mouth information.
Kind regards,
Alan Butler Alan191919 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
  • Keep - the article at least has some information that can be salvaged. It would have to be heavily truncated, but there is an article under the rubbish. See WP:Deletion is not cleanup. In addition, if there's a legal concern such as privacy, please take it up with our project's overseer, the Wikimedia Foundation, instead - not some random people on the Internet who want to build an encyclopedia. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick Delete - An "encyclopedia" is of valid information which this is clearly not. As pointed out due to the fact there are 80% broken or misinformed links that can not be used as factual source, that there has been excessive amounts of edits on this page due to people not knowing what is factual or hearsay The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and includes neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes (please reference point 6 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’). Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify certain claims in the article have failed (please reference point 7 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’). The subjects of the article fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (please reference point 8 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’). No findings of any social media accounts to back any of these Wikipedia edits, as it is clear the band doesn’t exist or generate any new online entries or conversations. The act doesn’t warrant their own article. Alan191919 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems clear it meets GNG. A clean up of unreferenced claims would be beneficial. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. There are to many broken source links to warrant the page fit for Public reliable information. Much of the information is hearsay. There are no links on the internet to back any of the information directly with the act who has no social media, Spotify or YouTube pages. The band is non existent. Alan191919 (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs.[reply]
    • Comment This is the nominator's 3rd vote, here. Furthermore, while the process is being debated this user has deleted whole sections of the article making it appear weaker than it was. Remember this user has a close connection to the subject of the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      :Strong Delete - That is because the sections being deleted have broken sources or sources do not relate to the information within. Please note my edits and check the sources I am referring too. Again please refer to my original points as to why this page should be deleted. Alan191919 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Strong Keep The nominator falsely claims that the article has no reliable sources. Remember this article was at AfD, less than a week ago and was Kept. It was resolved that it needed a clean-up but not deletion. As for the related albums/EP articles, most should become redirects to this article in preference to deletion. Some do have (or had) reliable sources for their existence and may require further investigation by unbiased editors. The nominator should stop editing the main article or its related ones.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Delete Well if that is the case why did no one clean it up? There are 15 either broken or misleading sources that accumulate this article and much of it misleading information. Alan191919 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
      • Comment Another delete vote by the nominator. As for the clean-up process, it only began three days ago, after the previous AfD was closed as Keep. An unidentified user disrupted the process and attempts to clean-up. Then you proposed the article for a second AfD, which further hindered this process. Your deletion of content at the article has caused disruptions. Now you complain that the article has not been cleaned up? Please do not edit at the article or associated pages.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Strong Delete - The page has had multiple misleading (un)sourced edits for many years. As with the current information on the page, 15 of the 20 attached outsourced links are either broken or misleading information warranting a page deletion. REF to my original statement. Alan191919 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs).[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs a bit of a clean up, but, as far as I can see, it seems to GNG. Tommi1986 let's talk! 01:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Their EP, Destroy the Robots (August 2006) reached the ARIA singles chart top 100 (see ARIA ref, now in article).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I voted in the first AfD just three days ago, and volunteered to clean up the article myself. The first AfD was apparently initiated by band leader McSweeney, and I recommended WP:BIOSELF and WP:AUTOPROB for correct procedures on how to handle articles about yourself. This time the apparent manager is repeating the same process, but with no lessons learned from the first go-round. Every unsupported statement mentioned by the manager above can be removed easily, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what in the article actually damages McSweeney's personal life. Perhaps McSweeney is trying to erase bad memories from a previous career, but there are better ways to do it than this. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The additional AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Paintings albums was created incorrectly and is merely a repeat of the manager's text in this one. I have requested speedy deletion for housekeeping purposes over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha not even major celebrities' have such detailed Wikipedia's as this one. Seems some of your admins have had your feelings hurt and need to prove a point, got nothing better to do with your time hu? 85.56.220.216 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone really wants this band's articles to be deleted, and probably not for honest reasons. The first AfD was from someone claiming to be the band leader, this second AfD is from someone claiming to be the manager, and now we have this anonymous person who is hacking away at the articles and leaving insulting comments here and on various talk pages. Subject this saga to the duck test and see what hatches. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. There is no need for Alan191919 to respond with another !vote. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2022 (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 redirect to Jack (Vietnamese singer)# Discography. ✗plicit 23:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoa hải đường[edit]

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

Promotional article, does not seem to meet WP:NSONG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Low-Hang[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in RS that I can find. All cited sources are not RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear that, while the article should be improved, this should be kept. No prohibition against a merge proposal on the article talk page, but you should probably wait at least a month to see if anyone can improve the article. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School timetable[edit]

