Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

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 12:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Fish[edit]

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

Not notable without reliable independent media coverage page, possible promotion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Fish - result was soft delete. Nothing changed. ЖуковАФ (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a Russian language Wikipedia page which I linked. It contains a number of references, some of which appear to be reliable. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the Russian media landscape can assess if the sources are enough to satisfy WP:GNG and include them on the English language page. I agree that this may be promotional but if the subject is notable that could be fixed through editing rather than deletion. Chagropango (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our English language guidelines for companies can be found at WP:NCORP. Russian wiki has entirely different rules which are far more relaxed. I've looked at the sources and its just regurgitated company PR from the CEO which appears to be the entirety of the sourcing available. HighKing++ 13:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. What we have in the sources are all based on information provided by the company, interviews with the CEO. Pretty much regurgitated PR. None of that meets NCORP. HighKing++ 13:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I looked into sources on the Russian version. I can't say for sure that they are all pure PR, as some of the material is not explicitly affiliated, but in my opinion independent coverage is still not enough. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sucker hole[edit]

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

This seems like a fairly unremarkable and unexpandable dicdef, largely unsourced. No objection to merging if an appropriate target can be found, but I see nothing meriting an article here. BD2412 T 23:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azee Ntwene[edit]

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

Music company CEO doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just some passing mentions in sources, no substantial coverage of the subject of the article itself --Tristario (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only possible notable achievement is winning at a ceremony called the Ashanti Music Awards, but that event has no reliable news coverage and is only promoted in its own social media and Ghanaian entertainment gossip sites. (Not a "major music award" per WP:MUSICBIO #8.) Otherwise, this producer is affiliated with some known musicians but does not inherit notability from them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 26 November 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 Fuel economy in automobiles#United States. with the option to merge sourced content. The arguments against a standalone article are substantively stronger, given the tangential nature of the coverage and content discussed here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gas-guzzler[edit]

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

The lead states that the article is about the phrase "gas-guzzler", but the body has sections on "Reasons for bad fuel economy", "Means to decrease fuel consumption", and "Gas Guzzler Tax" and does not say a single thing about the phrase "gas-guzzler". All of the content in the page could be placed elsewhere. Mucube (talk) 21:54, 25 November 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. I don't think I've seen an instance of an article creator and almost sole contributor bringing one of their articles to AFD before but I guess you believe existing problems can not be fixed through editing. This makes the situation more complex than if you had requested speedy deletion, CSD G7 but not impossible if you would like to work on this article in User or Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoobi[edit]

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

This is a self-nomination; it has been brought to my attention that the coverage of this topic may not be enough to satisfy the notability criteria set by WP:ORG. Of the 15 sources used, 4 are non-independent, while another 4 are of generally dubious reliability. The coverage by the remaining 7 is somewhat limited. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. I wrote a note at Talk:Yoobi, my opinion probably will be controversial but I think WP:NCORP is weakly failed. Many of the references are non-independent, non-reliable (1, see short RSN discussion; 2, with no editorial policies, 3, a contributor piece, 4, non-RS per WP:RSP). Other independent, reliable sources are mainly product coverage (e.g., The NY Times is a product review, but doesn't describe the company broadly), routine announcements on partnerships... but there are a few worth discussing. This reference from People primarily surrounds its product instead of about its company. WP:NCORP states that Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Then, it covers the company entirely in quotes without providing any detailed commentary that would meet Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth, IMO it falls under ndard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage. and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The reference from CNBC is better and significantly longer. However, it doesn't exclusively discuss the company, but instead more general details on Leffle and Cortez, and uses quotes, sales details, and brief coverage of its mission along with some more detailed coverage of philanthropic rfforts and other company events at the end, which lean on the trivial side, so it debatably meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The Billboard reference is certainly WP:RS, but as it is an announcement on the launch of a limited-edition back-to-school collection with content mainly quotes, it probably doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. There are many references per my WP:BEFORE, though they don't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, e.g., 1, 2 (contributor piece), 3 (The Australian Daily Telegraph is a questionably reliable tabloid), 4 (announcement on store opening). Therefore, I am at weak delete, nevertheless, the article is well-written and if a merge/redirect target could be found that would be preferable as a WP:ATD in contrast to deletion. Thanks, An anonymous username, not my real name and Jamiebuba (who were discussing or pinged on talk), please let me know if there are valid alternatives to deletion, if so please ping me. VickKiang (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with the analysis above, none of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:36, 2 December 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. There was a lack of policy-related argument going on in this AFD discussion, except for accusations of OR and SYNTH which weren't backed up with examples or diffs of where these bad practices occurred. And I estimate ~180 edits have been made to this article since this AFD was opened way back on Oct. 18th, so the article has been actively improved. This discussion has been relisted 3 times and we are now in December so I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus. Problems that are seen as still remaining can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State collapse[edit]

