Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 20 April 22 >

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 merge‎ to Tourism in Ontario#Destination Ontario. ✗plicit 05:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Ontario[edit]

Destination Ontario (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)

From what I can see, this article does not meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 again‎ . Although relisted, there wasn't a clear consensus. If the article still isnt improved then this could be nominated again. (non-admin closure) Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Niemann[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paige Niemann (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 was just closed as no consensus, without any improvement to the article. She had her 15 minutes. A clear case of WP:BIO1E, no in-depth coverage other than fluff pieces. Outside of her look-alike status, she has no claim to fame. Might be worth a mention somewhere on the Arianna Grande page, if there was a section on "look-alikes". Onel5969 TT me 22:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm afraid I don't agree with the logic that underlies "I don't think the things she does can confer notability, even if they're repeatedly covered by reliable sources". It's not a 1e question, because the 'e' stands for 'event', not 'employment'. Getting coverage in the press at multiple different points in time, for the same role, is not a 1e problem. In other words, getting lots of coverage for the same event is a problem; getting lots of coverage for the same role, when multiple events happen in the context of that role, is not. I'm afraid you'll need to point out which of the many RSes cited are "fluff pieces", as I can't pinpoint them myself. Also, no new information has been brought to light since the last AfD, so I'm not sure what the cause for a new one is. Pinging all participants of the previous: @Pamzeis, Oaktree b, QuicoleJR, Rodgers V, and Walt Yoder. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I voted merge to the Ariana Grande article last time, she's basically using someone else's fame to be famous.
    Not sure what else you want me to look at? Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still passes GNG. And a career is not "one event", so it passes BLP1E. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I looked again, this is clear BLP1E. Delete. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Borderline notable. Alternatively mention on Ariana Grande article and provide redirect. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is copied from the previous nomination: WP:BLP1E only applies iff all of the three criteria are met: (1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event – not met. RSes have covered her initially going viral on TikTok in 2019 ([1], [2], [3], etc) as well as the controversy about her OnlyFans account ([4], [5]); (2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual – not met. Niemann isn't a low-profile individual; she's (voluntarily) given an interview to a notable, reliable publication (Entertainment Tonight) and participates in self-promotion through her TikTok; (3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented – not really sure what the "event" would be here, but I guess probably going viral on TikTok as a Grande-lookalike? If that's the case, then this one definitely isn't met, as a lot sources covered her virality on TikTok (with her as the subject obviously). TL;DR, none of the criteria listed at BLP1E are met. End of copied text. Yes, if she were not a lookalike, she would not be notable, but that's not an event. That's her role in these events. Pamzeis (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She is obviously not a low profile individual and therefore WP:BLP1E criterion is not met. Please read, it has a specific set of criteria. CT55555(talk) 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage is not sufficient for WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE or WP:NACTOR notability and the article should be excluded per WP:N as WP:PROMO. There is a small flurry of coverage between Nov 26 2019 and Dec 8 2019 that consists of E!News reporting Niemann is a lookalike on Tiktok with 2 million followers, and 145,000 on Instagram, Grande mentioned her on Twitter, quotes from Niemann about Grande's tweet; Teen Vogue reporting what Niemann says about her TikTok impersonation; CBC Kids including her at the top of a list of celebrity lookalikes with 4 sentences, repeating the same information about the follower count and Grande's tweet; NME reporting Grande's tweet and what Neimann said to E!News; Teen Vogue reporting Neimann's interview with Entertainment Tonight, and her previous interview with Teen Vogue. And there are two 2022 sources about criticism of her impersonation previously, including from Grande and Grande fans, and also more recently from Grande fans about her OnlyFans work. Buzzfeed also covers criticism from Grande in 2020. The available coverage lacks the quality, depth, and independence needed to create more than a WP:BROCHURE article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have to agree with the rationale of Pamzeis in this and the prior AFD. Gaining fame from being an impressionist based on a single impression can happen.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 05:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bungee ball[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Article is largely unsourced claims. From the 2 sources provided in the article, I can only establish that 1) some mall kiosks sold "bungee balls" in high volume and 2) a particular brand called "Yo-yo water balls" were (strangely) flammable. I did a few quick Google searches for bungee balls and bungee ball toys, yielding only results for dog toys or tarpaulin tie downs. Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, simply no sources. Fad toys need really clear and reliable sources to prove they are an encyclopedic topic adn this one fails completely.  // Timothy :: talk  21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bouncy ball as the bungee ball product is probably not notable enough for an article, but there's already a collection of similar products building up under "Bouncy ball", and maybe the safety concerns make it an interesting historical relic. It's not accurate to say there are no sources for it when there's a newspaper article about the product cited in the article. An additional citation about a bungee ball product was deleted by the editor above me and has been restored. --Iritscen (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH - not all fads are notable, if they are local and within a certain following. If they are really notable, they can have an article like Pet rock. Not against a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Residence (TV series)[edit]