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

The article is not suitable for an Encyclopaedia. Significant coverage cannot be found. Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary GoldenHayato (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's more than adequate sourcing in the article to establish notability. The article could certainly use some improvement to make it more encyclopedic, but WP:NOTADICTIONARY is primarily an argument to be deployed in AfD when it's unlikely the article could ever be expanded past a dictionary definition. That is self-evidently not the case here. PianoDan (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Notability is beyond established. Article cleanup is necessary (including what appears to be some copyvio), however a topic that has had competitions, research papers, recent events (all included in the article) surrounding it more than clears WP:GNG. Bgv. (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete from what I can tell the references in the article are either dead links, trivial, not even remotely about this like the links to Cheg.com and techwalla.com, or otherwise not usable for notability. So the arguments that there's adequate sourcing or that it's notability is beyond established are just laughable. In the meantime, I couldn't find anything that would establish the subjects notability and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, passes WP:GNG, due to having significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Percival, Adrian; Tranter, Susan (2004). How to Run Your School Successfully. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 107–113. ISBN 9780826470447.
  2. ^ P. A. Duminy (1992). Teaching Practice. Maskew Miller Longman. p. 133. ISBN 9780636016163.
  3. ^ S. K. Kochhar (2011). "25. The School Timetable". School Administration and Management. Sterling Publishers. ISBN 9788120790308.
  4. ^ Hoshino, R.; Fabris, I. (2020). Optimizing student course preferences in school timetabling (PDF). International Conference on Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research. Springer Publishing. pp. 283–299.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources provided by SailingInABathtub establish that the subject meets GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. As I teacher, I live by them. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was looking over the references in the article a minute ago. From the looks of things there are 5 references that don't even use the word "timetable" and have nothing to do with them, 5 dead links, and only one reference might be even slightly related to the subject of the article. Which is no better then how the article was when it was nominated for deletion. So I'd really like the people who voted because of HEY or whatever to say how exactly that's the case. I'd also like to know how there is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources about this when the sources that aren't dead links don't even have anything to do with school timetables. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adamant1 is correct in the count and evaluation of the sources in the current state of the article, but according to WP:ARTN: ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. No one is making the case that this article is well-written or sourced in its current state, but sources do exist and the subject meets GNG— even though someone needs to take a hatchet to most of the unsourced material in this piece and replace with content from the four sources provided above by SailingInABathTub, WP:HEY. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand'mere Eugene: perhaps you missed it but Bearian voted keep based on HEY which 100% is related to the current state of the article and if it's been "improved" since the nomination. So your comment that no one is saying the article is well-written or well-sourced in its current state is simply wrong. That's literally what HEY is about "to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion." Other then that, I can't comment on the references Qwaiiplayer provided to the books since I can't access them, but I will say the PDF is a research paper by a couple of university students that ultimately has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Unless you think the article is specifically about how to create timetables, but as far as I'm aware that's not the purpose of the article or Wikipedia. To quote the PDF "First, we present a complete algorithm that guarantees fast optimal PECTP solutions for small educational institutions. Secondly, we provide a graph-theoretic framework to demonstrate how courses can be “bundled” together and treated as a single super-course." Both of those things are way out of scope of Wikipedia, let alone this article. Not to mention university essays aren't usually considered reliable sources anyway, at least not for the sake of notability. Since they aren't published. Ultimately I could really give a crap if the other references Qwaiiplayer provided are being used in the article or not, but I'd like to see some evidence that they are in-depth, direct coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article currently needs major improvements, the topic can generate quite a bit of useful encyclopedic information: What are the different ways of creating a timetable for a school, what does research show are the best ways to organize a school week, its part of enterprise resource planning issues, national timetable policies in certain countries, etc. Sda030 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment –– Adamant1, I also initially was not able to check the 3 Google book sources provided by SailingInABathTub, but I had better luck searching on the term "timetable" for each source. Try these links instead, and maybe assume good faith?
1. How to run your school successfully
2. Teaching practice
3. School Administration and Management
4. The pdf file is not a school essay by a couple of students, but rather from the proceedings of a 2021 conference, an invited talk, and the presenters are computer science Prof. Richard Hoshino and graduate student Irene Fabris. They have used applied math (data analytics and optimization patterns) to identify the patterns and constraints that need to be considered by school admins who construct timetables. Having worked in school and university systems where scheduling was left to sometimes incompetent or clueless administrators, I found this source interesting and relevant to the subject of this WP article. Take another look. –– Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look over them. In the meantime how is a graduate student not a student? Anyway, I'm not saying the article isn't interesting. I just don't know what can be in the article from it to give an overview of the topic since it's extremely detailed and doesn't contain any general information. I guess it would work if the article was for teacher's who deal with scheduling to read, but that's really Wikipedia's audience. The purpose of articles aren't to be manuals of niche subjects. Maybe someone besides me can summarize all the obtuse nonsense from the essay in a meaningful way that a general audience will understand though. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just not likely and still out of scope. It shouldn't really matter though if the other sources are usable. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"How is a grad student not a student?" Well, when they publish, especially in collaboration with a professor, they are researchers. According to WP:SOURCETYPES, Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Conference proceedings are a notch below academic and peer-reviewed publications, but in this instance, the conference paper is being published by Springer as part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series. Virtually all secondary schools, colleges, and universities have scheduling protocols, some less successful than others. It's not a niche subject, although you may find it tediously detailed or boring. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel like getting into a protracted discussion about this, but I think your doing some extremely heavy lifting with the word "published" in this case. Conference proceedings aren't really "published" in the way the notability guideline is using the term because often times there is no peer review process involved in presenting a research paper at a conference. I actually asked about conference papers on the reliable sources noticeboard once. If I'm remembering correctly that also seemed to be the general consensus there, that they have questionable reliability. The fact that it might be included in a book at some point is really immaterial. If anything it just shows that the paper is still a draft that hasn't been fully reviewed and vetted yet. Otherwise we could use authors signing a book deals or getting an advances for their manuscripts as reasons why un-published manuscripts are reliable sources. I'm sure you'd agree that would be a ridiculous way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all published conference papers have the benefit of editorial review, but this one does. I've removed quite a bit of unsourced content, and added more sources as I found them.
On a personal note, I learned at age 12 about badly constructed school timetables when I was unable to schedule 2nd year Spanish and Orchestra. The school resolved my schedule, registering me in Band, rather than orchestra, but since my instrument is the cello, I had to read the tuba music, which was in the key of C, unlike other brass instruments, and sit with tuba players, who I learned quickly had to drain spit a lot. Not saying I was permanently scarred, but my repertoire on the cello is pretty heavy with marches, and in spite of the spitting thing, I have an odd fondness for tuba music. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm sorry you had to go through that :( If only your school's administrators had access to Wikipedia and this article. "Shakes fist at sky." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if only... then I'd only need a time machine back to 1960... Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article. Although it will probably be a short one, but that's fine and better then nothing. Plus, WP:THINKOFTHECHILDREN! --Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP per WP:HEY - Passes WP:GNG. Think of the children... Hansen SebastianTalk 02:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, and article is not a directory. Inspect61 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenr: According to the Talk:School timetable page, the original text of this article in 2007 was from the point of view of an software specialist who wrote what he believed, rather bereft of source references. The edits I've made are from the point of view of a former student, former HS teacher, and former college faculty member, without any an operations research or management science expertise. Clearly, the article could use some expansion explaining issues from those perspectives. I also very much liked the topics for expansion posed by Sda030: What are the different ways of creating a timetable for a school, what does research show are the best ways to organize a school week, its part of enterprise resource planning issues, national timetable policies in certain countries, etc. I've posted these suggestions on the talk page. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Perhaps I am just biased from your flattery, but I believe you made very good improvements to the article. I think there should no longer be a discussion of deletion. Sda030 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Timetable. Surprised nobody's given that thought a chance yet. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Timetable = Schedule. Unless you want to merge it to another section or make a new subsection for the article. Hansen SebastianTalk 03:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hansen Sebastian, same thing by a different name, no? Yes, make a subsection of that article. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there are enough sources here discussing the topic in enough depth. This is more than just a definition. Rhino131 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This does not preclude anyone choosing to merge the article later. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinnoull Terrace[edit]

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

There is no evidence that Kinnoull Terrace is in any way notable, and certainly not in a fashion which meets WP:N. This article is some sort of WP:SYNTH based on the happenstance that the few properties on the road are amongst the many listed properties of Perth.

