Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 15	March 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Adhikari[edit]

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

Note that this is not the same person as Dipak Adhikari, who's also currently up for AFD in a separate discussion -- however, the creator of that article did try to make this one go away by arbitrarily moving it into draftspace and then blanking it solely in order to "clear the decks" for his pet topic.
So I've reverted that since it isn't proper process, but that doesn't mean the article itself is okay: it's an article about a journalist who isn't properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. An article about a journalist needs to be referenced to sources in which he's the subject of coverage written by other people, but this is referenced almost entirely to sources where he's the bylined author of coverage about other things, which is not what it takes to make a journalist notable. And the only source that does actually meet the required standard just gives one blurb's worth of information about him in the context of having been one of 12 contributors to an anthology book, which isn't enough proper media coverage to pass WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 2 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!} 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Dev (Bengali actor). Searching is difficult (partly because there are several others with the same name and partly of the language barrier), but I haven't been able to identify any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The available sources consist mainly of interviews, passing mentions, quotes, and articles that Adhikari himself has written—none of which satisfy the GNG. There is similarly no indication that any of the criteria at WP:NJOURNALIST are met. This title would be a useful redirect to Dev (Bengali actor), although there would be no reason to preserve this article's unrelated page history in that case. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable journalist. No coverage found which has indepth coverage about his bio. Also, never heard of those awards he received, most likey it is a scholarship fund, not an actual award. nirmal (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:09, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Sheppard[edit]

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

Article is written as if subject is a politician (fails WP:NPOL anyway). To me, this seems like a candidate for public office that has decent coverage in the media, but doesn't seem notable. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited text and amended style to improve NPOV and aimed to focus on the notable action around COVID-19 local support group activism, added citations and removed some of the political details e.g. previous elections, replaced officeholder infobox, as she was not elected, with infobox-person. Others can decide if this has improved the article and if it passes re notability. Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The politics bits could be removed, but she is still a notable woman campaigner, meeting the criteria for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject mainly due to her work of Nunhead Knocks, and even after covid she is still mentioned in letters sent to Southwark residents in different topics such as mental health : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1teuJJrry9VAopE1xMEUtZnkFMf8x7Y0f/edi DrGonzalezRojas (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this meets the threshold for WP:ANYBIO. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:43, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comics archaeology[edit]

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

The scope of this article is unclear, and the references are insufficient to present comics archaeology as a coherent subdiscipline. They are:

A Bachelor's thesis; the author argues that analysing comic books can be a form of archaeological research.
A general history of comics, cited for background. (I don't have access to the book, so can't check whether it has any information about archaeology.)
A book chapter about the use of comics for public outreach during a preservation campaign.
An archaeologist's reflections on his work, presented in comic-book format. gnu 57 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I can make a shrewd guess as to what the thesis author was doing 25 days after the thesis publication date.
As to the subject rather than the author, it is clearly resting solely upon that one thesis. Some quick research turns up an OUP book, ISBN 9780190917944, on comic book studies a.k.a. comics studies, that does not describe the field as archaeological, not even in the list of disciplines from art history to media studies in chapter 37. Nothing that I can find corroborates the idea. This is fairly clearly a violation of our no original research policy. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomprehensible WP:OR WP:COATRACK mess with no obvious purpose whatsoever. Dronebogus (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see a link between the study of comics depicting archaeology and the archaeology of the comic medium, outside of similar words used in a different order to describe the two ideas. The first one lacks sources for a meaningful article, and the second is a fork of History of comics, among others. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link to archaeology makes no sense, and isn't supported by the sources. Chaddude (talk) 01:47, 23 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 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maaden Gold[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The WP articles in other languages don't have any references to RS. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with Maaden, the company that owns this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 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 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 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadeed[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The WP articles in other languages don't have any references to RS. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with SABIC, the company that owns this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Järpetorp[edit]

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Special:Diff/431603231 this is a best-effort cleanup of an apparent hoax article that cited books that do not exist. (I cannot find them, either.) For anyone looking, the ISOF lookup can nowadays be replicated at https://ortnamnsregistret.isof.se/place-names?place-name=J%C3%A4rpetorp . I think that we do not lose anything by deleting this edit history and letting an article start again afresh if anyone later comes up with any non-hoax history here. This would be "delete and let the redlinks stand" except that there aren't any redlinks. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The creator of this article has also made edits on the Swedish wikipedia, which has no article on this alleged location.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The location exists. There is a good source and you can easily find it on a map. (Or in the local timetable – bus 641 stops at Stora Järpetorp.) It is, however, as the article states, a couple of farms. /Julle (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two farms are not notable Chaddude (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. If somebody creates a new article, it should be noted that there are several places in Sweden called Järpetorp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjö (talk • contribs)
Delete No evidence of notability or coverage, for reasons already mentioned Dr Bowser (talk) 18:36, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Al-Benyan[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this person. Wikipedia is not a glorified LinkedIn. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Saudi Arabia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless more non-primary sources can be found, not notable enough for a biography. Chaddude (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:07, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saudia Aerospace Engineering Industries[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. If there's any worthwhile content in this article, it can be merged with SAUDIA airlines. This organization is just a part of SAUDIA airlines, so it makes no sense to have a separate article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:Transportation.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations 1 and 3 don't work, so the only one is about a new CEO which seems like corporate PR and is about the CEO, not the company/subsidiary. CT55555 (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage which are independent of the subject. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:13, 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 keep. WP:V has been addressed (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valavanur railway station[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources that would count towards GNG. Should probably be redirected to a more general article. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. I don't see how deleting this would improve Wikipedia as having articles for some stations and not others would create inconsistency. Likely to be sources available offline and/or in the local language.NemesisAT (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how that applies here. As far as I'm understanding it, WP:RAILOUTCOMES is a general list of common outcomes, not a multiple-choice quiz. The outcome here, whatever that ends up being, doesn't have to be among those. XtraJovial (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't apply. NemesisAT never actually cites policy in their !votes at AfDs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT. The chance of their being no sources about a railway station in India are essentially nil, it's just those sources are likely to be in a language other than English and/or offline. Even if, for some bizarre reason, this station was not individually notable, the correct course of action would be to merge and redirect to a broader article (most likely the line it is on) not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Probably notable, but in it's current state without any sources it fails WP:V. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source, though it is listed as an external link. NemesisAT (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an alternative to deletion. To hell with RAILOUTCOMES, it isn't 2006 anymore and we cannot have articles with zero sources hanging around in mainspace like this. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and this article fails it. Shame on those voting keep and insisting "but there must be sources" - that's not how this works at all (Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). Anyone can claim that anything has sources, but that's not enough, we need to actually be shown specific sources for the article. And if this gets draftified and then moved back into mainspace without improvement, it should just get deleted entirely instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice theory, but per NemsisAT, there is a source. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Directly from the "source" in question: "Disclaimer: This website has NO affiliation with the Government-run site of Indian Railways. This site does NOT claim 100% accuracy of fast-changing Rail Information. YOU are responsible for independently confirming the validity of information through other sources." If this counts as a reliable source, I'll eat my shoes. There are zero reliable sources supporting even the existence of this train station. Did you even look at the source? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is clear consensus that we keep railway stations and WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And consensus can change. It is a foolish argument to say "this must be kept because we always have done things this way". That editors are willing to entirely ignore WP:V, one of our most fundamental principles, is extremely concerning. Someone could create an article on a hoax train station and people like you would still vote to keep it without even checking the station even exists. I will be taking this to DRV if it is kept and no editors have identified a single reliable source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"People like me"?! What, you mean extremely experienced editors who have been working on building Wikipedia for many years? Consensus can sometimes change, but it has not changed in this case, as recent AfDs show. Claiming that we should ignore consensus because consensus can change is essentially saying that consensus is irrelevant. It is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently wanting Wikipedia to be verifiable is a minority position. "Extremely experienced editors" should know better than anyone else the importance of WP:V. Without verifiability, we are no better than Fandom or any random person's blog. Oh well, if consensus (among a small group of editors who routinely attend train station AfDs) is more important than ensuring Wikipedia is accurate, so be it. I think it's an incredibly foolish point of view that risks the credibility of Wikipedia as a resource millions of people rely on, but clearly that isn't important to those present in this discussion. I don't know why I waste my time trying to convince others that we shouldn't have totally unverified articles in mainspace when we can't even ensure their accuracy, let alone their notability. It's the same arguments every time, and the arguments that ignore policy to keep policy deficient articles always win solely based on numbers (why do we even use the term !vote when it's literally just counting votes?). Shit articles like this should not be allowed in mainspace. Entirely unsourced and unverified content is useless and actively harmful to Wikipedia.
I've complained about the notability of many train stations stubs, as NemesisAT can tell you, but his creations are always at least verifiable. This article isn't even verifiable. And when I ask for even a single reliable source to show verifiability, I am totally ignored because THEREMUSTBESOURCES but nobody can actually find or demonstrate said sources exist. The total ignorance of policy in favor of the circular logic of "we keep all train stations because we keep all train stations" fully on display here is extremely disappointing to witness and should concern anyone who cares about verifiability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at the very least. If there are sources, why aren't they being shown here? If sources can't be found, then that's all the more reason not to keep this article in mainspace. XtraJovial (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a source to demonstrate WP:V (there is brief coverage over converting the station to a "block station" to increase capacity, whatever that is):