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

This is a personal essay written primarily by one editor (User:Crawiki). "State collapse" is a vague general term that this article has turned into an umbrella term for concepts like failed states, coups and revolutions (if there's any content worth keeping from this article, it can be merged with any of those articles). The article does cite a lot of things but these citations are WP:SYNTHESIS, as the citations are not about "state collapse" – they are just cobbled together to imply something that the sources do not say. Thenightaway (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In August Thenightaway proposed merging State collapse with Failed state. This received zero support. I explained, step by step, why it was a bad idea. The proposal to delete contains exactly the same vague, unsupported opinions.
This is a personal essay. No evidence is provided in support of this sweeping allegation. A personal essay implies that it is shot through with my own opinions. Where in the article does this occur?
...written primarily by one editor. The article was written in 2017 in detailed collaboration with Rwood128 and Nihil novi and amended by numerous other editors since.
"State collapse" is a vague general term Not so. the term 'state collapse' is precisely defined in the lead to the article. There are numerous scholarly articles on the internet where the phrase 'state collapse' occurs in the heading.
...that this article has turned into an umbrella term. So, what? 'Power' is an umbrella term for electricity, gas, wind, wave etc. There is nothing wrong per se with umbrella terms.
if there's any content worth keeping from this article, it can be merged with failed states, coups and revolutions. That would be a Category mistake because you would be attempting to blend a flow concept with a stock concept, see Stock and flow article. Flow is a process, stock is an end-product. To give an explanatory example, income such as a pay packet is a flow; wealth, such as a gold bar, is a stock. State collapse is a negative form of FLOW - (there is decreasing governance) whereas a failed state is a situation where the STOCK of governance has dwindled to zero - a situation of 'every man for himself' where central organisation of law, defence etc is absent. You would not attempt to merge an article on 'rivers' with one on 'sea'.
The article does cite a lot of things but these citations are WP:SYNTHESIS. No evidence is offered in support of this allegation. As I pointed out previously, synth is not presumed. The onus is on Thenightaway to point out where synth occurs.
the citations are not about "state collapse" – they are just cobbled together to imply something that the sources do not say. This observation is unsupported by any evidence. Please specify where and how the 'cobbling and implying' occurs? Crawiki (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article defines state collapse as "the complete failure of a mode of government within a sovereign state", which is not a precise definition and is not sourced to anything. A merger proposal ended with "no consensus" because it had no participation from anyone aside from you. But that's fine – this is more appropriate as an AfD case than a merger case. Thenightaway (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. The definition has now been sourced. Re more appropriate as an AfD case, I am not convinced that is so. People do not normally deploy plan B ahead of plan A. Read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid. Comments made thus far by User:The nightaway are almost entirely contradiction rather than refutation.
A good point. Important to emphasise that state collapse is a process, whereas failed state is 9sometimes) an end-product. Definition amended to reflect this. Crawiki (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significantly more general subject than failed state, and there is a lot of literature about it including books (e.g. [1],[2],[3], [4], and so on and so on). Hence, this is valid page. Yes, perhaps it could be improved. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three of those four sources appear linked to the work of one person, 'Alexandros Yannis'. One is Yannis's PhD thesis and two are pieces from a special issue organized by Yannis in a low-tier journal. The 4th source is a low-tier academic press book. Do these sources actually define state collapse in a way that distinguishes it from the numerous interchangeable terms? I looked at the introduction to the special issue and the term is defined in a very hazy way. Is there anything to indicate that this is more than a vague general term that some people have happened to use? Thenightaway (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The search through Scholar [5] and books reveals lots of other sources apparently on this subject, I just randomly picked a few. Not being an expert, I can't say if this is stable scientific terminology rather than just an expression. My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a important article on an important concept. I would support a merge at best... Mr vili (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Currently is cobbled together, with a lot of synthesis, into a loosely organized personal essay. Sourcing is largely awful - country-specific news clippings that never use the term/phrase or discuss it in detail. To the extent this is a unified concept in international relations or political science theory, (1) this article is a clear WP:TNT case and (2) can be covered with in other articles. Neutralitytalk 16:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take the time to read my foregoing comments. To repeat; synth cannot be presumed. If you wish to allege SYNTH, you have to specify where and how it occurs. Similarly, 'personal essay'; where have I inserted my own opinions? Be specific. 'Can be covered with in other articles'? Please specify which you have in mind?? I have explained several times, (1), here, (2) in the recent merge discussion, and (3) on the talk page, why it is not suitable for merging
    [reply] Crawiki (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very few (almost none) of the sources cited actually discuss state collapse as a concept. Cobbling together random news stories that say “X government might collapse” or “Y has collapsed” is not good sourcing for an article on “state collapse.” Some never use the phrase at all… The article just assembles loosely collected historical anecdotes, rather than relying on academic journal articles, university press-published books, etc., on the concept. To the extent this is an actual concept, it could be covered in articles on state capacity, fragile state, failed state, and many others. Neutralitytalk 18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very little (almost nothing) of what you say is actually true. 'almost none discuss state collapse as a concept' is false. None of the news stories are 'random' or 'cobbled together'. 'not good sourcing' and 'loosely collected anecdotes' is just mudslinging. State collapse is a process, analogous to a car tumbling down a cliff and falling apart. It differs therefore from failed state (analogous to a wrecked car), from state capacity (analogous to manufacturer's stats, horsepower, top speed etc) and from coup (analogous to car theft or hijack). I say again, read my previous comments, you obviously have not done so. Crawiki (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand your article is actually WP:OR (therefore subject to WP:TNT), specifically WP:SYNTH (combining multiple sources to make a conclusion that isn't in reliable sources)? Wikipedia is not for original research and you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here. 110.136.129.154 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you read the comment at the top of this discussion, and took it as gospel. But let's stick to the facts, shall we? First of all, it is NOT 'my article', never has been, and never will be. It is merely an article to which I made a major contribution. Nobody 'owns' Wikipedia articles, see WP:OWN. Second, if you want to allege OR and SYNTH, you should provide evidence. Third, 'you should either post somewhere else rather than to Wikipedia, or cite with reliable sources rather than posting WP:OR bullshit here' is a violation of WP:PA. Good day to you. Crawiki (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I agree with you. I forgot that nobody own Wikipedia pages and my accusations are actually baseless (alleging without evidence). 110.136.129.154 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, as said numerous times above, SYNTH is not presumed. You need to provide evidence that the article says, or implies that A is true, B is true, therefore C is also true. If you can do that, I'll be more than happy to make changes. Otherwise your comment is merely WP: I just don't like it Crawiki (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I need to find time to review this further, but GScholar does show the term is widely used, the article appears to be referenced, and I am not convinced this is the same topic as failed state (it's related but state collapse is a process, failed state is the outcome, and only one of several for state collapse). I will try to read Talk:Failed_state#Merger_proposal too, but for now I think this doesn't need WP:TNT. Do ping me if you want to tell me I missed some obvious problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think this needs TNT. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is fixable. I started fixing the first few paragraphs. With nearly 100 editors editing over 10 years, with uneven access to sources, it is understandable how it got to this point. It just needs a thorough check against all the sources from beginning to end, and everything unsourced or which fails verification should be removed. It also needed to be clearer that a lot of the concepts discussed are contested and that there isn't necessarily a single "correct" interpretation in many cases. Anyway I've at least started the process. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, primarily on the strength of the willingness of editors to bring this up to encyclopedic standards. The subject is notable, and can be improved. BD2412 T 01:31, 26 November 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! 20:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pets As Therapy[edit]

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

Article about a UK charity which only has one non-primary source - a local news story about a non-notable award. Searching Google News only brings up local news stories and, while there's a good few of these, none of them establish significant coverage of the charity. "Pets as Therapy" throws up a number of results on Google Scholar but everything I have seen so far just uses the term in a generic (and not always consistent) way, without referring to the charity. WJ94 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 - A local news story, so not providing significant coverage according to WP:AUD. Also the article is mainly about the hospital and the dogs, with the charity receiving one sentence.
  • 2 - This is a guest post in the magazine Dogs Today. The post is written by Little Bramingham Farm, which is the care home where these therapy dogs are being used, so is not independent. And even then, the charity only receives on short paragraph of coverage, which is entirely a quotation from the owner of one of the dogs.
  • 3 - This is about Cariad Pet Therapy; "Pets as Therapy" does not appear in the article.
  • 4 - A local news story about someone winning a local award for long service. The article isn't about Pets as Therapy, which gets a very brief one-sentence mention.
  • 5 - This is a regional story about a man whose recovery was aided by therapy dogs. Pets as Therapy is not the focus of the article (it's not even clear if the dog which helped this man is connected to the charity) but receives a one-sentence mention.
  • 6 - A local news story about the charity's work with children's vaccinations. The charity is discussed in a little detail, but as a local source fails WP:AUD.
Overall, none of these provide the level of coverage required to pass GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain more insight from additional editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 19:54, 25 November 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! 20:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Bortă[edit]

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

Footballer who played a couple of seasons in Moldova then disappeared. Even a Romanian language source search comes up with nothing decent about him. WP:SPORTBASIC specifically states that database profile pages do not confer notability. Best sources that I can find are Mold Football and Publika both of which only mention Bortă once and fall way short of WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:55, 25 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Benkabouche[edit]

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

I can't find anything in reputable sources about Benkabouche. Nothing in Google Books, ProQuest or Google that is of any use. All I can find is his own website and social media accounts. Looks to fail WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review, however, please note that this is a biography of an emerging audiovisual artist instead of a academic researcher or book writer, which explains why there is nothing related to him in ProQuest or Google Books. MelindaWg (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MelindaWg -- two of the three sources are IMDB. MurrayGreshler (talk) 18:31, 30 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Duah Kwaku[edit]

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

Can't find anything to suggest that he meets criteria. The only sources that I can find are stats sites like Soccerway and Global Sports Archive so looks like a failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Peart[edit]

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

Got a god bit of transitory coverage, but fails WP:BLP1E, no apparent coverage since. There was. however, a TV movie made in 2006, but I don't see any lasting impact or notability. Since then, he appears to have commented from time to time on social issues, again with no particular widespread notice. The previous discussion took place in 2011, and closed with no consensus. I see nothing in the past 11 years that has happened to provide notability beyond the single event. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hélder Arruda[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. He played 43 mins of professional football and then disappeared. Local paper Açoriano Oriental is one of the shortest transfer announcements that I've ever seen. Portugoal has 2 sentences on him. I searched him up on ProQuest and found some trivial mentions which also don't count towards notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's a decent source but not enough on its own. Please ping me if another source with the same amount of depth but with different content is found. The source would need to be completely independent too of course. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nomination. Doesn't appear to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Govvy (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Cameron, Texas explosion[edit]