Referring to the references:

  • 1 - Perth and Kinross, John Gifford (2007) p.655 - has nothing much to say about the subject beyond confirming that it has a number of houses on it.
  • 2 - Kinnoull Conservation Area Appraisal - mentions the terrace once, to state there is a Tree Preservation Order on it.
  • None of the Historic Environment Scotland refs, nor the architect refs, have anything to say about the terrace.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Kinnoull Conservation Area, which clearly is notable. Djflem (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC) becomes:[reply]
  • Merge >>> List of listed buildings in Kinnoull, Perth and Kinross.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and oppose move/Merge to [[List of listed buildings in Kinnoull, Perth and Kinross]]. Page 30 of this document (2 above) indicates that the conservation area is a substantial area of Kinnoull, while this street and the villas on it are a very small portion of it. Page 5 says Scotland has over 600 conservation areas, but I can't find articles on any of them – the conservation areas in England don't have their own articles, but this list rather links to the villages or other place in which the conservation area is located. Coverage at Kinnoull of the conservation area and major listed buildings there (the document describes several) including on the terrace may be appropriate, but this street certainly isn't on its own notable for having a few B- and C-listed buildings. Reywas92Talk 19:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved the information to Kinnoull and will integrate it more into a conservation-area topic. Seasider53 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I counted 56 listed buildings in the area on this map, most of which are in the conservation area. That's a fraction of those across the river in the Perth Central conservation area! I wouldn't think this is due weight or needs to be in a singular article either. Reywas92Talk 22:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that the problem with our Kinnoull article is that it is (or at least was until today) terrible, starting out sourced to a bowling club's WWW site and not really getting much better. (It gained the cricket club's, the archery club's, and the tennis club's WWW sites as sources.) It doesn't even explain that this "residential area" was in fact a parish. The fact that it has more about the sports' clubs and their WWW sites than it has about the history might be a weight problem, but it's a weight problem with the sports' clubs rather than the history if it is. There's probably quite a lot to be written about Kinnoull in our Kinnoull article.
          • Lewis, Samuel (1851). "Kinnoull". A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland: Comprising the Several Counties, Islands, Cities, Burgh and Market Towns, Parishes, and Principal Villages, with Historical and Statistical Descriptions: Embellished with Engravings of the Seals and Arms of the Different Burghs and Universities. Vol. 2. London: S. Lewis and Company. p. 89.
          • Hume, William (1979). "The Parish of Kinoull". In Taylor, David B. (ed.). The Counties of Perth and Kinross. Third statistical account of Scotland. Vol. 27. Culross. pp. 401 et seq. ISBN 9780903589383.
          • Gifford, John, ed. (2007). Perth and Kinross. Pevsner: Buildings of Scotland. Vol. 10. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300109221.
        • Similarly, the word "village" occurs nowhere in Bridgend, Perth and Kinross, even though a cursory perusal of history books and gazetteers reveals that this "residential area" was in fact a "village for the boatmen who run the ferries across the River Tay" and a burgh of barony.
          • Lewis, Samuel (1851). "Bridgend". A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland: Comprising the Several Counties, Islands, Cities, Burgh and Market Towns, Parishes, and Principal Villages, with Historical and Statistical Descriptions: Embellished with Engravings of the Seals and Arms of the Different Burghs and Universities. Vol. 1. London: S. Lewis and Company. p. 162.
        • Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOFEAT as it is lined with listed buildings. Suggesting WP:SYNTH is ridiculous - the listed buildings don't just appear out of nowhere and get plonked down on the street. The histories of a street and its buildings are completely intertwined. Either we have articles on every listed house (which some editors have objected to in the past) or we have a single article on the street. Which is better? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is dead false. There is no basis in geofeat whatsoever that because a road has listed buildings on it, the road is notable. The map of listed buildings shows that across the river in Perth, Marshall Mews has many listed buildings. James Street, Perth has many, St. John Street, Perth has many, St. John's Place has many, South Street, Perth, Scotland has many, George Street, Perth has many, Atholl Place has many, High Street, Perth has many, Charlotte Street, Perth has many, and practically every building on Barossa Place and Ross Terrace is listed too. Scroll over to Dundee and see the same thing, with basically every street in the conservation area lined with category B and C listed buildings. That simply a lie to say that a street (or short residential block) is notable because a few buildings on it are listed. And no, not every listed house (especially the tens of thousands of category B and C listings, which represent regional or local importance: Kinnoull Terrace's buildings are mostly designated local importance) is notable and needing an article for itself or immediate location. You could make articles matching List of Category A listed buildings in Perth and Kinross (only 56/195 of those with national importance have articles: many castles, churches, and bridges, few houses) as List of Category B listed buildings in Perth and Kinross and List of Category C listed buildings in Perth and Kinross, but not broken out by street. Ridiculous. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP:GEOFEAT, every listed building is indeed notable. And bear in mind that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Any of those streets could have an article. What reason would you have to object to this? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability is not inherited. In addition, I don't think it's at all obvious that all listed buildings are obvious - WP:GEOFEAT states "on a national level", and Categories B and C specifically are "of regional or more than local importance" and "of local importance" respectively; certainly not national. eviolite (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Several of those red-linked roads do have articles, just for the record. Seasider53 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see; South Street and High street are notable for being major streets of the city, not merely for being a small residential block with a few listed buildings. List of listed buildings in Perth, Scotland is better than having separate articles for each of the scores of streets on which the hundreds of these are located. Reywas92Talk 15:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm leaning towards keep since the street exists purely because of the buildings. I'll try to find a similar example, understanding that that won't be an acceptable reason in and of itself. Seasider53 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Angel Street, London – a short street that was rebuilt after the Great Fire of London. Doesn't have any notable buildings.
            • Chiswell Street, London – a short street that has a couple of listed buildings on it.
            • Millbrae Crescent, Glasgow – a row of Category A listed buildings by they-don't-know-who.
            • Someone asked why Sackville Street in Manchester was notable. It wasn't PROD'd, and an editor said it wasn't notable in itself but it had a "notable historic building".
            • Finally, there's Botanic Avenue in Belfast, which has zero references and zero reasons for its notability, other than having a railway station and a college on it, which was questioned seven years ago.
            • Was hoping to find one that had been PROD'd or nominated for deletion, but didn't see one. My point is that the policy seems very vague as it stands, as evidenced by our disagreements here. I'm saying keep, but if the consensus ends up being delete, I'm happy to incorporate the information elsewhere. Seasider53 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I've PRODed four of those...happy to take to AFD. Millbrae Crescent is arguably about the A-listed row of buildings itself rather than the street generally. I think the policy is clear: nothing says a street is notable because there are low-level designations of buildings on the street, which applies to an absurdly high number of roads in the world. Reywas92Talk 05:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The street itself does not pass GNG, and WP:GEOFEAT does not apply to streets. Yes, it applies to the listed buildings, but notability is not inherited. Instead, the relevant SNG is the one below it, WP:GEOROAD, which is essentially a restatement of GNG, which again has not been shown to be met. eviolite (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You see, this turns into a bit of a circular argument. Editor A: Just because WP:GEOFEAT says all listed buildings are notable that clearly doesn't mean they are (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Editor B: Okay, if there are several along a single street then we'll group them into a single article, which will mean not creating an article for every single listed house. Editor A: But WP:GEOFEAT doesn't say that streets are notable just because they have listed buildings on them, WP:INHERIT, WP:GEOROAD, etc, etc, etc. Editor B: Well, let's create an article for each listed building then. Editor A: Just because WP:GEOFEAT says all listed buildings are notable that clearly doesn't mean they are... Ad infinitem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't need to group buildings by street for the sake of having them, they're grouped by community and should be at List of listed buildings in Kinnoull, Perth and Kinross. Category:Lists of listed buildings in Scotland has over 1,000 articles for the purpose of listing the 50,000 articles for each listed building in Scotland. Reywas92Talk 17:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, where does it say they should be "grouped by community"? The only guideline we have is that every listed building is presumed notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Lists still need to be notable. Kinnoull Terrace has not been proven to be independently notable, while the parish obviously is. eviolite (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be true is this were a list! However, it is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as appropriate. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (officially, after umming and ahhing above previously), having seen policies being misinterpreted. Seasider53 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG. This nomination is based, and all the arguments for deletion are based, entirely on the assertion that the buildings on either side of a street are not part of the street. That assertion is contradicted by certain reliable sources (eg [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). James500 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhhhhh none of these sources have anything to do with this subject. None of this arguments say the buildings are not part of the street, they say that these buildings should be described a whole and the street boradly, not synthetically because they happen to be located on it. Reywas92Talk 16:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kinnoull. A street can have some modicum of notability and still be best represented as a section in a larger article. BD2412 T 01:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Yield[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with all the references I have checked being a WP:BOMBARD set of churnalism, even in otherwise reliable media. This is pure WP:ADMASQ. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find only regurgitated press releases and no third-party coverage. Does not seem to be notable. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Anton. This is just press release proseline. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugz & Cuddlez[edit]