Nair, Rajesh B.; Varma, M. Dinesh (2019-09-30). "Railways unable to keep pace with demand for services". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

There might be sources in Tamil, but I don't know how to say "Valavanur station" in Tamil, so any Tamil speakers able to check if sources exist? Also courtesy pinging @Styyx:, @Trainsandotherthings:, and @XtraJovial: who have expressed WP:V concerns. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two atlas citations to the article. Nempnet (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It appears the concerns surrounding WP:V have been addressed. NemesisAT (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that sources have been added. Chaddude (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confident that the railroad station exists. I'm not exactly sure that the railway station actually has significant coverage beyond that it exists and it needed upgrades. Would anyone who has access to the atlas sources that were added to the article be willing to describe the extent of the depth of the coverage in those sources, and/or show quotes that talk about the station? I'm OK to keep if either of those show sigcov, but it's currently marginal for me without knowing the extent of coverage. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:57, 23 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 Ron Rivera. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Rivera[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as the subject shows no independent notability. The only real reason he could be perceived as notable would be him being Ron Rivera's nephew. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ron Rivera. I was not able to find coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did just find this from The Daily Californian that looks like SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable assistant coach. I strongly oppose a redirect to Ron Rivera since he is not Ron Rivera. Also, there is no mention of Vincent on Ron's page. Brad Hat (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He can be mentioned in a single sentence in his family section if merged. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:10, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Sound Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

A quick Google search confirms what is true of so many such articles: there is no secondary sourcing of any value. The content is wholly unverified; in the history you will find more unsourced trivia. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent evidence of notability, no other satisfaction of WP:BAND. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND lacks independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 23 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Arc[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, article is literally just a collection of rumors or unreleased product announcements. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc Alchemist series which is being nominated for the same reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Intel graphics processing units, because this one and that one are about graphics processors. «2nd|ias» 21:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least Wait until March 30; it seems Intel will disclose more details about Arc during their event to be held on that day. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 23:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to having it draftified pending that event and actual products being released and not just announcements. However, we can't keep having pages created for paper announcements, these are a pure violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOT in general. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until further notice. This article may be good in the near future, but not at this current point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably have been deleted months ago, but at this point Draftify until further notice. I'll note though that the path from "see Intel Arc graphics take center stage and get a first look at our new discrete graphics for laptops" to "set to be released by March 30, 2022" is textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL. Argymeg (talk) 13:00, 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 no consensus. any editor in good standing is welcome to bring this for discussion if needed. Not rewarding socks/adding to the backlog of AfDs with a relist Star Mississippi 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gawr Gura[edit]

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

Not notable. Gaetr (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gaetr (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've got one article on Project Melody, which is about the same idea/concept. It at lease has sourcing from Vice and a few other sites, this article seems to have not as high-level sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Comment From what I've seen so far, most of the sources on the subject are minor publications covering trivial topics, such as a new avatar, funny moment, etc. I can't really blame them, because the thing is this subject appears to be a persona rather than an actual person. This might introduce some WP:FAN and WP:UNIVERSE style information to the article. It would be best that the article be in the style of a fictional character rather than a biography though. Sparkl (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:NWEB. --Hi I am just wondering what the Russians (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Hi I am just wondering what the Russians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Blocked as a sock. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep because it passes WP:NWEB or redirect to Hololive Production. But I'm leaning towards keep. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 16:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. As there are other !votes that contemplate not keeping the page, I won't speedy-close this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are already a dozen V-Tuber pages on Wikipedia, and stated by the listed sources which include Wired and Crunchyroll among others, she's quite possibly the most popular/well known of them all. Don't see how she could not pass WP:N, there are tons more sources out there then the 24 shown, with 13.4 Million hits from a google search alone. Nomination by a sock is the only reason this page made it to AfD. Chaddude (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Can you provide those sources? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:48, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Garvey[edit]

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

Jillian Gravey isn't notable for any event nor scientific discovery, if you google her name you will find 4 news articles, in which she's briefly mentioned in 3 and the other being an article about her research on the ancient Aboriginal practices, but still nothing special and definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC, of all 37 sources used in her article only two are secondary, the first one is a video that gives you an error when you try to play it and the other describes the discovery of a tooth of a Diprotodon that Garvey and her team discovered. SadAttorney613 (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Archaeology, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excellent to see a nom with proper BEFORE. I can't see how Garvey passes WP:PROF (not a named chair; not a recipient of significant awards or recognition). Google, Newsbank and WikiLibrary searches did find plenty of primary articles, but failed to find any WP:RS (eg a recipe on SBS Food; passing mention in The Age as the supervisor of a story's subject; etc), so fails WP:GNG. Certainly she has potential in time but currently this is WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in her article are mainly primary. She doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, primary sources + nothing else to give notability Chaddude (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Sanayi Kabul F.C.[edit]

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

No sources, therefore preventing verification. I also could not find anything of note in my WP:BEFORE check, but that might just be the language barrier. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can't find sources (checked NFT and Soccerway). Giant Snowman 15:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and nothing available on my search either Josey Wales^Parley 09:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V Chaddude (talk) 02:18, 23 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 Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Ioan[edit]

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

Ioan was a non-medaling Olympian. There is no sourcing that I can find on him beyond the bare mention in the databse we have linked.This is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on him then redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon as can't find the coverage needed to show notability. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon unless it can be shown that they meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon per WP:PRESERVE, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:04, 23 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 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Genta[edit]

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

"Chief Digital Officer" of Monaco, a country of 38,000 people. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either in the article or elsewhere online - fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the size of Monaco, a sovereign country, has any bearing on notability here. Atchom (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Atchom. The point I was trying to make was that one might make a case for the "Chief Digital Officer" of a large country being automatically notable. Edwardx (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, in that case I agree! "Chief Digital Officer" is one of those titles that could literally be at any level of seniority (the government title version of clickbait I guess). Will ponder about it. Atchom (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chief Digital Officers are not default notable, and we lack the sourcing to show notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment French sources are mostly mentions of his name promoting digital initiatives in Monaco. A few France 3 television stories where he's mentioned. Some mentions in the Monaco Tribune (in English) or La Tribune (in French). I don't see much about him as an individual. Tried Le Figaro, Le Monde and Liberation newspapers, they don't have much either... Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:53, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Wilkinson[edit]

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

I very recently closed afd 1 as delete but the creating editor has provided a new version. The sourcing appears substantially the same kind of not quite there stuff but a real effort has been made to expand the test so it only seems fair to have another discussion on the new sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please can you elaborate on "the same kind of not quite there stuff", I really do not understand. Thank you Tom_elm^talk 15:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Book reviews and local news items are not really enough imo to pass the WP:GNG. His works contribute to notability by others not necesserily add to his own. However, you found extra stuff and it should be looked at. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually book reviews of this sort do contribute to notability. A biography is about the life and the works of a person, and the sources like JSTOR 41372216 go into significant depth on the work. It's a pity that they've been sorely mis-used to justify vague handwaves about "well received" (Wilton's review is rather critical of tone, organization, and even print quality) and the works are just a laundry list. Book reviews in journals such as the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts are not Amazon astroturfing, and can be used to actually write prose about the works of the subject, based upon expert sources. We can even identify the expert author, again completely unlike Amazon. It was Andrew Wilton, former Keeper of British Art at the Tate Gallery.
    And that's just one of the reviews. Luke Herrmann tells us who one of the other experts is. As such not only is this a stub this is a stub with scope for further expansion on the works of the biography subject from expert sources already (now) cited. The only question is why on Earth these weren't cited 5 years ago. It would have saved a lot of bother all around. This is why one always cites sources from the start.
    Uncle G (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Bearian's !vote on the previous deletion page: very many ordinary writers and artists have books on Amazon. There's just not enough available about this person. Google, blogs, and archives are not reliable sources. Non-notable author; unless his writings begin to be internationally known 30 years after his death (let me tell you how likely THAT is) then this person doesn't belong on Wikipedia, due to simply not being that well known. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian's rationale held as little water then, when "Google, blogs, and archives" was preceded by people pointing to journal articles on JSTOR and pointing to specific articles in specific newspapers and not even mentioning Google and archives at all, as it does now. It would seem that neither of you even looked at the sources cited in the AFD discussion then, and in the article now. Uncle G (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sheer number of citations from journal articles that discuss Wilkonson's work is enough for the subject to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons I stated in the original nomination especially being a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London which I believe passes WP:NPROF criteria #3 "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" Piecesofuk (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough book reviews of his works on Turner for WP:AUTHOR. There were already enough in the version as nominated but I added a couple more. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure that the Fellowship mentioned above counts as the top-of-the-profession kind of recognition that is needed for WP:PROF#C3, but WP:AUTHOR is met by way of book reviews (which, in a book-oriented corner of scholarship, is also a spiritual pass of WP:PROF#C1, as it were). XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an author the topic passes WP:NAUTHOR. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:55, 23 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 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copland (company)[edit]

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

There are some reviews on blogs and sources which do not appear reliable and some mentions through Google Books, but nothing I found would meet WP:ORGCRIT and therefore fails WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 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 speedy keep.Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghudchadi[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFF. Should be deleted, Looks promotional attempt.