2021 Cameron, Texas explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Isn't very notable - just an explosion which caused no injuries or deaths and a bit of damage. greyzxq talk 16:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Literally per the article: "no loss of life or injuries were reported". This does not meet WP:LASTING. The sentence "Footage of the explosion and thick black smoke from the fire made international news" is quite funny, as this claim is only sourced to BBC News (which, while reliable and an international news source, is still a news source). So this also does not meet WP:NOTNEWS. I also could not find further reliable sources indicating that this exceeded WP:MILL. The fact that my comment is equal to the length of the entire article doesn't bode well for this nomination, either. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adequately discussed at Cameron, Texas (although that text could use some cleanup for tone) and insufficient coverage to warrant a standalone article. --Kinu t/c 14:43, 28 November 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! 06:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Jenkins DeLonge[edit]

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

Doesn't seem independently notable - suggesting a redirect to Tom DeLonge LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 November 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 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990#Case law. Star Mississippi 04:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ADA Litigation in the United States[edit]

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

The article is redundant with Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990#Case law, which is a better, more discoverable place for this content. Other articles on US laws, such as Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, lack a comparable sub-article. I propose merging the content and turning this page into a redirect. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 November 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 13:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felicis Ventures[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Coverage is routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS. UPE. scope_creepTalk 11:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. AllyD (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO - sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH due to trivial coverage of capital transaction[s], such as raised capital, expansions, acquisitions, and hiring [...] of personnel, and sources, e.g. Forbes and Silicon Valley Business Journal, lack WP:ORGIND due to reliance on statements from people connected to the company for articles summarizing promotional announcements. An online search finds more overt press releases and trivial coverage. Also, Silicon Valley Business Journal is a product of American City Business Journals, which describes itself as offering "business leaders many avenues for making connections and gives them a competitive edge locally, regionally and nationally. ACBJ is the premier media solutions platform for companies that target business decision-makers", so appears to generally lack independence from the subjects of its coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 25 November 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 13:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethos (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Routine business funding news. UPE. scope_creepTalk 11:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advertisement masquerading as an article per WP:PROMO and a lack of support for WP:NCORP. There is trivial coverage of capital transaction[s], such as raised capital, annual financial results, and inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of" (the source in the article is marked "Ad" with Ethos listed as "our Partner" by Money magazine), and a source "written and/or published as a collaboration between Benzinga’s in-house sponsored content team and a financial partner of Benzinga." An online search finds similar results with more overt press releases. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 25 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) OliveYouBean (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion (novel)[edit]

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

Having looked at the previous AfD, looked through the sources, and done a WP:BEFORE search, I do not think this article satisfies WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. None of the online sources constitute significant independent coverage, and the offline source I was able to access (AHistory) only contains a two-paragraph plot summary in the context of a timeline of the fictional universe of Doctor Who (weirdly this source doesn't actually support all of the text it purports to support). OliveYouBean (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was one of the most consequential of the Missing Adventures novels, and it received a subsequent audio adaptation as well. It satisfies WP:GNG. The DWM review by David Owen is substantial. The book is also covered in David J Howe's "The Who Adventures" (Telos Publishing, ISBN 9781845831851). The article could do with some improvement; I'll see about finding more resources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work expanding the article, including adding several citations of various sorts: there's a primary source [8], and some shorter references [9][10][11], as well as two longer online articles [12][13] and a review in the magazine Starburst (magazine) of the audio adaptation.[14] I'll try to do some more later. Bondegezou (talk) 11:23, 25 November 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upinder Kaur Ahluwalia[edit]

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

Mayors of a small cities are not notable to have an independent article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editors arguments above, seems notable enough though hopefully additional information can be added to the article to make it less of a stub. BogLogs (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gereja GMIBM Efrata Modisi[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability for this church, sources are primary or routine. Fram (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and my own standards for churches. I have not read such a confusing article here in months. I think it might be a machine translation. Even if it were kept in spite of the poor writing, I'm not sure it's notable. It fails simple concepts like "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time." It is not "more than 100 years old, [nor a] Heritage Site, [nor] designed by a notable architect, [nor has it] had two or more notable congregants, [nor] notable for its church ... music..." Bearian (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't seem notable. Also if an argument was to made about membership, the article says at one point they had 85,000 members but as of 2022 they have only 1,424 member and 600 weekly attendees. Seems like a pretty typical place of worship. BogLogs (talk) 12:22, 25 November 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. Ordinarily, I'd relist this discussion again but I'm not optimistic that anything here would change after another 7 days of an open discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Studdah Man De Vore[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of notability, written entirely by subject. Would WP:BLPPROD but apparently someone already did that long ago. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 09:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That comment makes no sense. With the blue link to WP:BEFORE, are you accusing the nominator of not doing the research? On what grounds? Or are you inviting someone to do it? Why not do it yourself? And by the way, the guy is not called "Sean Studdah Man De Vore" which is the title of the article under discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:08, 25 November 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. It's snowing. Star Mississippi 04:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines by Education[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, a cross-categorization of two largely independent characteristics, in a list which gives very little info on their education anyway. Fram (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic and trivial cross-categorization. Dronebogus (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not the purpose of an encyclopedia. BogLogs (talk) 12:24, 25 November 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. Consensus is that there aren't secondary sources establishing WP:GNG. If the page creator would like to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Human Rights Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Article only cites the org's own website, and a search finds nothing even approaching RS sigcov (some press mentions, yes, but these are the org commenting on matters, rather than anyone writing about the org). Was copypaste moved into mainspace past AfC. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did a cursory look for sources and found nothing independent. Seems like it might be a snowjob. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I, too, fail to find any sources to show notability. The first few sentences are copied from Human Rights Watch, but unlike HRW, this organisation doesn't have solid sourcing in independent reliable sources to support these claims. A search for news sources only give me press releases from the organisation, and they are all pretty recent and deal with India or Pakistan related topics. In addition, I found this, from geo.tv which is not impartial but not obviously unreliable per this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 10:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete - The organization have even one milion of followers in Twitter and also 25k followers on Instagram, and should have an article in Wikipedia to differenciate this organization name with oder NGO's like Human Rights Foundation or Human Rights Watch. There are also relevant public newspaper comenting the organization. Is an error to eliminate the article. Wikijahnn (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then your job as the article creator is to cite those "relevant public newspaper comenting the organization" (sic); I carried out a BEFORE search and didn't find any. (Numbers of social media followers and similar metrics are irrelevant in what comes to notability.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Lotfian[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Unable to find any substantial coverage about this player. JTtheOG (talk) 07:09, 25 November 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 Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda. This is a very difficult AFD discussion to parse. This redirect result is the only concrete proposal that has emerged after 3 relistings of this discussion. But if this article reappears in the future, I'd say that this AFD closure is definitely ambiguous. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simonverse[edit]