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

Article creator is a now blocked sockpuppet of the company founder, who created the article in violation of WP:COI. Article sources clearly do not meet WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 20:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Ben–Ari[edit]

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

This article has been edited by the subject themselves, in violation of WP:COI, and they used sockpuppets to do so. After cleaning up the article's unreliable and promotional content, the result is a stub that does not meet WP:NBASIC. My search did not turn up any additional sources that could suggest notability. Recommend deletion. ––FormalDude talk 20:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Brazilians[edit]

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

The subject itself is not notable and yet the article does not have important coverage. There is only a single source, which means that the article fails WP:GNG. --Vaco98 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Gache[edit]

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

Article scrapes by WP:NFOOTY with one three-minute Ligue 2 appearance in 2009. WP:GNG is failed massively, consensus is delete in this case. Only source that could help the article is the La Nouvelle Republique source cited in the article already. The rest is either routine coverage or interviews. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close as invalid venue. AfD is for articles only - if you wish to delete a page in your own userspace you can tag it with {{db-u1}}. firefly ( t · c ) 19:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/4[edit]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/4 (edit | [[Talk:User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/4|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close; a userpage, not an article. (non-admin closure) SN54129 19:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC). (non-admin closure) SN54129 19:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/3[edit]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/3 (edit | [[Talk:User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/3|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was G7-able.. (non-admin closure) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/2[edit]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/2 (edit | [[Talk:User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close as invalid venue. See my comments here. firefly ( t · c ) 19:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/1[edit]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/1 (edit | [[Talk:User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. ✗plicit 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Žoya Tsopei[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN.Contested draftification by C.Fred, sop can only be sent to Draft by consensus. Note the existence of Draft:Zoya Tsopei FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Ukraina, Chernihiv[edit]

Hotel Ukraina, Chernihiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 14:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RuneScape. ✗plicit 14:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Falador Massacre[edit]

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

Most of the coverage is the same brief description of the original event and a mention of the anniversary event. All the other coverage I've found of it has been passing mentions and pretty much zilch in terms of discussion about the real world impact the event had, or non-RS sources (pun unintended), and there just seems to be no sustainable coverage CiphriusKane (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Godfather characters#Kay Adams-Corleone. Sandstein 20:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Adams-Corleone[edit]

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

Minor character from The Godfather franchise. The article is a pure plot summary plus catalogue-style info on which works of the franchise she appears in. (Similar problems are present in a number of other articles in Template:The Godfather). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagore Government College of Education[edit]

Tagore Government College of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in the Balkans[edit]