The Residence (TV series) (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)

May have received tax credits, but there’s no indication that filming has started to make a notable production per WP:NFF/WP:NFTV. - 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this was created on my behalf. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (barely): Three sources from article show N, not all just these three: [6], [7], [8]. Most of the other refs are promo, mentions in articles about other subjects, but these three put it past the GNG finish line.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are good and reliable. I feel it passes GNG, although it could be a bit better. KeineMelon (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft - I'm not seeing confirmation that filming started in those sources. Did I miss it? -WikiPete18 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went through again, but i still dont see it. I think there's good reports, but the spirit of the nomination seems to be that it should be a draft until the production actually starts and gets reported on. -WikiPete18 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Declaration International[edit]

Women's Declaration International (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)

Delete This article is unworthy of Wikipedia, horribly written, confusing, biased, and controlled merciless from edits. If this is what wikipedia is, the article should be deleted. People can find better sources of unbiased information than wikipedia ideologues. Then the activists will have fewer pages to monitor and control. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of garbage that comes up when you search the group on Google News, but the cites already in the article demonstrate notability. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the subject is notable. See Wikipedia:SIRS.
Which are the multiple sources that satisfy the criteria?
There is one from PinkNews (and we can't use any others from PinkNews to establish reliability).
But looking at the other sources in the article: No consensus on WP:RS that Vice is reliable. Neither Common Weal, a think tank, nor Jezebel, a blog, are reliable sources.
There are some Norwegian sources that may count. In good faith, what's the case? AndyGordon (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It seems like OP is just upset that their edits got reverted and is lashing out. Despite ample opportunity they have yet to point out specific issues with the article, mostly just attacking other editors. I guess they're trying to say it's a WP:ATP? But as stated on the talk page, if the majority view of a subject is negative, the article will naturally take a negative tone, per WP:NOTNEUTRAL. --Pokelova (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being practical. Wikipedia can't afford to have articles only written by detractors of any topic, and who revert helpful edits, like moving material to a criticism section rather than every paragraph is filled with "X, but critics say Y" format that activists seem to do when given free rein to write and block edits. Where is "Neutral point of view" under that? Tom Ruen (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought on seeing your recent behaviour was to assume that yours was a recently registered troll account of the sort that we unfortunately see all too often. On looking further, I was shocked and saddened to see that you have been editing since 2004 and that your behaviour here is completely out of character. My second thought was to wonder whether your account had been compromised. Assuming that this is not the case then I implore you to take a break to deal with whatever has triggered this unusual behaviour and then, when you feel able, to go back to constructive editing in the subject areas where you are able to contribute constructively. Please don't throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account over this. DanielRigal (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a "women's rights declaration" being reduced to this summary that doesn't even say what it is for or why? Tom Ruen (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The group is known for publishing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, co-authored by Jeffreys and Brunskell-Evans, which called for the "elimination" of "the practice of transgenderism" and for the UK to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.
  • Procedural speedy keep. No even arguably valid reason has been advanced to delete. The nomination is just an incoherent diatribe that attacks other editors and the project in general. We don't need to waste time on this. Let's just close it. If anybody can see an actual reason to delete then they would be better off starting a new AfD where we can discuss their nomination without being distracted by this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia should not have badly written articles controlled by activists. It is preposterous. It invalidates all of wikipedia when people see this. Better to have no articles that bias. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The more you allege a vague conspiracy theory the less people are going to take you seriously. Please stop. This is helping nobody. DanielRigal (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we need superbly written articles controlled by both activists and detractors. Neutral point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Biased, no, it's neutral and properly sourced. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep. Note that the nominator was pblocked from the article as a result of their edits. I would close this discussion myself if I weren't involved. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This was clearly a WP:POINTy "nomination" by a disruptive editor who has now been blocked for their disruptive edits. The now blocked editor links to their Twitter account which includes such statements as "Transgenderism is a destructive identity" and "Transing children is child abuse," so it's clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. The article seems well-referenced and this is in fact widely considered one of the more extreme anti-trans groups by all credible sources that I've seen. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Delete unless evidence shown and agreed that it meets the criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. [User:AndyGordon|AndyGordon]] (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. People have now kindly provided several links showing it meets the criteria. AndyGordon (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndyGordon. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The group is clearly notable, as demonstrated by the sources in the article. It seems to have the same level of notoriety that LGB Alliance and Women's Liberation Front have, with significant, regular coverage from right-wing sources such as Fox[9][10], and is active in dozens of countries, so it's one of the more well-known (and outspokenly) anti-trans groups out there. --Tataral (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is marginally reliable: we can't use political articles in Fox to establish notability. We need a list of multiple reliable sources that satisfy Wikipedia:SIRS. AndyGordon (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the Fox coverage we can see that they are indeed a cause célèbre for the right wing media, which is a reasonable thing to point out in an AfD even though we cannot say that in the article without falling into original research unless we have a reliable sources supporting it. Anyway, the nomination here is nonsensical. The best thing would be to close this without any prejudice to you, or anybody else, putting together a better nomination and trying another AfD. DanielRigal (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources already included in the article clearly establish notability. The recent Fox articles mentioned here are just examples of supplementary sources that demonstrate how they are, as DanielRigal said, a cause célèbre for the right wing media in the US. Rowling just tweeted in support of the group, this is a well known group in the field of anti-trans activism internationally, probably the only thing both its supporters and critics would agree on. --Tataral (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this appears to be a nonprofit organization with national/international scale, so the alternative WP:NONPROFIT criteria of the WP:NCORP guideline can apply, and requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Sources include The Scotsman in 2019 (focused on advocacy activity in Scotland, noting it began in New York); WP:PINKNEWS in 2021 (includes a focus on the organization, its advocacy, co-founders, and supporting organizations); there is also significant coverage of their advocacy in the US, e.g. Columbia Missourian in 2023 (includes a focus on their model legislation). Beccaynr (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And also there is this in The Australian, seems to be the same organisation. OK, so yes there are enough reliable sources for this count as notable. Thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nominator was blocked. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources in article and Beccaynr above.  // Timothy :: talk  12:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources that were already in the article at the time of nomination met the WP:NONPROFIT SNG criteria, and that's only improved over the last day as Beccaynr has been adding to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per @Oaktree b CT55555(talk) 04:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Survivor: Worlds Apart. If another redirect target is better, feel free to change. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant)[edit]

Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant) (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)

Very known for only winning Survivor: Worlds Apart and being a fan favorite due to that season (and being one of top ten contenders of Survivor: Cambodia, despite being ineligible due to that win). However, I'm unconvinced that establishing an online T-shirt company makes this person more notable. Rather it appears to be.... resume-building... or something like that. Oh, and... the source I'm linking to is very more primary than secondary: the format was questions and answers, i.e. some questionnaire or interview. Moreover, unconvinced that becoming a real estate agent and marrying one of Big Brother contestants make him more notable either. If these notably make him more than just a Survivor winner, then I can stand corrected. However, even meeting notability doesn't mean this biographical article is needed in this project, and I'm unsure whether this is suitable for this project. If unsuitable, then redirect to either Survivor: Worlds Apart or the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants.  // Timothy :: talk  13:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar and TimothyBlue: Why not redirect to Survivor: Worlds Apart, the season where he won in? EDIT: Furthermore, he didn't appear in later Survivor seasons since. George Ho (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC); expanded, 15:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oaktree b: Do you still stand by your initial vote? I don't think the two others agree you in this one. I appreciate your WP:SIGCOV/WP:SUSTAINED argument, but I still believe policies, including WP:BLP1E (cited by TimothyBlue) and ones about which articles are suitable or unsuitable, outweigh the notability guideline. Well, the whole article could've been rewritten. However, either the result would still not contextually affect what readers can already learn about him, or even quality improvements still IMO wouldn't change what he's mostly (if not always) known for. Furthermore, not everything about him can be included in this project, can it? Oh, and if redirected, the page is not technically deleted but rather preserved, especially for certain people to read through. George Ho (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok with a redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . North America1000 07:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McStay[edit]