Note - Both artical the same guy created and that is both movies belongs to same production house Bhushan Kumar . Ghudchadi, Visfot Cinzia007 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cinzia007 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure if they should be speedy closed, but the nom is a sock of User:Chatarpatar2020. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:22, 17 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. Should Scottish Community Alliance be created down the line and someone wants the text to merge for attribution, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Local People Leading[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Stub article since its creation in 2008, hasn't been significantly improved since. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Also reads like an advertisement ("alliance," "campaign for a strong and independent community sector," "key areas for action," etc.) Bsoyka (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. There is a tag that says A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Maybe, but that isn't at all obvious to me on reading the history. If the editor who put the tag is reading this, could you explain it? (My feeling that Delete is probably the right choice, for the reasons given, especially by Bsoyka, but I won't vote for the moment.)
Sorry. Please IGNORE my comment immediately before this one: I appear to have attached it to the wrong article. Also note that I forgot to sign it. Athel cb (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Athel cb: I don't think anyone would object if you simply deleted a comment you left in error. If you want to strike your comment but still leave it visible, you can put <s> at the beginning of your comment and </s> at the end. That is the HTML code for strikethough; you can see that I did it for your original (unsigned) comment. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and improve. Several years ago LPL cemented itself into what became formally constituted as the Scottish Community Alliance. See for example this letter to a government committee. I don't want to waste time creating a new article just for it to fall foul of the same issues but if there is some support for this I could have a go this weekend. (Please ping me with any reply - v. busy irl at present.) Ben Mac Dui 09:13, 23 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 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Altron[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006. I did an extensive search but came up empty Timur9008 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced, nothing easily visible to support notability online. Bsoyka (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found some references but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Even the non-English Wikipedia pages are unsourced. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, i have a soft spot for Altron. So hopefully we can find notable sources in the future, but in the meantime, due to notability. delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Doctormatt (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a list of games the company has produced, doing nothing to establish why this company is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Un-referenced article fails GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that show this subject meets NCORPs criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Gabe114 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 23 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. Star Mississippi 01:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Armenian Science and Technology[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The page appears to have been created and edited by COI accounts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Also reads like an advertisement. (focus is to harness, communities to advance Armenia as a nation, thrivig ecosystem, high-tech and innovations entrepreneur, foster cross-disciplinary collaboration and facilitate discovery) Bsoyka (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article has a tag saying that a major contributor is assocated with the article. Maybe, but that isn't obvious to me from reading the history. Could someone explain? My inclination is for Delete, as I agree with what Bsoyka says, but I won't vote for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athel cb (talk • contribs) 19:58, March 16, 2022 (UTC)
- The preceding entry was by me. I forgot to sign it. Athel cb (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would assume the tag is there because of the non-neutral and promotional wording, as that usually indicates a COI. Bsoyka (talk) 04:45, 17 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 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Tripathi[edit]

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

~~Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. I can't see lead roles or any significant work. Cinzia007 (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cinzia007 (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As elicited by nomination above. Not meeting WP:NACTOR. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yogesh Tripathi is a very popular and versatile actor in Hindi Television industry. His role in the hit Hindi language sitcom Bhabiji Ghar Par Hain! was so popular that he was awarded two of most coveted television awards of India. Because of his popularity the producers of above TV serial created a separate TV show Happu Ki Ultan Paltan which showcases him in the main lead. This show has already had over 650 episodes since 2019. He still continues as part of Bhabiji Ghar Par Hain also. His biography article is also present in Hindi language Wikipedia. - Jazze7 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting NACTOR. Many Indian TV shows themselves rest on shaky notability, and they feature dozens of actors over hundreds of episodes. So merely having linked articles is not sufficient, such claim needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources which is not the case here. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:22, 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 keep. Good rationale was given that the subject passes WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lollar[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for Gwinnett County, Georgia school board; governor of Maryland; U.S. House of Representatives; and Charles County Board of Commissioners fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to 2014 Maryland gubernatorial election KidAd • SPEAK 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, Africa, Georgia (U.S. state), and Washington. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass on WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep As far what I know, one of the criteria for NPOL is to win a significant election. But it doesn't say that loosing an election will make one ineligible for Wikipedia. Also, in light of last AfD discussions, it was well established that the subject passes GNG.Cirton (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted in WP:NPOL, "[an] unelected candidate for political office [..] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". I believe the references in the article clearly demonstrate the existence of WP:SIGCOV, so I suppose the only question is whether this is a case of WP:BIO1E. This, however, was already a topic of discussion in the previous AfD which resulted in keep. While consensus can certainly change, I think any BIO1E argument would be further hindered by the subject's second candidacy following the previous AfD. Let me know if I'm missing some relevant policy. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References demonstrate notability of subject significantly. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. The argument around possible GNG notability is mostly run of the mill campaign coverage and would probably fail the ten year test. Bkissin (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per above. The mere fact that his campaigns can be documented isn't enough; it's routine coverage, and even if he is a perennial candidate (and he has a way to go, nothing like the notoriety that Robin Ficker has amassed) he isn't known for that. He didn't even come close to winning the GOP nomination in 2014. If some paper decides he needs coverage in his own right, we can reconsider, but right now he is a paragon of obscurity. Mangoe (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not won and the coverage is routine. If he had won the 2014 primary we might have better coverage, in fact since the person who did win the 2014 primary won the general election, he might have won, but he was trounced in that primary, and we do not have actual coverage at a level to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he is a perennially unsuccessful political candidate (and thus fails WP:NPOL), the coverage present in the article alone is enough to clearly pass WP:NBASIC. If this coverage were only in the coverage of one event there would be a policy-based reason to delete, but no such policy-based reason exists for coverage in the context of multiple events. WP:N requires two things for an article to merit an article: that WP:GNG and/or an WP:SNG be satisfied and that the article subject not be excluded under WP:NOT. I see clear evidence that at least one WP:SNG is satisfied (WP:NBASIC) and that WP:GNG is satisfied. The arguments of WP:MILL are the only sort of arguments that would challenge this article subject as being excluded under WP:NOT, but the essay does not enjoy community consensus. In this case, I think the essay does not have community consensus for a good reason—having one's career covered widely by independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events is what makes a person notable. In this case, there is no policy-based deletion reason that is given that stands up to scrutiny, while the article subject clearly meets the base requirements of WP:N. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mhawk10 passes WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that this is not a NPOL case. People disagree whether GNG is met instead. To help arrive at consensus, please cite specific sources and explain why they provide (or do not provide) GNG-level coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this was relisted, a list of sources that provide non-trivial coverage of Lollar that are available on newspapers.com include:
- Cox, Erin (4 September 2013). "Lollar Joins GOP Race for Governor". The Baltimore Sun. p. 2.;
- "Lollar addresses prosperity group". The Kent Island Bay Times. Chester, Maryland. 9 December 2009. p. 32.;
- Moomah, Graham (26 Jan 2010). "Maryland Tea Party star hopes to unseat Hoyer". The Star-Democrat. Easton, Maryland. p. A5.
- Campbell, Colin (14 May 2014). "Lollar Wants to Boost Md. Business". The Baltimore Sun. p. 2.
- Smitherman, Laura (30 July 2009). "Charles County Republican Plans Run Against Hoyer". The Baltimore Sun. p. 9.

There is also coverage of this man in other news sources available online:

Wagner, John (3 September 2013). "Lollar enters GOP primary for Md. governor with appeal to Democrats, independents". The Washington Post.
Jones, Joyce (30 August 2012). "Portrait of a Delegate: Charles Lollar". BET.
Valentine, Daniel (24 July 2009). "Voter rule leaves Lollar on the outside". The Gazette.

Since significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, the above sources clearly show that the man has been significantly covered by independent, reliable sources in the context of multiple events. This is what WP:GNG requires. Since he's clearly not a WP:BLP1E, this article should be kept. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate posted sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes on WP:BASIC. Patapsco913 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mhawk10 passes WP:BASIC. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:25, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G. Karagiannopoulos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE. The lack of basic biographical details, such as his first name, date of birth, and date of death, means such coverage is unlikely to ever be found.