List of the busiest airports in the Balkans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has apparently been zero improvement on this article despite several efforts to clarify its scope and purpose in two AfDs (2011, 2013) and a series of discussions on the article talk page in 2015. There is apparently no resolution to its WP:SYNTH/WP:V/WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues and no WP:POTENTIAL. Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We tried the approach of grouping by "former Yugoslavia" and by "Balkans", and neither really worked, because we don't have encyclopedic content here. What makes you think that if we had lists of busiest airports by state that this would be a reason for deletion, as opposed to now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF and “then make individual articles then”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWP:INDISCRIMINATE, if the title was accurate it’d be “List of busiest airports in the Balkans minus Turkey and Romania because reasons”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of the busiest airports in Europe: Page does not offer anything that the Europe page does not give. Gusfriend (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, but then most of Balkan airports will disappear of the list because their rank among Europe is often higher than 100. Bouzinac (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, unneeded (and incomplete, too?) Llwyld (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These lists, Category:Lists of busiest airports, are valid encyclopedic information, showing air travel around the world at each location and how it was affected year by year. What should be on each list is discussed elsewhere, and not a valid reason for deleting an article. Dream Focus 13:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Balkans#Balkan_Peninsula shows which nations are considered part of the Balkans, and which nations only have part of their borders there. Is this why some nations are included on the list and some are not? Or is it because those nations have their own national lists that would be too long to merge with this one? Dream Focus 13:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You see that category, and you feel we need to keep more of this? :) "It's valid encyclopedic information" is not an actual rationale. For example, WP:5P defines we maintain features of "general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". Can you point us to an example real-world collection like that that can be used as a reference here in the description of this group? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are those who study such things, I just don't know where to look to find them. Dream Focus 17:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to throw in some explicit pings to people who previously commented about these topics before: FkpCascais Oranges Juicy Timbouctou Skyduster Yerpo Presidentman GregorB Tomobe03 Smihael Lugnuts Bazonka Thryduulf Calistemon YSSYguy Arsonal --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to clarify, I think a list of how airports are doing in the former Yugoslavia would be useful, as nearly all the airline infrastructure in the region was built in the Yugoslav era, and there are indeed somewhat thriving specialized websites which deal with aviation in the former Yugoslavia, i.e. they treat it as a single region (which is not that surprising considering that virtually all aviation experts used to work at the same company, Jat Airways. Airlines and airports operating in this region compete with each other, and it would be inetresting to see the development of coastal airports over the past 15-20 years - as places like Tivat, Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik, all compete with each other to attract western holidaymakers. I assume the "Balkan" moniker (and the corresponding wider scope, entailing Greece, Bulgaria, etc) probably came in order to avoid grouping ex-Yugoslav countries together, because somebody somewhere decided this isn't "encyclopedic." Well, "the Balkans" doesn't really make much sense, it is difficult to define where that is geographically and as far as I know there is nobody treating the Balkans as a single aviation market. So, you know, whatever. Timbouctou (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lakeman Brothers[edit]

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

This page has been unsourced since its creation in 2006. Each of the brothers has his own stand-alone page, but there's nothing intrinsically notable about this short-lived collaboration from early on in their careers. There isn't an obvious target page for a redirect, as each of the brothers is individually notable. Also bundling their album Three Piece Suite (album), which was created at the same time and turned into a redirect in 2014. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This one's tough because all three brothers have their own music careers and have performed together in various permutations and collaborations. Regardless, they only worked as a trio very briefly, and their one album in that configuration is already described at each of the brothers' articles. The trio did not achieve notability as an entity in its own right. (Off topic: all three of the brothers' articles really need to be cleaned up.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the second time I've recently heard a !vote for deletion claiming that it is better to turn a bluelink red when there is more than one possible redirect target. WP:MUSIC recommends precisely the opposite, as does a simple commonsense assessment of user-friendliness. The Lakeman Brothers could be turned into basically a disambig location (which, more or less, it already is), or it could be redirected to an album article (sensible, though online coverage of that album is scant - probably would take some work plumbing UK music archives to find suitable sources), or we could use existing sources for the band, which include not one but two Allmusic biographies. Chubbles (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - it's difficult to find sources because of the individual careers of the brothers, but there is stuff out there, and they also appear to have performed for a time as The Lakeman Family Band - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. GiantSnowman 07:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination makes some good points, and yet the coverage does exist for the brothers as a group, as indicated in the above links. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by GiantSnowman. Agreed that the article needs a lot of cleanup, but that can easily happen. Rollidan (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Johnson (mayor)[edit]