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

This seems like a bit of a strange one. I guess I would call it a notability issue. See, what I noticed is that the only sources in this article that support the inclusion of these series in this collected 'verse are from Twitter. I don't know if there are any special considerations for book series that have multiple notable entries, which this clearly does, but I'm not sure if that's enough to call this an established series. A few stray tweets from the authors isn't enough for notability in my experience. And the only sources I've seen that use the name "Simonverse" are only discussing Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda and its direct sequels and adaptations thereof, not The Hate U Give or anything else. I guess a redirect to Simon would be most appropriate. QuietHere (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, and Television. QuietHere (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take a look through the Google News sources. 'Simonverse' appears to be used by multiple sources included in GNews that I am not familiar with. Unless all or all but one of them are non-RS (doubtful) this is probably OK. So, even if Twitter is being cited, real RS do appear to use the term, which would make it notable. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's kinda what I was trying to touch on to begin with. It's more of a question of if Twitter primary sources alone would be enough for WP to list those items as part of the series. I'm not saying the term itself isn't being used by reliable sources, but that those sources aren't including the non-Simon books so the article is only going off of primaries, and I'm not sure if that's proper form. I guess calling it a notability issue is incorrect after all, and AfD probably isn't the right venue for this discussion, but there's still at least something that needs looked at here. QuietHere (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that is a bit of a different question. You've got 1) "Is the entire concept notable?" which I think is yes, and 2) "Is the article content reflecting what RS'es say about the concept?" and THAT is a WP:BURDEN question that doesn't need to be solved in AfD. Unfortunately, AfD is often the most effective way to get eyes on any question of article content. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've thought about this more and maybe this is worth keeping here, just not on notability grounds. Basically what I've realised is that without The Hate U Give, Dear Martin, On the Come Up, or Concrete Rose, this is just an article on the four books of Becky Albertalli's Creekwood series, and with a complete change in scope there's no point in keeping this page. At most it appears to better belong as a parenthetical AKA listed in a hypothetical Creekwood series article, with this page being redirected there. That article doesn't exist (the link redirects back to a section of the Simonverse page) but given the notability of at least the first two books it could probably be made. I know I probably can't exactly vote for a redirect to a nonexistent article, but at least this means this AfD makes sense after all. Good thing I waited before posting the withdrawal I had ready.
    To summarise, my official vote is still to redirect as I said before, but with the added footnote that if the Creekwood series article is ever made then the redirect should be moved there instead. QuietHere (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The series also crossover briefly in the books though, which is when about I made the article for this page. Both Starr Carter (from the Garden Heights series) and SJ (from the Dear Martin series) are mentioned directly in Love, Creekwood. The connection happens in the book as well, it's just the relationship is more clarified via twitter directly by the authors, which I understand Twitter not being necessarily the best source, but it's also straight from the authors themselves. I wish I could find more articles or knew how to reference the books themselves, but the connection being established in the books themselves to me warrants this as an official shared universe. If there's a way to include the book as a primary source for the connection I'll gladly add it, but I'm honestly still not used to how to make sources the best. Boneil0898 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Rename as WP:ATD. The sources don't really cover this universe but they do cover the series. These novels are related and a broad concept article about them would be valid. Archrogue (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Archrogue rename to what? Redirect to Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda as I said above or somewhere else? When you say "they do cover the series", which series are you referring to? QuietHere (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you are going to propose a rename or redirect, please state what name you are advocating or what target this page should be redirected to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating at this time that my vote is to redirect to Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda. That's the most appropriate target currently available in my view. QuietHere (talk) 06:26, 25 November 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afshan Ahmed[edit]

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

BLP of a singer of questionable notability. Her career was mainly in pre-Internet days which complicates things, but I see 1. No corresponding article in any Pakistani language 2. The en.wiki article built mostly on passing mentions with little in-depth coverage 3. A search in Shahmukhi produces nothing more (there may be more in Gurmukhi that I can’t search in). Overall lack of in depth coverage in multiple RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nominator's rationale. The only halfway-decent source is [15] but that is not nearly sufficient enough. I couldn't find anything myself. Subject as far as I can tell didn't even make the songs she is apparently famous for singing, which throws out almost all of WP:NSINGER. The programs she apparently is known for don't even even have articles (unless I'm blind, which the jury is still out on that) so we cannot redirect. —Sirdog (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is a singer, not songwriter or composer. The ARY News source also give pretty significant coverage of her. It also contains a 3 minutes video report: "A look at Afshan Ahmed's singing career", but it is in Urdu language. Being a pre-internet celebrity, she does not have that much online presence as compared to modern singers because many of Urdu sources and tv magazines have not been digitized like English. But when even the recent media refers her as "legendary", "famous", or "senior" singer, this tells something about her status. Note what the first source says about her: "Afshan Ahmad is a known name, having performed on television in the past". Insight 3 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have stricken mention of song creation as it was thoroughly ridiculous to mention in this circumstance. I appreciate the feedback given to me by the editors here regarding that comment. I'll re-evaluate the subject and sources later this evening when I have more time. —Sirdog (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon re-evaluation, I believe that despite my ignorant comment that my standing rationale is sound. My desired outcome remains the same. —Sirdog (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought it was common knowledge that in India and Pakistan, playback singers are hired by Television and Film composers to sing songs for them... and NOT to 'make songs'. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One semi decent source above, I can't find any online. If we had more paper sources perhaps we'd keep it, but I don't see notability at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Afshan is a well known singer of 80s and 90s the sources dawn news as well ARY News has a small detail about her and i added a source about her mother who used to sing in films. It is mention right that in India and Pakistan, playback singers are hired by Television and Film composers, they don't make songs.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:4914:896B:6542:2441 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Singers do sometimes perform in certain events for example Awards shows and it's normal. The sources seem to pass WP:PASSINGMENTIONS.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:1578:E4DA:CFB1:2F9F (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are some good sources:
  1. The Dawn source covers her career pretty significantly.
  2. The ARY News presents her as a legendary singer with some info about her career. This source also shares a video documentary (in Urdu; powered by dailymotion): A look at Afshan Ahmed's singing career
  3. The Daily Jang source verifies her career as: "Many children became big singers from Sohail Rana's program. Afshan Ahmed is a bright example of this. Afshan Ahmed's mother Asma Ahmed was also a great singer. Afshan Ahmed sang children's songs. Then started appearing in commercials and later became a number one singer." (google translation)

Given her pre-internet career, these sources should suffice to establish her notability. Insight 3 (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep More than enough news coverage suggested above and at the article, I'm convinced the person is notable and worth keeping on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 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 Labrador-Grenfell Health. I'll note that this AFD nomination was done by a sockpuppet but the two participating editors believed that this article should be converted into a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health Labrador Corporation[edit]

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

Nominating for procedural reasons, minimal sourcing and I am not sure it meets WIKI:GNG. --IMR2000 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Its a plausible search term, but the history can be noted on the page of the current entity managing Labrador healthcare. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:10, 25 November 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. There is a strong consensus that this article is a content fork and any sourced content is better placed in other, existing articles on the subject of governance in the U.S. Additionally, the only editors advocating Keeping this article are the article creator and an editor who provided no Keep rationale. So to me, this decision seems close to unanimous. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy in the United States[edit]

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

The "Bureaucracy of the United States" isn't a separate entity—the content of this article can be (and is) explained better in Federal government of the United States. Lead section is directly copied from here. All sources given and that I could find use the term "Federal Bureaucracy" and "Bureaucracy of the United States" to refer to the organization of the Executive Branch of the US. Plagued with original research as there's not any WP:V sources that explain the bureaucracy of America that isn't already in here. WP:PROD failed and not enough salvageable content to merge as it's all included in Federal government of the United States. Written as an essay. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, this seems to overlap with the Executive Branch section of the Federal government of the United States page, and the part that doesn't suffers from, and will continue to be prone to, WP:OR (and confusion), because of the word "bureaucracy" which isn't actually a formal term for a U.S. governmental entity. That said, if someone wants to add well-sourced, neutrally presented information/assessments of "bureaucracy in the United States" somewhere in the future, a good place for it might be the main Bureaucracy article itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do mean by "if someone wants to add well-sourced, neutrally presented"? What's the problem with these sources? [1].[2][3][4] If you think that the problem is that the term "bureaucracy" being informal, then we can discuss adding "informal" to the top of the article. It's that simple. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    that the term "bureaucracy" being informal, then we can discuss adding "informal" to the top of the article.—the issue isn't the formality of the term. The issue is that it violates WP:FORUM:

    original ideas, defining terms, coining new words

    The notion that the "Bureaucracy of the United States" is its own federal body violates the above. The sources, once again, use the term bureaucracy to refer to the departments of the Executive Branch as they go into detail about the Executive Branch in their content but use the term as a shorthand. Even if the sources met WP:SIGCOV for this term, it is better explained in the context of all the other branches of the US government hence the article Federal government of the United States. I would propose a merge but all content in the nominated article is already included in the articles mentioned in this discussion already. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 17:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the issue isn't the formality of the term. The issue is that it violates WP:FORUM: original ideas, defining terms, coining new words you keep saying the same thing again and again! Again, I did NOT make up these terms, I took them from the cited sources. Thus, I did not violate any rule.
The sources, once again, use the term bureaucracy to refer to the departments of the Executive Branch as they go into detail about the Executive Branch in their content but use the term as a shorthand. once again, please back your claim. Repeating yourself won't make your claims correct. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand you took them from sources. However, just because a source mentions something doesn't mean that the "Bureaucracy of the United States" is an independent body. It is not an entity. We should be using these sources to improve articles that have the context to explain this without synthesis or OR. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 21:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every single information in the article is cited with reliable source that is verifiable. You could've checked these sources and knew that I didn't add anything from my head if you've read the article to the end. No information is WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR because I copied and pasted the text from the sources into the article after rewording it. Please, tell me what's the problem with these sources?[5][6][7].[2][1] All of them mentioned the term "bureaucracy" and "United States" explicitly! I did NOT add ANY source that didn't say "bureaucracy" AND "United States" explicitly! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's even worse. Copying and pasting is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    after rewording itThe★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Regarding the lead section, I can fix it and replace it with a well-sourced one.
2. "All sources given and that I could find use the term "Federal Bureaucracy" and "Bureaucracy of the United States" to refer to the organization of the Executive Branch of the US. so what? The article is trying to explain the organization of the executive branch and the term bureaucracy. What's wrong with that?
3. Plagued with original research as there's not any WP:V sources that explain the bureaucracy of America that isn't already in here.
a. No single piece of information in this article exists in the federal government of the United States article. If there's any that I could not notice, please point them out for me so I can discuss that with you.
b. the information being presented in another article does not mean its not verifiable. Because you still can click on the sources and check them for yourself.
c. Written as an essay I don't think it's written as an essay. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is some meaningful content in the page, but it's already included in Federal government of the United States, which has a larger scope which can explain the organization of the Executive Branch in the context of all other parts of government. The article is trying to explain the organization of the executive branch and the term bureaucracy.—if we want to use the US as an example to explain bureaucracy, it should be done in the Bureaucracy article instead of making an article with limited scope that can't be fleshed out without WP:OR. The organization of the Executive Branch should be (and already is) explained in this article—as said in the nomination the "Bureaucracy of the United States" or the "Federal Bureaucracy" is just a concept that refers to the Executive Branch. There's no reliable sources that give this term anything but a passing mention as a shorthand to the Executive Branch. Thus it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. The information in this article can be used to explain bureaucracy in the context of the Executive Branch and in the Bureaucracy article, but as no reliable sources mention this as a separate entity from the Executive Branch it doesn't merit an article. As per WP:FORUM we shouldn't make up terms that don't exist in reliable sources but instead should use "Bureaucracy in the United States" to explain Bureaucracy better by explaining it in the context of the US. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 14:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep repeating yourself without answering my questions. I asked you to point out the information that is already included in the Federal government of the United States. You didn't mention a single example which implies that there isn't any!
    • I never said that this article is trying to use the US as an example of bureaucracy. I said this article is trying to explain the organization of the executive branch and the term bureaucracy.
    • Can you, please, explain with details how this article is an original reseasrch when there is not a single piece of information that is not cited and not a single source that is not verfiable? If you think that the sources are not reliable or not verfiable, the can you explain how?
    • the "Bureaucracy of the United States" or the "Federal Bureaucracy" is just a concept that refers to the Executive Branch— what makes you think so? do you have anything to back up your claim?
    • As per WP:FORUM we shouldn't make up terms that don't exist in reliable sources I already cited multible reliable sources that mention the term. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn't mention a single example which implies that there isn't any! From Federal government of the United States:

      Article II's Appointments Clause provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States" while providing that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

      This excerpt specifically says the President appoints the members of the Executive Branch. This covers what is mentioned in the nominated article.
      From the same article:

      The daily enforcement and administration of federal laws is in the hands of the various federal executive departments, created by Congress to deal with specific areas of national and international affairs.

      This details the structure and the distribution of the Executive Branch's departments which is the entire point of the nominated article and it's explained in better context.
      I already cited multiple reliable sources that mention the term. Right, they do mention it, but they just use it to refer to the Executive Branch. It's not an independent construct. The "Leader of the United States" refers to the President, but the former isn't an official title.
      what makes you think so? do you have anything to back up your claim? All of the sources you give that "explicitly mention" the term "Bureaucracy of the United States" are describing the Executive Branch. In this source you cited, the title is "Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy." As mentioned above, bureaucracy in the context of the US refers to the Executive Branch as it is the body run by unelected and appointed federal officials that make decisions. It's not an independent body.
      Can you, please, explain with details how this article is an original reseasrch From the nominated article:

      When electoral institutions provide clear goals for bureaucracies, provide them with sufficient resources, and give them the freedom to apply their expertise to a problem, bureaucracies function best and can make the most contributions to the process of making policies.