Article was procedurally kept in an AFD last month, with no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage at all. We do not even know how he performed in the one competition we have any knowledge of him having been in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and above. The one source in the article seems reliable, but just as it was said at the RSN, I do object to the hundreds, maybe even thousands of articles being made solely using this source. Bsoyka (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is on the order of thousands maybe even tens of thousands of articles that use only this source, at least if we group in those that use only it and or sportsreference.com, which I am pretty sure is a very closely related source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Stapleton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most coverage I found was routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Databases, fight results, and interviews do not constitute the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. As an MMA fighter he did have three top tier fights, but he lost them all. His highest ever ranking was #138. Meeting WP:NMMA carries a presumption of notability, but that is secondary to the lack of coverage. Papaursa (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad[edit]

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

The article is about Königsberg which already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Königsberg. Skyerise (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly both cities could have separate histories and thus justifying separate articles. Also, Kaliningrad is currently part of Russia and should stay named as such. --MuZemike 11:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me any examples of two separate articles about the same town? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Königsberg. Skyerise (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep No we should not be deleting an article about a current city. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 13:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X (TV series)[edit]

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

unnotable anime series. heavily ref bombed. 晚安 (トークページ) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 晚安 (トークページ) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. 晚安 (トークページ) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you check the references? There are several reviews listed (three random examples [1] [2] [3]). Jumpytoo Talk 17:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i did. and i don't think they are reliable sources. 晚安 (トークページ) 06:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources linked by Jumpytoo and that are currently used in the article (Mania, THEM Anime Reviews, DVD Talk, Anime News Network, etc) have WP:ANIME/RS been vetted and considered to be reliable sources. This is especially true for the latter, which is used in 90% of all animanga articles. Link20XX (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The series has enough coverage to warrant notability, and as mentioned above, the sources cited are considered reliable. - Xexerss (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't get the proposal. It's not a stub and all of its sources are considered reliable by guidelines and the project. In fact, some parts of this article were originally from the other X manga article which was split due size issues among other stuff.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comment. Link20XX (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly encyclopedic and relevant.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anime News Network is a reliable source. I clicked one of the links to them in the article and found a full review. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/x-tv/dvd-3 There is a list of websites that count as reliable sources. There is even a custom search for Anime and Manga related things at [4] that only searches for websites listed as reliable sources. You can search for the name of this series as well as the writer to find results. Dream Focus 21:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. I see no reason to have this article deleted. Rin (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and having enough reliable references. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has extensive coverage across various WP:ANIME/RS sources. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above has reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 23 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 The Cannonball Run. It does not appear there's an issue with the similarly named band. If there is down the line, RfD and or a DAB can sort it out. At the moment, consensus is clear as a chaotic cannonball's path Star Mississippi 01:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Chaos[edit]

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

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. The article contains no assertion of notability, outside a passing, one sentence long praise by by critic in one book. My BEFORE found a few more passing mentions which suggest that the character is seen by some as a highlight of the film (The Cannonball Run) but given the lack of WP:SIGCOV, that praise can be discussed in the film article. As such, I suggest we merge the one sentence of critic reception of this character to the film article (which currently doesn't mention this character outside plot summary and list of characters) and redirect it there. Prior AfD made a claim that there is lots of coverage but failed to cite any specific source outside a NYT-affiliated blog ([5]) which also is not SIGCOV and all it is useful or is as a possible reference for the claim that this one one of Dom DeLuise more memorable roles (he did not, however, win any awards for it, nor is it even mentioned in prose in our biography of his). In the end, this seems like one more unnotable, WP:FANCRUFT trivia, an artifact of Wikipedia's early years where people wrote Wikia/Fandom-level content on Wikipedia. 20 years later we need move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a working newspaper.com account? https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22Captain%20Chaos%22%20%22cannonball%20run%22 Mine expired after a year and they haven't renewed it when I requested through Wikipedia library. Dream Focus 12:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: almost all the results seem to be merely reviews of the movie, with almost nothing of note coming after. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was also what the search results also showed for me. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 12:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cannonball Run, the first of the two films the character appeared in. I'm really finding no in-depth coverage that would justify the character being split out into a separate article. There is very little information here that is actually cited to a reliable source, but I would have no objections if those couple of sentences on the character's reception were added to the film's article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Of all the under-notable stuff we have lying around that could legitimately and appropriately be merged elsewhere, I just don't see this one as particularly egregious. I absolutely don't see this as deletion-worthy, have no objection to a merger into the movie. One doll, one award nomination, or similar would sway me, but the first page of Google Scholar results aren't at all related to this movie character. But what I don't see is a merge/redirect attempt nor a talk page discussion, so I think it's too heavy-handed to use AfD to 'force' such an outcome when it could likely have been adopted by consensus of involved editors. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Award I understand, but can you clarify the "one doll" for me? :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One action figure. Representation of a fictional element in another medium (book->comic, book->movie, comic book->action figure) is a criterion I use to assess notability that does not have explicit community consensus. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Hmmm. Do you think that every object portrayed by a LEGO set is notable? (Assume it's a LEGO set based on a franchise, like LOTR or Harry Potter, not generic sets, of course). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every separate thing in any set? No. Anything sold as its own standalone set? Probably. I mean, a siege tower from Battle of the Pelennor Fields might not be, but I have no idea if those were ever sold individually. That sounds more like Warhammer than Lego. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens I saw an editor argue that the existence of ' Pirate Ship Ambush' LOTR Lego set sufficienlty justifies the seperate existence of an article on the Corsairs of Umbar (as a separate entity from Harad). Would you agree or disagree? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be one source, yes, but looking at Google Scholar for that topic for 5 seconds suggests you likely have enough coverage without that. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Missing the point. I've asked if the existence of that LEGO set alone would make you think the topic deserves a stand-alone article. (And the other sources are plot summaries, hence why we have one article, not two, or three, as pl wiki had a separate article on Umbar too before we got rid of that fancruft). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that LEGO made a set out of a fictional element or event is pretty sure-fire guarantee that yes, there will be sufficient RS if one looks hard enough. That straightforward enough? Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, eh? No, no everything that has a a lego set or a doll has reliable sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find various websites in America and Britain selling a "Captain Chaos Costume". Don't think that amounts to anything. Dream Focus 11:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Rorshacma. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cannonball Run: I only found a handful of passing mentions of the character. However, this is a plausible redirect. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Google Scholar results, I am not sure any of them are notable, but it's not clear that this Captain Chaos is what most folks following a redirect would be looking for. Still, the artist Captain Chaos (band) points to doesn't appear any more plausible a target, so not really objecting. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Sidenote: for me it's https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Captain_Chaos

):Which, AFAIK, has zero relations, as least, I've never seen one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 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 speedy keep. It is clear that this is a naming dispute and that nobody actually wants this page deleted. Renaming or merging should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Königsberg[edit]