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

While an African-American first, Libertyville has a population of ~20,205 which is less than the 100,000 generally used for Mayors. She is not the first black woman to be a mayor in Illinois. A newspaper search of NewsBank and the Chicago Tribune does not reveal anything out of the ordinary about her legal career. I struggle to see how she does not fail to meet the notability guidelines for judges and politicians. Also, as a general preemption, I plan to include this essay written by User:Sebwite that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Mpen320 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Africa, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Libertyville is a village that is part of the sprawling northern suburbs of Chicago. I spent some time in Lake County, Illinois last year and could not have even named Libertyville as being in that county. This is a county with a population of 714,000 . Waukegan, the county seat, has some name recognition, but is still only at 89,000. There are at least 5 other communities in the county with more people than Libertyville. These numbers pale in comparison to the population and significance of Cook county to the south. Unless we had way better souring such an article is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she meets the General notability guideline 1) "Significant coverage" - the two sources direct the topic directly and in detail, no original research is needed. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. 2) The Chicago Tribune and CBS news are reliable and Johnson is the subject of the article; 3) the sources are "Independent of the subject"; and 4) as the first elected Black mayor of a city that is 86% White and only 1% Black makes her notable especially in these times where there is much talk about race, representation, and equity. There are only two current Black mayors in Lake County, a county of over 700,000 people and the state's third largest, and just a handful of Black female mayors in a state with over 1,100 cities.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If she were the first Black mayor or first Black woman to be a mayor in Illinois, I'd be fully in support of keeping this article. However, she's not. I don't even think she is the first Black woman to be the mayor of a majority-white municipality. Lake County currently has at least three Black mayors (Leon Rockingham in North Chicago, Donna Johnson in Libertyville, and Billy McKinney in Zion). Being more accomplished than I could ever hope to be does not mean one is notable for WIKIPEDIA. Also, again "an article about someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing for that person."--Mpen320 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An objective assessment of multiple independent and reliable sources, including Pioneer Press/Chicago Tribune 2018, Pioneer Press/Chicago Tribune 2019, Pioneer Press/Chicago Tribune 2020, Libertyville Elects First Black Woman As Mayor In Village History (CBS2, 2021), An Interview With Donna Johnson, Libertyville’s First Black Woman Mayor (CBS2, 2021), Johnson takes the helm in a year of change on the Libertyville village board (Daily Herald, 2021), as well as reporting about her actions while mayor, (e.g. Pioneer Press/Chicago Tribune, 2022, Pioneer Press/Chicago Tribune, 2021) supports WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is that all of those sources are very local and not outside the scope of usual local politics. Wikipedia:Subjective importance also states that prestigious position (local officeholder) and fame (local coverage) are not automatic indicators of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I included the link to that essay in my comment above because it emphasizes the need for sources to objectively support notability, i.e. A common misconception about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article about her taking the helm as the election changes things in the city is the type of article you will see one way or another every time there is an election in the city. What we need to see is coverage that is very far afield from her. I created the our article on the first African-American female to be mayor in another state, it was in a city with about 7,000 more people than Libertyville, but it was not a case where the person was one of three African-American mayors in the county. I actually did not create it until she announced her candidacy for US house. Looking back, I think even that article was premature, although there was coverage from much further away than we have in this case. I think we really should not have had an article on that person until she became a member of the US house, as she did in 2014. That despite the fact that I was able to locate an indepth article on her from when she was not an active candidate in a newspaper outside her county from about 6 years before she was elected as mayor. The level of coverage we have on her here is esentially the level of coverage we could find on every single mayor of every singles place in the US that has over 15,000 people. At least if you look beyond what the headlines say and pay attention to how much is actually said in the articles. If we look at the extra county stuff we have 1-an article about a grand program that name drops here, 2-an article about a local tax proposal that name drops her, 3-inclusion of her among bios of everyone running for office in Libertyville. If this sort of stuff is held to lead to showing notability, than we would double the size of Wikipedia, end complaints about sports people being over covered, make Wikipedia a more prose intensive alternative to some voter information websites and a the prefered platform for cnadidates to put up their campaign literature, and have 37% of articles on Wikipedia on elected public officals, and 42% of articles on Wikipedia on people who ran for office and got a short bio write up in a newspaper, but were never elected. Sportspeople bios will be reduced to 13% of bios, and the remaining 8% of bios will cover everything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern is with whether the WP:BASIC/WP:GNG guidelines can objectively be met, and based on what I was able to find, there is in-depth biographical and career information available that can allow the article to be further developed. Even if the Chicago Tribune and CBS Chicago could be considered local coverage, the WP:BIO guideline does not exclude local coverage from consideration. There is WP:SECONDARY coverage of her becoming the first Black woman mayor of this municipality, as well as previous and ongoing coverage of her and her career, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial per the objective WP:GNG and WP:BASIC standards. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 18:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lake County is 6.5% African-American, but over 22% Hispanic. Are there any Hispanic mayors in Lake County? Has there ever been a female Latina mayor in Lake County? Can we even agree on who is and who is not the first Hispanic to hold an office? For example, who was the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court. For the record there is no simple answer to that last question. Of, and Lake County is 8.25% Asian? Are there any Asian mayors in Lake County? Has there been an Asian female mayor? Were the Asian mayors Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Camboaian, Laotian, Filipino, Indian, Bangaldeshi, Pakitani or something else. For that matter maybe we need to cover the first Puerto Rican, first Mexican, first Guatemalan, first Salvadoranian, first Cuban, first Peruvian and so on mayor. Some might say I am being silly, however I showed that there are almost 3 times as many Hispanics as African-Americans in this county, and Asians outnumber African-Americans, so these are not odd speculations on what might be, they are quite obvious points of what is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Libertyville, Illinois with a very short mention of her being the first female African-American mayor in that city, and maybe in the county, there. The coverage shown is basically all local coverage of local events, but a brief mention there is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Libertyville article, she could be a subsection in an article about the town, not every mayor needs their own article.Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following is the whole government section at the Libertyville article: Donna Johnson was elected mayor of Libertyville in April of 2021. She is the first African-American, and the second woman, to hold the position.[1][2]
    • Libertyville is represented by Jennifer Clark on the Lake County Board.[3]
      • I would say in general our government sections are extremely weak. We too rarely tell if the place has a mayor-council/city manager-council, or comission style of government. Probably we should either in the government or history section trace the change of such a matter over time. Also we should at least tell how large the governing council is. The Libertyville article is far better than many of our place articles, but it still is not good. It also does not seem to adequately incorporate the 2020 census results.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1] Archived May 26, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ Le Mignot, Suzanne (May 23, 2021). "An Interview With Donna Johnson, Libertyville's First Black Woman Mayor". CBS Chicago.
  3. ^ [2]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion regarding the sources presented in this discussion, especially discussion in the context of WP:NBASIC, would be helpful in clarifying what the consensus is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Verify about population rules for mayor. Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no "100K" rule for mayors — the notability of a mayor does not hinge on the population of the city, it hinges on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article even if the place they were mayor of was a no-horse village with a population of five, and if it can't be done then a mayor gets deleted even if the place they were mayor of had a population well into the hundreds of thousands. I offer no opinion on whether Donna Johnson actually clears the bar or not — I'd certainly prefer to see more content and coverage about things she's accomplished in the mayor's chair, where this is still far too focused on premayoral background information that's irrelevant to establishing mayoral notability — but just wanted to point out that the nominator's claim that there's a "100K" cutoff for mayors simply isn't how this works, at all: it hinges on depth and quality of sourcing, not on how many people do or don't live in the municipality the person was mayor of. It is true that big city mayors are more likely to be able to clear the bar than smalltown mayors are, but it is still entirely possible for a smalltown mayor to clear the bar and entirely possible for a big city mayor to miss it. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KHK MMA[edit]

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

Subject is a mma promotion company. Subject fails GNG and NCORP for not having WP:SIGCOV of independent, reliable sources that talk about the company in details and in dept and not only merely mention and affiliation/connection to certain fighters for this is a company article. Cassiopeia talk 09:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I believe CEO of KHK MMA Mohammed Shahid is considered notable, notability is not inherited and I couldn't find enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 05:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus was that this article passes WP:NLIST. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of last words[edit]

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

Should be moved to Wikiquote, along with per-century sublists. -- Beland (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy quotation
Alright, I'm going to publish this into mainspace in a short while, and I can already feel the amount of rage from serious business activists and other WikiSnobs calling for deletion. So let me state my case for keep right away:
  • It is notable:
  • 'Famous last words' googles to 30 000 000
  • '"Famous last words"' googles to 430 000
  • '"last words of"' googles to 500 000
  • Loads and loads of books have been dedicated to the subject of last words of famous people
  • It is already on Wikipedia:
  • '"last words"' gets 3500+ hits
  • Many, many biographies contains the person's last words, especially if doubted or frequently misattributed
  • Final statement#Examples is a list big enough to almost warrant its own article.
So please think twice before shouting at me to get back(?) onto WikiQuote. Thank you.
— User:Gaioa, Talk:List of last words#A word of advice, 11 February 2018

Koopinator (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, and ugh that cringes me to see😅 Let's just say I was a bit passionate about things back in 2018. I hope you don't mind me making it collapsible, it's a pretty big block of text anyway. Furthermore, personally I've let go of this article since creating it and are mostly neutral about it's deletion - my spontaneous thought is WP:ITSUSEFUL but that's about it. Gaioa (T C L) 11:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid information list. History has recorded their last words, some of these on the list over two thousands years old and still remembered. Dream Focus 13:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a valid case for deletion here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four years later, I still agree with User:Gaioa's argument. Gildir (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources support that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This goes on Wikiquote, not here. We are not meant to be a listing of everything known.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing to delete here. Inspect61 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though it may seem like a trivia but still valid to keep here. >>> Extorc.talk(); 15:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly and squarely meets WP:LISTN. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TV9 Telugu. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Prakash (journalist)[edit]