      If this isn't WP:OR, it's certainly a WP:NPOV violation. Normally this wouldn't be grounds for deletion per se, but the WP:FORUM title limits the scope to articles that explicitly mention "American bureaucracy," which only mentions the executive branch, requiring synthesis to merit its inclusion in the nominated article rather than in Federal government of the United States. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 17:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content you quoted from the federal government of the United States is not what the nominated article is about. The nominated article is about the bureaucracy, while the other article is about something different.
This details the structure and the distribution of the Executive Branch's departments which is the entire point of the nominated article and it's explained in better context. this article is not about the Executive Branch structure, it's about how the executive branch (as a whole), along with the independent agencies, work together in creating what is called the American bureaucracy. The structure of the executive branch is not the whole point of this article.
If this isn't WP:OR, it's certainly a WP:NPOV violation this is definitely not WP:OR. If you looked at the sources cited, you would have knew that for yourself. Anyways, I've a cited it to avoid confusion. Regarding neutrality, this does not apply here as I stated raw facts backed with reliable source. I didn't take anyone's side.
bureaucracy in the context of the US refers to the Executive Branch as it is the body run by unelected and appointed federal officials that make decisions.— bureaucracy is bureaucracy. When you claim that it's not, then you'll have to back your claim.
Normally this wouldn't be grounds for deletion per se, but the WP:FORUM title limits the scope to articles that explicitly mention "American bureaucracy," which only mentions the executive branch, requiring synthesis to merit its inclusion in the nominated article rather than in Federal government of the United States — you're wrong. There's tons of sources that mention "Bureaucracy in the United States" just click on the links above next to the title of the article and you’ll see yourself. Plus, bureaucracy is not another term for the executive branch. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the Federal government of the United States explains. It explains how the Executive Branch is structured, its purpose, and how appointments work etc...
bureaucracy is bureaucracy. When you claim that it's not, then you'll have to back your claim.
My claim is that this article does not accomplish anything that is not already mentioned and this article fails WP:FORUM which hasn't been addressed by any !voters.
There's tons of sources that mention "Bureaucracy in the United States"
Yes, but they should be mentioned in here as it's not a separate entity from the Executive Branch. Again, the content of the nominated article can be explained better in the context of others. Also, please add a "* Comment" tag so it's clear what I should reply to. Thanks. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 19:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, the content's place is in this article and the sources that talk about bureaucracy in the United States should be placed in the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion is about whether or not this article is suitable to hold this content in the first place. As explained above, Federal government of the United States would make a better fit and I believe spending time improving that article would make the coverage of this topic better as it can be explained in the context/scope of the entire US government. The nominated article needs synthesis to add any new information that is not already mentioned in other US gov articles.
    No, the content's place is in this article—please explain how it has a place in this article, as it is the root of the discussion. In the section Bureaucracy and Democracy of the nominated article, ignoring the unencyclopedic writing style, its content would be much better explained (and in my opinion, already is) in the context of this article and here. The latter article could benefit from some talk about US bureaucracy as its context fits this topic much better. Bureaucracy already uses certain countries as examples.
    the sources that talk about bureaucracy in the United States should be placed in the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States—as mentioned above, these sources would be an improvement to Federal government of the United States, but the structure of US bureaucracy is already mentioned there and here. As an individual body, it doesn't meet WP:GNG as it's never talked about outside of the context of the Executive Branch/independent agencies, and US bureaucracy isn't a real entity. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 20:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    please explain how it has a place in this article This article is about bureaucracy in the United States, and the sources talk about bureaucracy in the United States, so it's better to place the sources inside the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States, not in the article that talks about federal government. The nominated article is not about the goverment and its structure. It's about the bureaucracy in the United States. The executive branch is part of the bureaucracy so it's part of the article's interest. Thus the article talks about the Executive Branch inside the context of the US bureaucracy (not the government). That makes it part of the topic but not the whole topic.
    US bureaucracy isn't a real entity You might say that it does not exist but the sources I cited say otherwise. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its content would be much better explained (and in my opinion, already is) in the context of this article and here. what you don't understand is that the nominated article and the federal government of the United States article are different from each other. Each one of them is talking about different topic. There are no common factors between them. The first one is about bureaucracy and the latter is about totally different topic (US government). So there's no possible way to merge this article into the latter. Hope this help clarifying things out. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Going to respond to this with a bit of a lengthy response but bear with me here.
    so it's better to place the sources inside the article that talks about the bureaucracy in the United States, not in the article that talks about federal government.—Definition of bureaucracy:

    a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

    See United States federal executive departments#. Describes the departments of the US Executive Branch. Organization is described in the article and also in here. These two articles already fulfil the purposes of the nominated article while providing more context. As mentioned many times above, the sources you keep mentioning are the only ones that can be used and they don't have any new content that isn't described in the two articles I mentioned above. Let me give an example of WP:NOR/WP:INDEPENDENT violations in the nominated article caused by this issue:

    They properly believe that they have a democratic mandate from voters to carry out the political program they promised those voters.

    Clearly not WP:NPOV. Probably due to the vast majority of references in the article (aka the only ones that use the term "Federal Bureaucracy") are tirades against expansion of elected positions in the US. Source is paywalled (as are many of the sources in the article) but from the abstract it's clear that it's not neutral by any means. This issue plagues many of the sources. At least the ones I could access since most of them are inaccessible without paying/just unavailable in its entirety. Obviously this one sentence isn't the basis for the AfD, but it's clear that the other content in this article is sourced from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources. I'll bring up this point later in my analysis of your argument.
    Now on to the second part of this argument, not in the article that talks about federal government. Going back to the definition of bureaucracy above, it is, by definition, referring to the Executive Branch (shortening to EB) The President appoints members of the EB to make the important decisions like deploying troops (Dept. of Defense), managing education (Dept. of Education), etc...
    Evidently the term "bureaucracy" in the context of the US obviously refers to the EB. The US bureaucratic system isn't a special body of the US unless you can supplement that claim with actual WP:V and WP:INDEPENDENT sources unlike those referenced in the nominated article.
    it's about the bureaucracy in the United States. The executive branch is part of the bureaucracy so it's part of the article's interest.
    I'm afraid you've missed the point. The US bureaucracy, by definition (see above), refers to the EB; it isn't actually the EB as it's not an official term (see above). Article was edited to say "...the informal term for..." in the lead section. This doesn't really fix the WP:FORUM issue as it brings in more WP:OR to try and justify its inclusion as a seperate article.
    The nominated article is not about the goverment and its structure. It's about the bureaucracy in the United States. Ah, unfortunately this is a circular argument. The bureaucracy of the US refers to the EB's structure, organization, and functions, all of which are already explained in better context and without the need to include sources tirading for/against bureaucracy as the only information that the nominated article can potentially be justified for inclusion separate from the other ones already mentioned in this AfD. The nominated article has to synthesize these non-independent sources which is doubly bad for the article. There's no merit to keep this synthesis-infested article when we could instead use it to improve others in their respective contexts. Per User:Spinningspark, we should instead use this information to improve the coverage of the history of bureaucratic growth in the US.
    what you don't understand is that the nominated article and the federal government of the United States article are different from each other. Each one of them is talking about different topic. There are no common factors between them. The first one is about bureaucracy and the latter is about totally different topic (US government).—the topic is the same per what I've said above.
    there's no possible way to merge this article into the latter.—this is a false dichotomy you are presenting here. There is some information here we can use to improve other articles. But as mentioned many times in this AfD, this niche title can't be used for proper referencing without infecting this article with synthesis and some original research. I know I've said this 100 times already in this reply, but this topic is better explained in the context of others where synthesis from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources isn't an issue. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 18:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:
As mentioned many times above, the sources you keep mentioning are the only ones that can be used and they don't have any new content that isn't described in the two articles I mentioned above.
false dichotomy. There are many sources as I stated earlier and I'm planning to expand the article with variety of other sources that represent different points of views on the topic.
this article is sourced from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources.
regarding the independent sources, I cited many sources, many of which are independent (unless you have something against Richard Rose book, and Amanda Claybaugh's paper, and Joseph Postell book, and David S. Rohde book to prove that they are non-indpendent).
I assume that the one you mean by non-independent is the one belonging to Kenneth J. Meier (being a former Republican politician). But you keep talking as if the whole sources are non-independent which is hasty generalization.
Let me give an example of WP:NOR/WP:INDEPENDENT violations in the nominated article caused by this issue:

They properly believe that they have a democratic mandate from voters to carry out the political program they promised those voters.

definition of an independent source:

Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved.