Chris McStay (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, the "pieces similar to the Daily Record piece" all go into his background and are not the same as the Daily Record piece. Young player with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, see my response above, also I have just spent some time doing a WP:HEY and expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". Clearly topic of interest in Scotland and Australian football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your response - nothing changes my mind. This is a player who has played in minor leagues in Scotland and Australia and gets minor coverage due to his famous father. That's it. GiantSnowman 08:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:
  • Primary, promo, Fails IS RS SIGCOV :: 1.  "New Signing: Chris McStay". Clyde FC. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  • Routine sports story mentioning they "signed a deal until the end of the season", no SIGCOV :: 2. ^ McDougall, Mark (10 February 2018). "Son of Celtic legend Paul McStay makes Clyde debut after signing deal until end of the season". Daily Record. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  • Routine sports story mentioning they signed a deal, no SIGCOV :: 3. ^ "WOLVES SIGN SCOTTISH MIDFIELDER". Wollongong Wolves. 6 January 2023. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  • Father son interview, fails IS RS SIGCOV :: 4. ^ Haggerty, Anthony (22 February 2018). "Sons of Celtic legends McStay and Grant on building their own careers at Clyde". Daily Record.
Above are more of the same, eg: [21], [22] promo interviews; [23], primary promo from club; nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  23:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Still no sources showing notability. More source eval:
Nothing above meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please do a source eval of how your most recent article Serhii Korovayny meets the standards above that you apply to others articles? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:TimothyBlue, can you please not use your personal login information in your Proquest URLs - I've got Proquest open, but your URL still tries to log me in through somewhere in Albany, which Fails. Just trim off the end so you get [24]] or use ProQuest 2022489520. BTW (see below), that looks like a good GNG article to me. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the Proquest article (ProQuest 2022489520), it doesn't look "routine" to me - meeting GNG. Routine would be a box-score, or a very short mention in a game report. Even an article about a transfer isn't routine; sure they routinely happen, the same way there are routinely articles about big mass-shootings - but that's twisting what's in WP:ROUTINE which talks about "sports scores" and "sports matches"; this is why we don't have an article about every 4-1 result. This December 2022 article is quite good too - ProQuest 2743531727; yeah, it mentions he was transferred; yeah, it's got some quotes from an interview; but it also has more. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Tekken characters. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mokujin[edit]

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

In courtesy for the IP 103.120.117.110 (now user Kazama16) [25]. Reason: "Because the sources don't really talk about him and sources are just top 10 Tekken characters, top 11 Tekken characters etc." Additionally, Mokujin hasn't received any commentary at all.

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

The result was merge‎ to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

1995 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (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 significant coverage in reliable sources found; existing sources just scores/participant lists. Apparent WP:NEVENT fail. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Wikipedian lacks familiarity with the sport, it does not mean that the event is not notable. A quick Google search shows hundreds of thousands of results for Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix and an article covering the results of events should not be responsible for stating the notability of the event, since the original article Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix does this. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

1994 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (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 significant coverage in reliable sources found; existing sources just scores/participant lists. Apparent WP:NEVENT fail. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Wikipedian lacks familiarity with the sport, it does not mean that the event is not notable. A quick Google search shows hundreds of thousands of results for Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix and an article covering the results of events should not be responsible for stating the notability of the event, since the original article Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix does this. Besides, the point is to list the results, so a list of scores is enough. The notability of the event has been established in the original article describing the event. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing is currently insufficient. Star Mississippi 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bils[edit]

Sarah Bils (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:NBIO. The main reliable source with nontrivial coverage about this subject is this Wall Street Journal article. I found some miscellaneous coverage stemming from this article in CNN and The Telegraph, but the combination of these sources is insufficient at this time to justify encyclopedic notability. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E are also relevant: at the moment, we only know that Bils was the administrator of certain pro-Russia social media accounts, but there is no confirmation whether she was the source of any classified documents or whether she committed any crimes. A prior version of this article made many claims about her that were extremely poorly sourced (e.g. to tabloids or primary sources, which are both disallowed for sensitive BLP information, see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The page is terribly written, but the subject is very significant in the big story of 2023 Pentagon document leaks, and her involvement was documented in publications by WSJ [27], CNN [28] and other RS [29], [30]. As sources say [31], "She built up a sizeable social media following on Twitter, Telegram and YouTube, emerging as the face of Russian propaganda, raising money and selling merchandise for the Russian cause.... Donbas Devushka Telegram account played a key role in the dissemination of intelligence documents allegedly leaked by Airman First Class Jack Teixeira, by reposting them onto an array of obscure online chat rooms. That needs to be said more clearly on the page. She is very much notable, hence the "keep". No one says she is actually committed a crime, and no, she was not the original source of information, but rather a facilitator, according to the publications. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thousands of people have sizeable social media followings. Dozens of people may have spread copies of documents sourced to Teixeira. I am not convinced Bils’s role is yet beyond the scope of the guidelines CRIME and 1E.  —Michael Z. 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this combination of recent news, allegations, her statements, speculation, and tabloid coverage is not WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. The WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS policies further weigh against the encyclopedic value of this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note below is copied what appears to be a keep !vote from an IP on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may be more coming out. The Wall Street Journal should not qualify for a reliable source because they have published so many items which were not sourced properly. As my editor used to say, "if you cannot find a person to stand behind what your reporting, then it could be made up by you. Such articles we do not accept".
Maybe what the WSJ reports will be verified by someone, maybe not. The story of Ms Bils is not fully written yet, so let it stay for while. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:A984:A186:2440:5A79 (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to WP:BLPBALANCE, The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. And per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Unverifiable speculation that more information might exist in the future does not support notability, according to WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy. WP:BLPBALANCE also warns us to Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. According to deletion policy, several reasons support deletion (#8 fails relevant notability guidelines, #9 breach of WP:BLP policy, and #14 not suitable for the encyclopedia) at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Lance Hindt[edit]