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

A largely unsourced attack article with a paid editing tag. Fails BLP and possibly WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I found these links which are not in the article to offer some evidence that Ravi Prakash is mired in controversy. Although that may make him satisfy GNG in and of itself [1][2][3]InfiNeuro (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/ex-tv9-ceo-ravi-prakash-taken-custody-again-hyderabad-police-110035
  2. ^ https://cpj.org/2019/10/telugu-journalist-ravi-prakash-arrested-after-refu/
  3. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/tv9-former-ceo-ravi-prakash-arrested-in-rs-18-crore-cheating-case/articleshow/71462445.cms

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to TV9 Telugu per WP:ATD-R. There is coverage around the controversy of him being sacked from the organization he founded but not enough for independent article due to WP:BLP1E. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ab207, but redirect may not be appropriate since this article says he has neither executive control nor any more shareholding in TV9. Hemantha (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right but Ravi Prakash is still the founder of TV9, so a redirect is justified, imv. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Ok, I missed the mention in that article. Hemantha (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadeen Anglin[edit]

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

Possible WP:UPE vanity spam and recently deleted article under WP:G11 and WP:A7. Fails WP:GNG. Using Wikipedia for advertisement only. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be removed because she is author and have references AhmdAsjad (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi (actor)[edit]

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

The actor fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and doesn't contained any single reliable resource except IMDBPri2000 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tornadoes of 2018#February 24. Sandstein 09:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of February 24, 2018[edit]

Tornado outbreak of February 24, 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Tornadoes of 2018#February 24 and List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2018. It doesn't really meet our project standards for an article due to the low number of tornadoes and relatively minor impact. Part of the "Meteorological synopsis" section is copied directly from the section at Tornadoes of 2018. There may be an extra line or two of information that could be incorporated into that article very easily. United States Man (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge into Tornadoes of 2018?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 04:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

En Vazhi Thani Vazhi (1988 film)[edit]

En Vazhi Thani Vazhi (1988 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely devoid of RS. Also, WP:NOTDATABASE. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A pre Internet era film and its difficult to find good references, but I have updated 2 of them.
Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Falls short of WP:NFILM due to lack of coverage in RS. Plenty of pre-internet era Indian films were deleted at AfD for the same reason. While that's an issue which remains to be addressed, this article does not meet the present notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LiveWorkPlay[edit]

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

Repost of self promotional spam for non notable organisation. Differences from the previous deleted version are mere window dressing. The only new source published after that afd is PR. Sourcing is a mix of local puff, listings and PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Asghar Afridi[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I was not able to find any independent coverage of him on a search (the embassy website is of course a primary source, not independent). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace_Monroe[edit]

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

This doesn't have a reason to be an independent page. No notable real world coverage, and the page is basically retelling the story of Book 3. Myfriendshavelotsoffriends (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of stand-alone notability, 100% plot summary = WP:FANCRUFT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Leong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are clearly multiple reliable independent sources, so it meets WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS is therefore irrelevant.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4 of the 6 references are trivial mentions of the subject. 1 of the other two is a primary source. I am not sure how one reference satisfies WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking indepth coverage of him as the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG requires that the sources speak on the subject at a signifcant level. We do not have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vashanth Sellathurai[edit]

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

Actor/Musician with no notability established (only one known film). This is the only source here. This source here, this source here, and this source here (scroll down) are about the film Ilampuyal and not about him. An actor/musician who starred/composed in one low-key film does not establish WP:NACTOR DareshMohan (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a mistake and the page has to be published again. Vashanth has featured as the lead in two movies. One Ilampuyal 2009 also listed on released movies in 2009 in India List of Tamil films of 2009. The second movie is Uyirvarai Iniththaai 2014 which is listed on movies released in 2015 List of Tamil films of 2015 and List of Danish films of 2014. Vashanth is furthermore, mentioned in this article being a Sri Lankan Actor in India Sri Lankan Tamils in Indian cinema. He has composed the original score for both movies as well. And this article is about him and the film Ilampuyal, and his journey to Kollywood. If you need more reference and proof of he has done more than just one low key movie, please let me know. Rishanth (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail to establish notability (K. S. Thurai is Vasanth's father and director of Ilampuyal) and "Jeevanea" is Vasanth's song:

K. S. Thurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeevanea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page Ilampuyal was a stub and now it is expanded with the Danish sources. The Denmark aspect of the Tamil film provides unique notability. Proposing to redirect Vashanth Sellathurai and K. S. Thurai to Ilampuyal.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the arguments put forward by Uncle G are the strongest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flux, Utah[edit]

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

A wye junction eventually more or less overrun by mining operations. No evidence that there was a "community" here. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as Aragonite, Utah was not a "community" as Wikipedia falsely has it but an aragonite mill and mine run by the Utah Calcium Products Company, Flux, Utah and neighbouring Dolomite were not "communities" or "town"s but quarries (dolomite is used to make flux) run by the Utah Lime and Stone Company (Morris 1964, p. 192). And they visibly still are.

    Just east of Timpie Canyon is the Utah Lime and Stone Company of Dolomite and Flux. Dolomite is a lime kiln and for approximately forty years has been making lime. Flux ships limestone to Dolomite for lime and also ships flux rock to International Smelting and Refining Company at Tooele, Utah and the Kennecott mills at Magna and Garfield. Also, the flux rock is ground into fine powder and sent to Moab, Utah for use in the uranium mills. Many companies have found use for this flux rock, such as coal mines, sugar factories, construction companies and it is also used in making shingles and cement.