David S. Rohde is an American author and investigative journalist who currently serves as the online news director for The New Yorker. He is not under any influence, thus he is independent. Plus, he is a 1996 Pulitzer Prize winner and 2010 Michael Kelly Award winner.
There's no merit to keep this synthesis-infested article
first : as I stated before there is no synthesis in the article. I just rephrased what the sources say. Please explain how the article is " synthesis-infested" with examples?
second: you said earlier that you don't have access to most of the sources because they are paywalled, so how can you claim that the article is "synthesis-infested" without looking at the sources?
But as mentioned many times in this AfD, this niche title can't be used for proper referencing without infecting this article with synthesis and some original research.
And what exactly makes you think that the only way to add more information to this article is through synthesis and original research? Isn't that a "false dichotomy"? There are definitely tons of ways you can add more information to the article! If the title requires you to search harder to add more information, it doesn't mean that original research and synthesis are the only ways!
lastly, If you're accusing this article of being non-nutral then you can add Template:Neutral to the article. This reason is not enough to nominate the article for deletion. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    • Further comment: it appears the line They properly believe that they have a democratic mandate from voters to carry out the political program they promised those voters has been removed. However, I would like to mention that this line shows a larger problem with the article as a whole. For reasons said above, the content can't be expanded without synthesis. Although this is a welcome improvement, I don't believe it fixes the underlying issue. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 23:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: To be honest, I don't understand what the problem with this line, but I removed it anyway to avoid confusion. The original line (which is from this book) is as follows:
      Every modern American president has expressed distrust of career government officials in Washington. They view themselves, correctly, as carrying a democratic mandate from voters to implement the policy platform that they promised voters. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    false dichotomy. There are many sources as I stated earlier and I'm planning to expand the article with variety of other sources that represent different points of views on the topic.
    This argument doesn't address the root issue. The issue with the article is that it has a limited context.
    unless you have something against Richard Rose book, and Amanda Claybaugh's paper, and Joseph Postell book, and David S. Rohde book to prove that they are non-indpendent
    I'll concede some of the sources are independent (but I can't access them). However, the main problem with this article is that the term bureaucracy refers to the EB of the US. It's not a separate entity. You've said this article's purpose isn't to explain the organization of the EB. In that case, what is the purpose of this article? By definition, the term bureaucracy is the collective of non-elected policy-making government officials. It's clear that it refers to the EB. This argument has went unaddressed so far by anyone voting keep: This article's content is better explained in the context of the EB and the individual groups of the departments of the US. I've explained my rationale for this above so I won't get into it again. The main sources in this article, per Spinningspark, are just arguments for/against bureaucracy. I'll WP:AGF that these books you've mentioned are very good sources even though I can't access them (the ones I could access were very clearly one-sided opinionated arguments). Why not use them in Federal government of the United States or explain the connections to the rest of the "US bureaucracy" in the individual departments/agencies' articles? The context of these articles doesn't mean you have to limit yourself to using sources that "explicitly mention" the term "US bureaucracy." Instead of making an article with an unclear purpose we can improve other articles using these said sources.
    first : as I stated before there is no synthesis in the article. I just rephrased what the sources say. Please explain how the article is " synthesis-infested" with examples?
    Maybe it's not so much synthesis as it is the only substantial content that uses the term "US bureaucracy" w/o describing the EB are opinionated pieces failing WP:INDEPENDENT (see this source that provides the only content that seems separate from the EB's structure and organization)
    And what exactly makes you think that the only way to add more information to this article is through synthesis and original research? Isn't that a "false dichotomy"? There are definitely tons of ways you can add more information to the article! If the title requires you to search harder to add more information, it doesn't mean that original research and synthesis are the only ways!
    This is not a false dichotomy, although even if it was it doesn't invalidate the point I'm making here. There are ways you can add content to the article, but you would only be adding content describing the EB and at that point there's no use keeping this article because the context of it is very narrow compared to Federal government of the United States and other possible articles. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 21:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Xx78900 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominated article is about the unelected policy-making body run by federal officials. Perhaps we can expand the Federal government of the United States article to include a sentence or two about about the content in this article but this article explains it pretty well. These two articles already cover the entire scope of the article w/o violating WP:FORUM and being plagued with WP:OR as a result. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 19:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I don't get the point of this at all. Per nom, Federal government of the United States and related articles can cover these concepts, and this doesn't present as a coherent topic here. These sections, especially that on "Independent agencies" which doesn't describe Independent agencies of the United States government, don't relate to each other or present more than standalone facts. It could be draftified perhaps. Reywas92Talk 15:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain with details how the Federal government of the United States and related articles covered these concepts? I searched inside the said article and found that it does not mention this term, not even once. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that they can cover these concepts, not that they do now. Some info could be moved there, while other info is unrelated info that doesn't form a cohesive article on the topic. Reywas92Talk 03:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the CIA , State Department, FBI, Pentagon are the independant agencies. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong and shows a misunderstanding of US government, cementing my vote for deletion. Only the CIA is an independent agency, which is defined as agencies outside of the Cabinet departments. The Pentagon advocating a certain position to the president is hardly a good description of bureaucracy. Reywas92Talk 03:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Rohde, David. IN DEEP: THE FBI, THE CIA, AND THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICA'S 'DEEP STATE'. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-1-324-00355-7.
  2. ^ a b Meier, Kenneth J. "Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy." Public Administration Review, vol. 57, no. 3, 1997, pp. 193–99. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/976648. Accessed 19 Oct. 2022.
  3. ^ Claybaugh, Amanda. "Bureaucracy in America: De Forest's Paperwork" (PDF). Harvard University.
  4. ^ Postell, Joseph (2017). Bureaucracy in America: The Administrative State’s Challenge to Constitutional Government. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-2123-0.
  5. ^ Rose, Richard (1985). Public Employment in Western Nations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
  6. ^ Claybaugh, Amanda. "Bureaucracy in America: De Forest's Paperwork" (PDF). Harvard University.
  7. ^ Postell, Joseph (2017). Bureaucracy in America: The Administrative State’s Challenge to Constitutional Government. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-2123-0.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hestitate to relist this discussion given its length but I think we need to hear from more editors. I need to warn User:Super ninja2, please do not bludgeon the process. It's fine to make inquiries of editors who participate in this discussion but this is not a deposition and other editors don't need to respond to all of your questions if they don't want to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article reads like it was written by someone with an extreme personal distaste for bureaucracy. I'm not sure that it would be the end of the world to have this article in addition to Federal government of the United States but I hope if the article is kept it is edited to be more neutral. Also as an aside the article says bureaucracy started in the Civil War (1861-1865) but weren't there bureaucratic functions of the government as far back as the 18th century? BogLogs (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As has been mentioned by various editors above, most of the sourced information here is better suited to several other articles, and is generally already there. I don't see how this would end up being much more than an essay. Joyous! | Talk 19:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic can be better addressed in Federal government of the United States and associated articles. Edge3 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious content fork per others above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 2 December 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. Ineligible, but no arguments against deleting in two weeks either. Oops, ineligible. Upgrade to regular Regular delete but still uncontested. Star Mississippi 04:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Skorpion Show[edit]

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

Yes this youtube channel is ongoing; To check for notability; I compared this channel to other entries in the category and I looked for additional sources (and quality sources). Some of the other entries in the category had a library of referential support, or were picked up and highlighted by quality sources. After a search I concur with the long standing 2012 notability tag; I see no way to improve the article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS.. there are many youtube channels; some notable some not. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This web show has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 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. There has been little discussion of policy here but there seems to be a consensus here that the content in this article doesn't meet WP:GNG as in the case of my many AFDs involving representations of historical figures/events in popular culture. Some content has been moved to Judah P. Benjamin over the course of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Representations of Judah Benjamin in fiction[edit]