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

The article is about Kaliningrad and already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Kaliningrad. We do not have two separate articles about Szczecin, Vilnus or Lviv despite analogical history. GizzyCatBella🍁 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GizzyCatBella🍁 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: I see this as a merge request. In any case, a notice should be posted on the other article, too. —Michael Z. 19:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are good historical reasons to keep this article. The articles are clearly disambiguated in hatnotes on both articles, one as before 1945, the other as after 1945. Delete Russia instead. Skyerise (talk) ~~10:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)~~ Skyerise (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Russia? What do you mean? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant delete Kaliningrad. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it does not make any sense whatsoever. You expect an article about the important town to be deleted - ~~but keep one about the city that doesn’t exist anymore.~~but keep one about the city that doesn’t reflect the present standing... Sorry, but I’m compelled to dismiss such arguments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are arguing that there are two cities? Skyerise (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I chose better wording above - striking original). That’s okay, I don’t need to hear anything else from you. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know this deletion discussion will end up in the news. Hope you're ready to be portrayed as a Russian ally. Or is that Canada? Skyerise (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Skyerise just proposed article about Kalinigrad to be deleted instead --> [6], [7] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kaliningrad. This is a surprising WP:POVFORK that escaped our attention, and weirdly, this fork is reproduced on many other Wikipedias (compare wikidata:Q1829 and wikidata:Q4120832). It's not even history of Kaliningrad (which right now redirects to Kaliningrad#History), it's a full-fleshed article about a town. Note we don't have articles about towns that changed names, including in the former German territories (think Danzig, Breslau, Posen, Stettin, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the alternative to merging or deleting could be renaming this article to History of Kaliningrad. I didn’t think about this option.. Thanks @Piotrus - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd agree with this if the proposed title were History of Königsberg. Skyerise (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment: This is not only a renaming. There is a cultural divide here. The city formerly had a German culture, the newly named one has a Russian culture. We don't merge Ancient Egypt into Egypt for similar reasons. Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Kaliningrad or History of Kaliningrad. Königsberg has gone by this name for a long time now. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd argue the Kaliningrad is effectively a new city. Königsberg was quite nearly destroyed in WWII. Only 120,000 survivors remained in the city. Of those, the Soviets deported 100,000 Germans back to Germany, leaving only 20,000 (5%) of the pre-war population (372,164 in 1939). There is therefore no cultural continuity, almost no population continuity, and the physical continuity was mostly rubble. The Soviets then brought in their own desired population and built a new city on the remains of the old one. Skyerise (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this article focuses on Königsberg when it was still majority German. It explains the history, the demographics, the architecture, the buildings, etc, that cannot be reduced into a section in the article of Kaliningrad. It is also not strange to have a separate article focusing on the history. We do not delete Byzantium and Constantinople just because we have Istanbul, same with Sunda Kelapa and Batavia & Jakarta, Chang'an & Xi'an, Jiankang & Nanjing, Londinium & London, Vindobona & Vienna, Fustat & Cairo, etc etc. GuerraSucia (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the modern town here, not ancient history as your presented examples. We don’t have separate articles for Wrocław and Breslau or Lviv and Lwów which changed under identical circumstances as a result of the WW2 exactly the same as Kaliningrad. Sorry. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the examples come from ancient history, like Constantinople was renamed to Istanbul in 1930. Batavia is in a similar situation with Königsberg, it transformed into Jakarta after Indonesia gained its independence as a result of WW2 and the Indonesian National Revolution (which ended in 1949, so we can say that the transformation of Batavia to Jakarta is even more recent; had the Dutch won the war, the city would still have been called 'Batavia'). We have a separate article for Batavia because the history, the details of the demographics, buildings, architecture, etc, cannot be reduced into a section in the article Jakarta, which discusses the modern city. The same applies for Königsberg and Kaliningrad. Königsberg has a really rich history as a German town (it was part of the Hanseatic League, and it was famous as the city of Immanuel Kant), it cannot be reduced into a section in the article Kaliningrad, which is an entirely new Russian city. GuerraSucia (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The true name of the city in english is Konigsberg, if anything the Kaliningrad article must be merged into this one.XavierGreen (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i.e. Keep - They represent a settlement at different times in history just like Constantinople and Istanbul. Also my experience is that the historical detail of a place can get watered down in cases when its population has changed from one culture to another. The former culture is suppressed in favour of the current, leaving the article very imbalanced. For example, in some cases, you'd hardly know that a settlement was German and important within the Holy Roman Empire for several centuries prior to the Second World War and that the current culture has only been there for 70 years. The two articles are already well deconflicted in terms of coverage with Königsberg covering the timeline up to WW2 and handing over to to Kaliningrad which focusses on the timeline since then. And both refer to each other appropriately. Bermicourt (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article isn't about modern Kaliningrad, it's about the historical city Konigsberg. Constantinople and Istanbul have the same situation. So does Sparta and Sparta, Laconia, or Classical Athens versus Athens. Cities change significantly over time, and Konigsberg/Kaliningrad had a name change, its entire population changed, the entire culture changed, the political status changed, etc etc. Sometimes it's helpful to have multiple articles to focus on different parts of a city's history. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kalingrad. They are the same city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The city was in large part destroyed, including the university that was one of the primary things it was known for, its population was replaced (many were killed, the remainder were expelled), and the entire regional context and system of governance changed. There is almost no continuity. Merging into Kaliningrad would create a massive UNDUE situation on the city that previously existed on the site. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the record, it's been discussed multiple times since 2006 on the article talk page, which anyone can see by glancing at the indexed archives (cute trick, I'll have to learn how to do that). For example, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. At least two requested move proposals failed. The article is where it is because Kaliningrad is basically a new city built on the rubble of Königsberg. This is a longstanding position of the majority of editors of the article. It's clear that the nominator @GizzyCatBella: didn't look at or ignored the editorial discussion on the matter. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article mainly focuses on the pre-World War II city, while the Kaliningrad article focuses on the post-World War II city. It's acceptable to have two separate articles on seemingly two separate histories, as noted by the examples by the users above. --MuZemike 01:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While it's true that we don't have separate articles about Danzig, Breslau, Stettin, etc, it's also true that none of those places were arguably as significant historically or culturally as Königsberg, the former capital city of the Duchy/Kingdom of Prussia. And, there's no question that the history of the city of Königsberg easily meets WP:GNG. I think the Constantinople/Istanbul comparison is an apt one to be made here. If you're looking for an official policy, I guess there's always WP:IAR. Bottom line, keeping this article will make Wikipedia a better place, so let's go ahead and keep it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77: Gdańsk was the most important Baltic port throughout all of its existence, also important cultural center, not saying Königsberg wasn't, but certainly Gdańsk/Danzig was far more influential Marcelus (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, silly to debate this at AFD. At best this is a merge proposal, and the article title clearly is a suitable redirect. The situation is quite different from Gdansk/Danzig, which had a significant Polish history before 1945. I also oppose a merge, as 1945 is a natural point where the article can be split up. Article title should be discussed at WP:RM, not at WP:AFD. (We do have History of Bratislava, with Pozsony and Pressburg redirects to the modern city, not to the history, but we have Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul, so there is precedent for either way of structuring such an article). —Kusma (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting case. By the existence of two articles, we are suggesting that the old city of Königsberg has ceased to exist. This carries certain implications. For example, should every city in the Kaliningrad region have two articles? Should the article Tilsit be separated from Sovetsk? From Baltiysk should the article Pillau be separated? What about Danzig? The city was destroyed to a similar extent. Of course, Kaliningrad Oblast is special because here we are dealing not only with almost total destruction and complete replacement of population, but also with almost complete abandonment of reconstruction and changing the name to a completely new one. This, however, cannot be said of similar examples in Poland or the Czech Republic. But on the other hand, medieval Gdansk was burned down in 1308 and a new city was founded elsewhere. Kiev was burned to the ground in 1240 and 1482. Lviv was destroyed in 1250 and 1350, each time a new city was founded in a different place. Should there be a separate entry for each of these periods? Rather not. So merge is the only sensible solution. There is no reason for two separate articles about the same town.Marcelus (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ridiculous. Towns are not just building sites. They have their own culture. When there is little or no cultural continuity, there are indeed two towns, one historical, one current. Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are arguing that we should have a separate article about Pilau or Tilsit? The entire article should be moved to History of Kaliningrad Marcelus (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should Byzantium and Constantinople be merged into Istanbul? Should Batavia, Dutch East Indies be merged into Jakarta? Should New Amsterdam be merged into New York City? Neither of these places ever ceased to exist. —Kusma (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I’m not sure why you hold those bizarre views that to me still don’t make much sense, (this is the same blody city) but if this is the case then keep it constant and build two separate article for other cities in the same region of Russia such as: Baltiysk/Pillau for example, and all these 23 other significant cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast --> [15] Come on, will you? :) ... right... I want to hear why not, but other than because "Kaliningrad is a special case etc." because it is not any different from 800 years Pillau or 500 years old Svetly other than size of those towns. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should split long articles and not split short articles. —Kusma (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean by “why split" but anyway. Let’s not waste more time here, if you want to maintain two separate article for the same bloody town then fine. Just keep in mind that this might be confusing for the readers and in my option it is totally wrong. Encyclopaedia Brittanica has one article about Kaliningrad -->[16] as it should be, so all others, but for some completely illogical reason we must be different here :). - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the articles have fully functional hatnotes to prevent confusion. —Kusma (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look like snow to you? It's snowing where I am! Skyerise (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still want to see some other opinions and argumentation of the closing person. This is not a vote count. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. No one has any sympathy for Russia right now. Your nomination was exceedingly tone-deaf in an environment of Russian expansionism. Skyerise (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that opposing comments here are based on the current political situation and not our fundamental editorial standards? Am I reading you correctly Skyerise? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm suggesting that you are wrong about what is actually correct here. A city is not simply a physical entity. It is also a cultural and political entity. The cultural and political entity called Königsberg came to an end when its most of its inhabitants were deported to Germany. Maybe you'd have been able to convince people to agree with your wrong conclusion in a different political environment, but in the current one I beleive it's a lost cause. Skyerise (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You began with no and ended up with yes

So if the political environment was different, the outcome might have been merged or deleted. Oh Gosh.. Skyerise... I believe we should not be impacted by politics but stick to our standards and continue constructing informative, neutral Encyclopedia GizzyCatBella🍁 19:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: "Our standards" include the splitting of long articles. It is actually recommended. Guidelines say that an article >100,000 bytes "almost certainly should be divided". Königsberg is currently at 73,738 and Kaliningrad is at 93,402. There is little duplication so a merged article would be ~160,000 bytes. It would immediately be proposed to split it. How would you suggest it be split? I believe the articles meet our standards, and so do nearly all the editors responding. On top of that, we don't start a merge discussion by nominating an article for deletion. We use merge tags and have the discussion on the talk pages of the articles involved. Why'd you nominate the article rather than doing that? Seems to me that's pretty POINTY. Skyerise (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking here about the actual merger of the both articles, we are talking about sensibility of keeping two articles about the same town. If the merged articles will have more than 100k then it will be split to subarticles like: "History of Kaliningrad" and so onMarcelus (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what's already been done. Neither the city nor the name Kaliningrad existed prior to 1946. Kaliningrad has no history prior to 1946, or rather, that history already has a proper name, and that name is 'Königsberg'. Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even Russian Wikipedia has two articles. You'd think if any Wikipedia had the motivation to make Königsberg "disappear", it'd be Russian Wikipedia! Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants Königsberg to disappear Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a subordinate article to the main article Kaliningrad, in WP:summary style. If we merge them, the resulting article’s history section might be disproportionately long. We could rename this History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945, except the current title better fulfils the WP:CRITERIA. (The other article has a longer edit history, so if we choose to merge then we should keep that one.) —Michael Z. 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would not mind to see this article renamed to History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945. This is even better idea. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:47, 17 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.