    — Carter 1957, p. 481
    Yet more false "communities" that Wikipedia is claiming to the world. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Morris, H.T. (1964). "Mineral and Water Resources of Utah: Limestone and dolomite". Bulletin. 73. United States Geological Survey.
    • Carter, Kate B., ed. (1957). Treasures of Pioneer History. Vol. 6. Daughters of Utah Pioneers.
  • (Author) Keep The nomination here (and in other recent Utah place AfDs) seems to operate under the assumption that Flux must be a village/townsite to be notable. Flux is a place where significant mining and industry activity has occurred (and we have sources to demonstrate that), and significant human use of a place gives it a history, which makes it a subject of encyclopedic interest, even if no one lived there (and it's not clear that there was never a "company town" at this site). Chubbles (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why did you write "Flux is an unincorporated community"? When you write downright false information, it's easy to see it's not notable as what you call it! Maybe rewrite it to actually be accurate if you want it kept, but there are a lot of places with mining and industrial activity in the US, not a lot of which have articles. Reywas92Talk 16:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not write anything knowingly false; part of the problem, I am seeing here, is a semantic discrepancy over what counts as an unincorporated community. I took this to be one; again, it's still not clear to me that it never was one, but I am happy to work with other editors on appropriate rewording as necessary. Chubbles (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This appears to be an industrial site. I found references to the quarry noted by Uncle G, and they put a salt plant in at Flux in the 1938 based on some newspaper results. About all else I could find were a couple references to a cafe being in the area in the 1960s. I'm not seeing any evidence that this was more than an industrial area, so WP:GNG is not met, and the coverage identified so far does not add up to WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal: given that Tooele County, Utah is larger than the state of Connecticut, are there administrative subdivisions of the County for which articles can be made? If so, I would presume that "Flux" must be located in one, and can be merged into it if such articles are created. BD2412 T 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The epitome of non-notability. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Hillary Fellowship[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Could not find anything about this award save for run-of-the -mill listings. TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New Zealand. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an important fellowship that has sponsored many famous personalities and hence, definitely noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha3107 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete (or even Speedy delete as A7) — I cannot find a single source that comes anywhere near to satisfying WP:GNG. If the creating editor is convinced this is notable, kindly point to the evidence. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply doesn't doesn't meet WP:GNG, let along WP:NORG. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tom much of a stub to tell the story - a quick look on Google and it is covered in several national newspapers, along with announcements of a partnership with the New Zealand Government Immigration department. Absolutely agree it needs a lot of work to show all this, and may have a go at it shortly, but not tonight. NealeWellington (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks Neale. I will work on adding more content to it soon too. This page is mentioned in several famous personalities' pages like Naval Ravikant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha3107 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Alisha3107. --Vaco98 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A credible fellowship many notable members. Not sure if it meets WP:NORG due to lack of citations from independent WP:RS but seems to meet WP:GNG. UphillAthlete (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of independent reliable sources is how something fails to meet that criterion. That said: are you going solely by what's in the article, without looking to see what sources are available? Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There are plenty of RS available. The article is just badly in need of an update and I don't have time at the moment to do so. NealeWellington (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatesh Rao (writer)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. The only cited RS are a Vox article and a Guardian article which merely have passing mentions referencing Rao's blog. A search for other sources failed to produce additional significant RS coverage. This subject fails notability guidelines. Freelance-frank (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unclear if a WP:BEFORE was done here but my own does not change the conclusion. The coverage of this writer does not demonstrate significant independent coverage of the author or their works. The coverage that is significant is either not independent or not reliable and vice-versa. No readily-apparent WP:ATD presents itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • His fascinating and consistently insightful posts have been discussed quite a lot in various books and by other writers, arguably enough for NAUTHOR #1 & #2, as these searches shows. But a couple of low-effort book reviews in some city color supplement of The Hindu or some WP:ADMASQ "articles" in Times of India on book launches would get a dull writer enough WP notability, while posts about vgr's writing like these - [13], [14] - would (correctly per WP:RS) be disputed as blog posts. And of course, he's already tweeted about this aspect of attention mechanics. Reminds me of two recent AfDs where obviously unencyclopedic entries weren't deleted due to the loopholes in Notability rules. This could be the other-side-of-that-coin case, where something that should be retained gets deleted. I'm not going to vote though, since he's said the page is "awful and should be deleted" and I don't know how to make it better. Hemantha (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article fails WP:GNG very little material can be found online about the subject PastaMonk 14:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Children's Choir[edit]

AfDs for this article:
San Diego Children's Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Third AfD but only second actual since first was socked. No-consensus in 2009, but I do not see how this choir passes WP:ORG. I don't know how to make a fancy source table, but happy for someone to do so. This is an OK article, but it's really the best I can find and doesn't meet WP:ORG on its own. The rest are performance listings, calls for auditions and other non independent content. This is the best source new to the article, but the writer is a Choir volunteer, so not remotely independent.

Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Condense and merge/redirect to Culture of San Diego#Music. BD2412 T 01:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. Merge/redirect would not be appropriate to the target proposed above. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's not enough significant independent coverage for a stand alone article per WP:ORG. The proposed target for a merge would be inappropriate as it's primarily a listing for notable music groups, which this is not. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation Research Center[edit]

Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation Research Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no actual evidence for notability-- apparently promotional DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Lanark Community Garden[edit]

South Lanark Community Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably way WP:TOOSOON for this new community garden. Google only has 10 results, and according to the organization this garden was only formed in September. Very few articles with SIGCOV of this org. wizzito | say hello! 00:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the press release regurgitated by The Toronto Star ("are thrilled to announce"), the non-profit company was formed in September, and the garden has been around longer than that. Of the 6 sources cited in the article, two are press releases where people "announce" stuff, and three are autobiography, written in the first person. The remaining one is Hinks 2020 (theHumm) which is in depth, and apparently not a mere regurgitated press release or the people writing about themselves. The problem is that it appears to be the only such source in existence. I cannot find any others. One such source is insufficient; multiple sources are needed. Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need multiple sources to show notability per GNG. Actually, this is going to fall under the organization notability guidelines, which requires more than just multiple sources that pass GNG, but it does not even pass GNG, so there is no way it passes organization notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uber. ✗plicit 02:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greyball[edit]

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

This is an internal software tool used by Uber. It was controversial and received brief media coverage in 2017. It is already covered in the wikipedia article for Uber and should not have a separate article. Country20 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SaberHacer.com[edit]

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

Not notable - nothing from reliable sources. Country20 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMelon[edit]

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

Nothing in reliable sources; article seems to just be an advertisement Country20 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NCORP, No independent references. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Companies, Internet, and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: WP:G11. ––FormalDude talk 08:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A long-term WP:SPA article about a former start-up company and its product features. Aside from the start-up announcement coverage (mostly now dead links), there is 2017 PR of a relaunch, but I am seeing no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Senior Investment Group[edit]

New Senior Investment Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small company that made a few deals, issued a few press releases, then was acquired. Not notable enough. Country20 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: An article on a spun-off company which was then acquired by another. The article text contains no indication of notability, just describing a sequence of transactions, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I have added a sentence about the acquisition to Ventas (company), which could provide a redirect target if an alternative was sought. AllyD (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Article is full of press releases not WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2022_March_12&oldid=1079903080"