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

De facto a list of representations of Judah Benjamin in fiction. Very low quality (short and unreferenced) violation of WP:IPC/MOS:POPCULTURE ("Sections with lists of miscellaneous information such as "trivia" sections should be avoided"). Split from the main article a few years ago, whereas such a section should've just been blanked, not moved to a dedicated article in mainspace. Also fails WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Popular culture, Lists, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rejecting this extremist interpretation of policy (again); as usual a barrage of policies are referred to without justification. What about WP:BEFORE? None seems to have been done. The article is certainly unreferenced, but the items listed mostly cannot be described as "trivia" or pop culture. Would listifying help? I can't understand this persecution of cultural references articles. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TNT applies. Maybe this is a notable tapic, but nothing here is salvageable. We have those policies for a reason and things that don't meet minimal standards are not fit to be kept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is essentially a list, and nobody has compiled a similar one on this obscure Confederate figure. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The current list itself is not an appropriate list, being an unsourced "pop culture" list that is nothing more than an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of books he appeared in. On top of that, I'm not finding anything that would actually indicate that the concept of fictional depictions of Judah Benjamin is a notable enough topic on its own to need to be split out as its own article. There are mentions of his appearances in pieces of fiction here and there, but there's not enough in the way of significant coverage on that topic in specific that would warrant it being treated as an entirely separate topic for an article, and not just covered in a few sentences in a section on his main article. Merging anything from here to do so, though, would not be appropriate since, again, this is just an unsourced list of trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written. This is entirely unsourced, so there is nothing suitable to merge, which is unfortunate given the vogue of fiction amplifying this subject's historical role due to his unusual circumstances. BD2412 T 01:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cited a few sources in the article, but they are for individual works rather than the general topic. In the pages of ISBN 9780029099117 that Google Books shows me (which include the table of contents and nearly all of the prologue) I can see no evidence that this biographer thought that fictional depictions were worth mentioning. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger May I suggest merging anything you found relevant and cited to the main article about Judah Benjamin? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the page on Judah Benjamin by creating a section entitled "In Popular Media" and putting this list there would be the best course of action. TH1980 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles like this require sources on the overarching topic—i.e. Representations of Judah Benjamin in fiction. Not sources on examples thereof, but sources on the overarching topic. I'm all for such articles—see e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination), and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, just to give some examples of such articles that I've rewritten with proper sourcing during AfDs—but when we don't have the sources for it, the article needs to go, as with WP:Articles for deletion/Tonfa in popular culture. There is no properly sourced content to merge to Judah P. Benjamin, and merging a bunch of unsourced content to a WP:Featured article like that is obviously a bad idea. TompaDompa (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Judah Benjamin. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ficaia Didn't you read the comment just above yours, "merging a bunch of unsourced content to a WP:Featured article like that is obviously a bad idea"? I'll ping the FA main author, User:Wehwalt, for their thoughts... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said we have to merge everything? We could selectively merge the 3 items with an inline citation into a brief "In popular culture" section in the main article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted. Given that this is likely not to end in a deletion, the better place is here. And it is trivial and not appropriate in a biographic article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me expand on this. The main article would benefit from a well-written paragraph, say in the Legacy section, not giving a list of works in which Benjamin appears as a character, which will inevitably become a trivia section, but prose sourced to secondary sources showing how fictional representations of him reflect his legacy. The tabletmag article Ficaial cites would be an appropriate source for such a section, though I'd hope there was more than one such source. But please don't start a list that will inevitably have The Guns of the South and others added to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to do just that. I think it's also a good way to introduce this article through the main article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Keep. I think this article indicates there has been significant coverage of Benjamin's fictional afterlife. Quotes include: "Benjamin’s legacy as an early American Jew, especially as it has been fictionalized, warrants our consideration today. ... Historians and fiction writers alike have viewed his many mysteries and invested them with multiple meanings. ... Benjamin was, if nothing else, a versatile character, and his fictionalizers have exploited that quality of his." 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest using this as a source to expand his biography first, then if that section grows, it can be split off. Nothing in the current article is usable, so WP:TNT applies. But the source is useful for expanding his bio a bit, it's a good start that may grow into something more if further sources are found. Again, however, we need to start with a source, not an ORish essay. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I see this was done. Excellent. This is the way to do it - and we don't need this messy list to show us how NOT to do it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:41, 30 November 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 04:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luzena, Arizona[edit]

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

A rail spot, as best I can determine. Other than its use as the name of a soil series I can't find anything else out. Mangoe (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:NPLACE. Just needs some work to find historical sources. ProofRobust 08:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to have been a railroad station associated with nearby mining, see [16]. No sources located to support this was a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence this is more than a rail stop/track location. It is the name of the quadrangle topo, which shows Luzena as a rail siding with no structures nearby. MB 18:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Action for People with Disabilities in Africa[edit]

Community Action for People with Disabilities in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG, no coverage. 1 of the 2 sources is its own website. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academia Brasileira de Astrologia Védica[edit]

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

No notability, no good source, propaganda JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Friedman[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article has been tagged as only imbd sourced since 2010. Google Search only provides false positives as there are some academics that share the article's subject's name. Lenticel (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything notable either. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be an easy call. There does not appear to be anything notable about this person and no reading for the WP page to exist. I vote to delete the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:26, 26 November 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Smith (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. We have broad consensus that thiel fellows are not inherently notable based on WP:INHERIT and that Forbes "30 under 30" lists do not confer notability. Little is left. There are unresolved questions about notability on the talkpage, and WP:BIO notability criteria are not clearly met. WP:BEFORE yields no (or debatably very little) independent coverage of her at all. FalconK (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree it's an edge case and the article can def be improved, but for me these three give significant coverage in reliable sources: Wired, Startland, Business Journal Mujinga (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These sources rely heavily on interviews with the subject, which seems to work against them being the necessary independent coverage. FalconK (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BASIC - the article would benefit from clean up and expansion based on available reliable sources, but in some sources with interview content, there is also secondary context and commentary that can support notability, and specifically the 2018 Startland and 2019 Wired articles noted above, as well as Erin Smith is Assembling the Next Generation of Female STEM Innovators (Seventeen, 2020). The bizjournals franchise markets itself as advertising so I do not think it contributes to notability. I also found at least more than a passing mention (a full preview is not available) in Stone, Zara (2020). The Future of Science Is Female: The Brilliant Minds Shaping the 21st Century. Mango Publishing. ISBN 9781642503203., and a brief mention in context in Silverstein, Natalie (2022). Simple Acts: The Busy Teen's Guide to Making a Difference. Free Spirit Publishing. p. 102. ISBN 9781631986284. She has also won a fair amount of notable fellowships and awards, which also seems to help support her notability generally. Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wired, Star, and Fox are solid sources. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have updated my !vote after expanding the article and finding more sources, e.g. Lenexa student catches attention of Michael J. Fox Foundation (Kansas City Star, 2016) (and more coverage in 2017). Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I am objecting to "entrepreneur" as the main descriptor for her current occupation is, to me that puts her in WP:TOOSOON category, as she hasn't actually run a business yet. Whereas she already is an established inventor, exact patent status unclear, but winner of the 2022 Young Inventors Prize from the European Patent Office. The distinction to me is that important. There are also Wikipedia editors who will come through and change every occurrence of "entrepreneur" to "businessperson" anyway, and in a way that's even worse for this particular bio. There is no shame in being an inventor – and all the sources are pushing her as a role model for girls and women in STEM. It also doesn't preclude her being a successful entrepreneur in the future. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We could talk about it more on the article Talk page - I added a source that was previously in the lead as support for the term. As to WP:TOOSOON, there is WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of her various accomplishments and the development of the FacePrint technology, as well as information about business development. Multiple independent and reliable sources over time report on her as a prodigy, with substantial progress towards developing a marketable product, which seems to support her notability as more than an inventor - she is really developing the product, not just the idea. Beccaynr (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I wasn't trying to say she wasn't developing the product, or that she wasn't a budding entrepreneur. I don't see why it's such a problem to call her "an inventor and entrepreneur" in the lede, or to use the word "developer" alongside the word "founder". We delete BLPs every day about young and not-so-young entrepreneurs who have won prizes and funding and have lots of vanity coverage about them, so it just seems prudent to avoid putting all her eggs in the "entrepreneur" basket, when the coverage actually says she is more than just someone with an idea claiming to be an entrepreneur. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability established by many edits after the AfD was started. Good sourcing in reliable media. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:22, 1 December 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! 01:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Central Electric Cooperative[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Current references are non-independent (from the company itself), WP:BEFORE found a routine announcement, trivial mention, and another case study in a debatably reliable source that works with Rural Electric Membership Cooperatives to bring fiber to the home to rural communities, it also likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH, almost quoting entirely from Tim Smith, a manager of East Central Electric Cooperative, in most of its sections. VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 25 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Howard (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Note only 1 article links to this article. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_25&oldid=1125236092"