Alternative proposal[edit]

Wrong venue. Try Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Rename this article to History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945 (per Michael)

Support - as nominator - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Perhaps we could even do this History of Kaliningrad (Königsberg) 1255–1945, no? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or this History of Königsberg (Kaliningrad) 1255–1945 also .... hmm. Let me folks know what you think about the above also. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any use of the word "Kaliningrad" in a context of pre-1945 history, as a historical anachronism. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per same argument as Ejgreen77. Skyerise (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @GizzyCatBella: This really should not be discussed in this venue. Wait until the deletion discussion is closed, then open a move discussion. If you want to get right to it, you could withdraw your deletion nomination per WP:SNOW. Skyerise (talk) 20:37, 17 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification - Oceania qualifiers squads[edit]

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

Not notable enough. This is only a qualifying tournament for 2022 FIFA World Cup. FIFA does not request the Oceanian teams to submit fixed squads for it. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, why do "fixed squads" matter. Seems like every FIFA tournament these days allows for players to replace one another and more than a list of 23 to be given anyway? Also, can someone explain to me how a tournament used directly for a FIFA World Cup spot (or half spot, in this case) is "not notable enough", but Football at the 2017 Islamic Solidarity Games – Men's team squads passes? - J man708 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @J man708: To me, 'fixed squads' demanded and later announced officially by FIFA are notable enough. This is not the case here - your first sentence in the article is factually wrong already, unless you have sources to prove it. Secondly, a fixed squad can only be amended within a time limit (24 hours before the team's first match, per 2018 regulations), and it is still fixed during this pandemic (per Euro 2020 regulations, a squad could have up to 26 players, and 23 of them would be registered for a match). This is not the case here either - the teams can call up more players afterwards, so it is just like the 'squads' announced before any normal international windows. Finally, I would pass all squad articles for Olympics, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games etc. as long as they have good sources, because those all are proper sporting events. This is not... you know it. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source - Squads seem pretty fixed from this article. Like the Euro's 26, the maximum squad size seems to be 30. Teams can't logically call up more players, as they'd have travel and quarantine. - J man708 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708: That cannot be considered an official announcement by any means. In addition to my previous points, a fixed squad also has fixed jersey numbers for players. Needless to say, these 'squads' fail that criterion too. Your other arguments are only speculation. Interestingly, the Papuans said they had registered a reserve list of "up to 60 players" [17]. You might want to find that list and add it, if your article survives this AfD :) Centaur271188 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can it not be an official announcement if it's on the OFC's own website? Preliminary World Cup squads contain 30 or more players all the time, seems the same to me. We don't include the preliminary ones, only on the country's article under recent callups. Also, I feel like you're also speculating that squads won't maintain fixed jersey numbers. Can I just ask, if the OFC retroactively a few years down the line decided that this tournament should be given OFC Nations Cup status, then I'd assume you'd have no issue with its article status? If so, may I ask, what's the difference if it's something that a name change alone can justify the article's status? - J man708 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708: 1: FIFA and OFC have not requested fixed squads from Oceanian teams in the first place, so that announcement is only informative. 2: Even preliminary squads for World Cup finals are notable enough (I contributed to the 2018 squad article quite actively), until the final squads are confirmed, this is not relevant anyway because we are talking about qualifying 'squads'. 3: All official squads have fixed jersey numbers announced simultaneously, before the teams start playing - not this time, we will have to watch all teams' first 2 matches to verify their 'seemingly fixed' numbers (how ridiculous). 4: If I remember correctly, Wikipedia does not cover 'what if' stuff, so I will not answer your questions. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your three arguments all seem just as speculative?, but that's fine, points made. As for the 4th, you know that's bull - if they retroactively named this the OFC Nations Cup, you'd be as for it as the Euros squad pages. Either way, I understand this page won't survive (or will miraculously be remade should the tournament be retroactively named). I'm just wanting this page to survive for the week as a reference listing of the squads to save time looking between the nation's pages - J man708 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708: No, why do you think that? Actually I admit my latter half of #1 sounds speculative, but only that part. And yes :) if your assumption comes true, then... Anyway, if you want to keep it as a ref listing, why wouldn't you try a sandbox page? Centaur271188 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t set it up as a sandbox page because I didn’t think it would be immediately put up for AfD. Probably will turn it into one though for the sake of referencing it, however. - J man708 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Squad lists for tournament qualifiers are not notable enough for stand-alone articles as the squads can change between matches, whereas squad lists for final tournaments cannot be changed during the tournament barring force majeur. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, by that logic, we should delete UEFA Euro 2020 squads aswell, as their rules are the same? - J man708 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the actual Euro 2020 tournament has defined squad lists for the tournament (23 players who are the only ones that can play). Qualifying tournaments don't have this, as you can choose 25 players for a squad for one set of matches, then a different combination for all the other matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, these "squad lists" are made up, as FIFA/OFC don't demand fixed squad lists that have to be the same for every match. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification process for other continents do not have a page for team squads and this should not be an exception.

Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. KyleRGiggs (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth is this a speedy delete? - J man708 (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. There is no such thing as one squad for qualifying matches, they change from month to month. Giant Snowman 15:24, 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 11:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 CONCACAF U-13 Champions League[edit]

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

Non notable youth tournament, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the below for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable youth tournament. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:23, 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 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Zárate[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, nothing inherently notable in the career details, and the sources cited are primary (and a search finds nothing better). Fails WP:GNG / WP:NPROF. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source used is FairyGodBoss. Nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Her dissertation has been cited over 650 times, she's published in Science, and has been past president of Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science, which, while not AAAS, has been around for 50 years. It may be WP:TOOSOON, but I think on balance there's enough there there to meet WP:PROF. PianoDan (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While her first-author paper as a grad student has been cited 484 times according to Scopus, her only other paper has been cited just 5 times and she has since taken a purely administrative position. She wrote a book review for Science, which is definitely not the same as her research being published in the journal (not that that is necessarily an indicator of notability either). Being president of a non-notable organization is also not a criterion for meeting NPROF or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NPROF, and not convinced meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG - WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC);[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF ,WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:00, 23 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 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Slavic Unity of Ukraine[edit]

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

Non-notable make believe party that lacks even a passing mention on any news or academic sources. TolWol56 (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Russian National Unity, if there’s anything to it. —Michael Z. 15:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source which is now archived does not mention this organization. desmay (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails simple WP:N. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:59, 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 redirect to Transcom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NuComm International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Was nominated for deletion in 2007 and most people favored delete. Country20 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Transcom: The keep arguments in the 2007 no-consensus AfD would be insufficient today, as the coverage offered was 50-best-X lists, routine announcement coverage or about/by the company founder, and searches now are not finding better. Fails WP:NCORP in its own right, through the 2007 acquisition by Transcom, on which page it is mentioned, offers a redirect WP:ATD option. AllyD (talk) 09:53, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hike Metal Products[edit]

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

Non-notable company, appears to fail WP:CORP. Four references, two of which are from the company's website. Ajshul ^<talk> 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajshul ^<talk> 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 02:47, 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 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 11:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education[edit]

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

Non-notable organization that appears to fail WP:ORG. No reliable sources can be found and the references listed no longer exist. Ajshul ^<talk> 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No citations in article so lacking notability. Gusfriend (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 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 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Fallacara[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur, clearly fails GNG, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Chrisalder (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even explained why this person is known for the book. Very much marketing page. If there are links that are in-depth about book and about him, it can change also. But delete at this moment. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any independent & reliable sources related to this person. Admittedly his area is a bit niche (bio-hacking) but we would still need RS. He appears to have purchased, or become executive of, some of the magazines in this area, so check "about" and "staff" when reviewing sources. Lamona (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – seems a notable individual in his niche field (in which he has founded organizations, later got listed, and has done research work along with a book). KP Mogensen (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:KP Mogensen is undisclosed paid creator of this page. Chrisalder (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KP Mogensen. --Vaco98 (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is a possible sock of KP Mogensen, opening sock puppet investigation against him. Chrisalder (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has 2 pages of hits in Google, the first of which is almost all PR stuff, some from PR.com. Nothing else found; zero hits in Scholar, JSTOR and the New York Times. If he was that notable, I'd expect to see something in a peer-reviewed journal. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 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 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colégio de Nossa Senhora da Assunção[edit]

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

Deprodded without valid rationale or improvement. It gets coverage in the local papers, which one would expect, but not enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Portugal. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can find is some trivial local coverage and a couple of name drops in a few school directories. Nothing that would qualify as direct, in-depth coverage though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given the dePROD, or this could have been a soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above explanation. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, a substantial consensus has been reached that this article subject meets WP:NCURLING. BD2412 T 06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rizzo (curler)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCURLING. Has only won provisional tournaments. Fails GNG ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He actually does meet WP:CURLING as he has played in a Grand Slam (the 2004 BDO Curling Classic). Of course, that alone is not a reason to keep the article, but I was able to find some articles that can be used as references at newspapers.com. I've expanded the article and included more references. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At least some of the coverage added to the article constitute WP:SIGCOV. E.g., this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCURLING, and the coverage does not appear to meet GNG - the link provided by Cbl62 is primarily an interview, and is not independent of the subject. The same issue exists with the other references in the article that are not minor mentions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as yet on whether this should be kept or deleted, but the subject clearly passes point one of WP:NCURLING as noted above. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I missed that one when removing the other participation criteria. It has now been removed per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, and they no longer meet WP:NCURLING. BilledMammal (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I would argue he has received significant enough coverage from reliable sources (which I've added to the article) to warrant keeping.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there is now an edit war going on at WP:NSPORTS in regard to the recent changes there, which affects single event participation as a criteria for notability. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, this AfD resulted in stark improvement to Mr. Rizzo's article. But, in any case, the current NCURLING (as far as I know) requires the winning of the listed tournaments to pass, none of which Rizzo has won, at least per the article as it stands. I appreciate your work, but I would argue that the new content is routine - this is the type of coverage that many sportspeople garner, which is why I think specific sports have notability guidelines. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to give your opinion based on "as far as I know". It only takes a few seconds to actually read what the guideline says, which is not that the current version requires the winning of the listed tournaments to pass. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references added are routine, but some of them constitute significant coverage. In any event, WP:NSPORT is influx right now, so it's still up in the air as to whether this will meet WP:NCURLING or not. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3 says "There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation)". Is participation in a Grand Slam of Curling event not "olympic or similar participation"? This goes well beyond simply participation at a professional level. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how proposed future policy (highly controversial at that) has any bearingon the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not proposed - there is a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sufficient sources that are reliable, secondary, independent and in-depth, to pass GNG. Sports SNG do not trump needing to actually pass GNG to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes NSPORT - article references pass GNG. That's a doublepass. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears the subject actually does pass WP:NCURLING and I feel the sourcing meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NCURLING. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:28, 22 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 Vingtaine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vingtaine du Coin Tourgis Nord[edit]

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

The island does exist but its not notable enough and if you search it up nothing comes up besides non reliable sources. The article also has no sources. The only thing I could find about this island was a Chinese documentary. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 13:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate if GEOLAND is met with the added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 2 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!} 22:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an island, but a vingtaine. Indeed, given the 19th century subdivision it is half a vigntaine (presumably a dizaine ☺). The source cited very clearly got its information from the single real source on this subject, which is an article in volume 6 of the Bulletin of the Société Jersiaise. This has a family history with Raoul, Gillaume, and Genette Tourgis and the fief of Les Arbres. It's more than the article has. The only problem is that it's the only source, recycled and repeated several times over the past century and a bit. I'd like to have two. There's a translation from the original French of the Bulletin article at https://www.theislandwiki.org/index.php/Notes_on_the_origins_of_placenames along with a translator's note that the original article is possibly a bit dodgy. So I would really like to have two. Unless there are two, independent of James A. Messervy, which I for one cannot find, delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a serious problem with these as independently notable areas, especially since a sampling of them discloses that they largely say nothing more than "X is one of the n vingtaines of Y Parish on the Channel Island of Jersey." Therefore I would redirect the lot to vingtaine. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one !vote per potential outcome. Mayhaps 3rd relist brings about consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya One[edit]

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

This is purely directory information. The place for it is on their web site, where anyone would naturally look. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles like this and this establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of information could make the page keep-worthy then? Many other shopping mall articles are also as you call "directories", reviews on those might be needed then. KtMystic (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ab207 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To KtMystic, to make a page keep-worthy in Wikipedia, it needs to have many coverage in secondary sources. Any information taken from its official website or its own social media (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc) is not counted towards notability (per WP:GNG). It needs to be well-written in those secondary sources, not only a simple mention, and it needs to be from multiple sources (per WP:GNG). Secondary sources is like online newspaper (e.g. The Star, Berita Harian, Malaysiakini etc). Any language of those secondary sources is acceptable (including non-English), as long as you translate the cited title into English if they are not in English per (per WP:GNG). Chongkian (talk) 06:58, 4 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!} 22:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost all of the sources used are primary sources (the mall's website), which can't establish any form of notability. XtraJovial (talk) 18:22, 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 no consensus. and I don't think another relist will bring one about. Star Mississippi 01:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Map[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable, could not find any reliable sources in English or Japanese. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Schools, and Taiwan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 22 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!} 23:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clearly WP:PROMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 04:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and did not find it to have used promotional wording. Please provide information about how the article is promotional so I can address this through editing. Cunard (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above users points. Sahaib (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "台湾の制服マニアの制服マップサイトが話題　700種類以上掲載". People's Daily (in Japanese). 2015-04-07. Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The website "Uniform Map", which collects uniform photos of high school girls from all over Taiwan, has become a hot topic. Masamasa Ouyo (35), a maniac enthusiast in the field of uniforms, has spent 20 years and invested 1 million Taiwan dollars (about 3.84 million yen) in more than 300 high schools and 700 types of uniforms. Collected and launched the site."
2. 楊惠琪; 羅國甫 (2013-06-07). "「制服地圖」票選景美黃衫最靚". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The first app in China that can search for the uniforms of various high school vocational girls was launched yesterday. Some netizens combined photos of high school vocational girls' uniforms with the Google Map function to develop a "Uniform Map" app. ... The uniform map was developed by a netizen in the information industry "Red Reaper". Originally, it only provided the web version, but it was reposted to Taiwan by netizens a few days ago (telnet://ptt.cc). It has exceeded 400,000 person-times."
3. 蔡偉祺 (2014-05-02). "歷史上的第一次全台500高校制服選美". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "First time in Taiwan! The "2014 Graduation Season - Taiwan University Uniform Awards", co-organized by the uniform map website and "High School Chronicle", is in full swing. More than 500 school uniform voting activities include almost all high schools in Taiwan."
4. "台灣「制服地圖」網羅女子聖衣　短裙黑襪基本款". ETtoday (in Chinese). 2013-06-05. Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "It is understood that Uniform Map is collected by enthusiastic netizens, and the organizational structure is formed. The information is quite rich, but some school uniforms have not been collected in it. Although the database has not reached 100%, it is already quite a huge project."
5. 陳又寧; 歷亞格艾 (2013-06-07). "制服地圖網友點到手痠　景美女中黃衫黑裙暫居冠". ETtoday (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The first APP 'Uniform Map' in China that can search for the uniforms of high school vocational girls was launched on the 6th. Netizens marked the school location with the google map function, matched with the school girls' uniforms, and also provided online likes and votes for which school uniform is the most beautiful."
6. "網友設計制服地圖不出門也可看高中妹". Liberty Times (in Chinese). 2013-06-06. Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The usage of 'Uniform Map' is similar to 'Google Map'. It is quite simple and easy to operate. The content includes almost all high school addresses in Taiwan, and the uniform photos of each high school girl are attached for users to enjoy. It sparked discussions among many netizens. Many netizens believed that such a website was too humane, and some netizens joked that they decided to follow the map to each high school pilgrimage."
7. Additional sources (less significant coverage):
  1. "制服地圖漏協志工商　師PO「最強」學生美照". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2013-06-07. Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  2. 許敏溶 (2017-05-28). "「人氣制服之星」票選揭曉　陽光美少女奪后冠". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
    The article notes that the website administrator is Jiang Shunzhi (Chinese: 江舜智).
  3. 蔡偉祺 (2014-10-03). "700所國中大PK　制服地圖再出招　萌水手VS.福音戰士". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "Taiwan's well-known uniform website 'Uniform Map' has launched a Chinese version, targeting more than 700 national junior high school uniforms in Taiwan."
  4. 張哲儒; 陳育菁 (2013-06-06). "高校制服地圖網友蒐正妹照吸睛". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "On the Uniform Map of the beautiful girl student uniform, each small punctuation flag. It turned out to represent a high school or a vocational school, such as uniforms, short skirts, and black socks. These college uniforms are really pleasing to the eye. However, some netizens pointed out that the girls in some photos not only look like models with makeup on their faces, but not students of the school."
  5. "「制服地圖」問世　校服美女即點即看". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2013-06-05. Archived from the original on 2018-01-31. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  6. 陳育賢; 竹縣 (2017-04-09). "高校制服大賞全國大車拚進第2階段". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  7. 黃益源 (2017-05-31). "制服美女黃靖雅 15歲會6國語言還會馬術" (in Chinese). Chinese Television System. Archived from the original on 2022-03-05. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Uniform Map (traditional Chinese: 制服地圖; simplified Chinese: 制服地図) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources only contain trivial mentions that aren't significant coverage, and aren't the main subject of a source. Just because it has been mentioned in articles, usually covering a different subject, doesn't mean it's notable. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the "Additional sources (less significant coverage)" section provide less significant coverage about Uniform Map. The first six sources I listed provide significant coverage about Uniform Map as demonstrated by the quotes. Several of the articles are specifically about Uniform Map only and do not cover a different subject.

Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria says:

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations

The sources I provided demonstrate Uniform Map is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself".

Cunard (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources that Cunard added Justi yaya 01:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was unable to review source 1 (I can't read Japanese)

Source 2's reliability is questionable due to the Apple Daily RFC, though likely gives significant coverage

Source 3 likely reliable (no discussion found) article gives significant coverage (contains 8 mentions of the subject)

Source 4, 5 likely reliable per it's RSPS discussion, gives significant coverage.

Source 6 likely reliable (no discussion found) although the article is quite short.

Voted keep per WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT Justi yaya 02:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage worth speaking for this most mediocre of subjects and of no historical or encyclopedic content. scope_creep^Talk 13:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references provided by Cunard are trivial at best, to not even about the topic at worst. None of them from what I can tell are at the level of direct, in-depth coverage of this that we need for it to be notable. At the most what is available justifies mentioning the website in the main School uniform article, but that's about it and I have serious doubts that is even worth doing. That said, I'd at least take it over keeping this just because there's a bunch of name drops about it in articles that are only slightly or not at all related to the website that this article pertains to. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assertion that Uniform Map is among the "most mediocre of subjects" may be true when compared to other subjects. But it is not a policy-based reason for deletion when many reliable sources consider Uniform Map worth covering. I found sources in China (People's Daily), Japan (Chugoku Shimbun), and Taiwan (China Times). That international sources consider the Uniform Map website worth covering strongly establishes notability.
I do not agree with the assertion that "The references provided by Cunard are trivial at best, to not even about the topic at worst". Each of the six sources I linked provide significant coverage about the subject. Here my analysis about the first three:
1. The first source from People Daily is titled "Taiwanese uniform enthusiast website Uniform Map is a hot topic. More than 700 types posted." The article notes that the site was created by 35-year-old uniform enthusiast Masamasa Ouyo, who invested 20 years and 1 million Taiwanese dollars to purchase 700 types of uniforms from more than 300 high schools. It discusses how he got into collecting uniforms and how he had to obtain the girl uniforms through friends and auctions since he was a male. The article discusses how Chugoku Shimbun covered the website and quoted from China Times.
2. The second source from Apple Daily is titled "'Uniform Map' Voting: Taipei Municipal Jingmei Girls High School's yellow shirt voted most beautiful." The article notes that Uniform Map is the first Taiwanese app where people can search for high school girl uniforms. The article discusses how the app works and how the app was launched on 6 June 2013. The article notes that the website was created by a "netizen in the information industry" and discusses why he created the website. The article notes that the website was accessed by 400,000 people on the day it launched. The article notes that the app was available on Android but not on iOS yet. The article lists the top four most voted uniforms. The article said that 256 schools were listed on the website in the day after the launch.
3. The third source from China Times is titled: "For the first time in history, voting on the most popular uniform from Taiwan's 500 high schools". The article notes that Uniform Map co-organized a vote on which uniform is the most popular from Taiwan's 500 high schools. The article notes that the contest received over 100,000 votes and tens of millions of views. The article notes that Jiang Shunzhi is the founder of the website. On 1 May of the previous year, he decided to "combine high school uniforms and maps" which "immediately set off a uniform craze on the Internet".
Uniform Map passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a source that discusses how a dude got into collecting school uniforms is an in-depth significant coverage about the subject, right. I could be totally off here, but the last time I checked the article isn't about school uniform collecting. Let alone the app developers journey as a collector of them. Make an article about those subjects if you think they are notable, but neither uniform collector or the app developer is what this is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses information about the creator's uniform collecting in the context of why the creator founded the website and how many uniforms were on the website in the first day of launch. This contributes to the source providing significant coverage about the website's origins and history. Cunard (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does the article do that? Literally all it does is name drop the app in the beginning and then discusses the dudes collection. Nowhere in the article from what I can tell does it connect his collection to how many were on the website on day launch day. Let alone does it give any history of the website's origins or whatever. significant or otherwise. Sure, the dude started it because he likes school uniforms, but that's literally all it says and there's nothing significant about that. Either way, I'd love to see a website that was created by someone who didn't have an interest in the subject. "I started bears.com because I like bears. Now let me tell you a story about why I think bears are the greatest animal ever." is the epitome of trivial, non-significant coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:WEB with reliable sources indicated by Cunard. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 17:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 19:30, 22 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 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commit Media[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, and does appear to be completely promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by briefly-active WP:SPA Commitmc, describing the company's wares. The company site no longer exists, and the provided references are/were links to campaigns in which the company was involved. Searches find nothing to indicate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasons provided by AllyD, fails WP:NCORP. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:09, 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. While redirects are cheap, delete !votes make a valid case for why it would not be appropriate to merge this. I am deleting, but there's no objection to a redirect if someone feels it's helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psilon[edit]

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

When biologists at Mountain Lake Biological Station in Virginia conduct their annual survey of plants in the genus Silene that grow along the roads in a certain local area, they record their data in 40-metre lengths of roadside, which are called psilons (likely a pun on the name of the genus). And that's what the article is about. It's kind of cute, and there's something very attractive in the idea that Wikipedia can serve as a catalogue of obscurity and whimsy, but we do have inclusion standards and this is very far from passing them. The only coverage I'm able to find is passing mentions in a couple of papers, with the most detailed treatment found in a 1995 paper by Thrall and Antonovics (doi:10.1139/b95-385), which has half a paragraph explaining why 40 meters is a convenient size for those surveys. I was thinking the article could be redirected somewhere (Mountain Lake (Virginia)#Mountain Lake Biological Station?), but I don't think there's a way to work even the tiniest mention into the prose without giving it undue weight. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of unusual units of measurement or List of humorous units of measurement. It is sort of cute; it probably can't stretch to an article for the reasons nominator listed; it would be nice if we could preserve it somewhere for the whimsical quality. Atchom (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above. Save the fun, but lose the freestanding article. BD2412 T 05:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, merging somewhere is definitely preferable, but I'm not sure the units of measurement lists are suitable targets: psilon doesn't refer to the length of 40 m as a measurement unit, it refers to a segment of road verge that is being surveyed for campions and that is around 40 m in length. – Uanfala (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of humorous units of measurement; an interesting topic, certainly, but doesn't need a standalone article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be fun, but it is not in common use. The Thrall & Antonovics paper just says "we call this convenient distance a psilon", and the McCauley paper runs with that and says this distance is "known as psilon". Two groups of scientists sharing a whimsical nickname does not encyclopedic material make. We call fledgling African penguins of a certain age (prone to puking on slight provocation) "horkers", and have used that term in a published table because we thought we could get away with it. If anyone wanted to put that into an article I wouldn't let their feet touch the ground. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the scientific version of WP:ONEDAY, do not merge, per Elmidae. Sandstein 13:23, 23 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 00:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS family[edit]

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

Not enough to meet WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:SPINOUT in my opinion. This is simply content pasted from each model's lead.

We have Nintendo DS#Later models summarizing each model. We have Seventh generation of video game consoles#Handheld game console comparison with a concise table, as well as Nintendo video game consoles.

Also, I do not believe moving this table to Nintendo DS is appropriate. Seems like undue weight. That article should focus on the original model: Player interaction with games, sales, and reception. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary spin out of Nintendo DS article. Pretty certain there has been consensus to eliminate similar articles as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, Nintendo 3DS family was merged due to a strong consensus here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. As mentioned above, the content is already mentioned in nearly two other places. --MuZemike 11:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless fork of a more concise article. AnM2002 (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I feel as this article could be useful as a List article, but due to that not being what this article is, I vote to delete it, perhaps we could create List_Of_Nintendo_DS_Systems — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator pretty much sums this one up well. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Gabe114 (talk) 12:51, 22 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.