Resignation of Lance Hindt (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)

Local news story fails WP:EVENTCRIT. While I have seen the viral video and find the story absolutely wild, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and should not be used as a venue to host local news content. Novemberjazz 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it absolutely does not fail WP:EVENTCRIT; it was absolutely a national story. [32] [33] [34] [35] Reliable sources from around the country are easy to find. Reducing the notability down to a viral video is an insulting strawman. Red Slash 22:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT: it has no lasting effects and geographic scope is limited to one school district. Wikipedia is not for writing about news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be an attack page; the person would not be notable had the allegations been published. A non-notable functionary otherwise; it's sad that the person cheated, but that's not notable. Being a bully isn't notable either. So we're left with his employment, a run of the mill school board trustee.. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most sources of the event seem to talk about the legal troubles that happened after the end of employment; it's not a notable legal case either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... even the most casual reading of the article would've revealed that he was a superintendent, not a trustee. I'm also unable to figure out what you mean by "the person would not be notable had the allegations been published". Red Slash 05:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is essentially a WP:BLP1E and is adequately discussed at Katy Independent School District#Lance Hindt, from which this content has been forked without necessary attribution. No prejudice to a redirect back to the original content. --Kinu t/c 20:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The virality made this story television-news friendly. Without social media this would've remained a localized event. Let's not make Wikipedia a place to settle old disputes by publicly shaming alleged bullies. The coverage of this story on the school district article even seems disproportionate. Yammie2009 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

2004 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (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 significant coverage found in reliable sources, appears to fail WP:NEVENT. None of the cited sources (if counted as WP:RS, which is doubtful) have more than a few sentences of prose about the event and are purely WP:ROUTINE reporting of scores. WP:BEFORE found nothing else. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

1997 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (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)

Appears to fail WP:NEVENT. The only cited source(s) are a dubious website that just lists the scores with no prose/analysis. No independent RS coverage found.Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 21:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are results of old competitions. The Grand Prix committee has no official website and the results were thought to be lost, save for these very few sources. The notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit has not been challenged, so the results with documented sources should not be challenged either. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎ to User:BeanieFan11/Steve Finch. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Finch[edit]

Steve Finch (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 athlete. Played a single game in the NFL. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Illinois. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some coverage here. Seems to have been one of the best all-time receivers at his college, although oddly he never played professionally until six years after graduating. Looks to be one of the good ol' 1987 replacements, for which coverage is always tougher to find. Seems to have had a brief stint in the Arena league as well. I suggest Draftify it so I could have more time to search; I'd bet I could find a piece of SIGCOV if given long enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Division III now and then; I wouldn't expect a player from there to turn pro under most circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently lacks the SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The first source is a match report which does't really say much about him other than he was a 1980 all-conference wide receiver. First choice would be to Draftify since BeanieFan11 has expressed interest in looking for sources, but I wouldn't object to delete either. Alvaldi (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Delete a search of Newspapers.com comes up with barely a mention. This is the best I could find on a web search. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Obviously a completely unreferenced BLP is a problem, but if BeanieFan11 is willing to take it under their wing I see no reason not to give them a chance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify to allow time for BeanieFan (who has expressed an interest in looking for sources and a reputation for finding significant coverage to “save” or expand other articles on sportspeople) or any other user to find coverage on this person. Some may exist as he played at the highest level of his sport, though only for a single game as a replacement person. Frank Anchor 22:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's one from Forest Park Star at NewspaperArchive.com.[36]—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice find! That's SIGCOV piece number one. Still probably short though, so I'm still at draftify. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Still needs improvement. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: To give BeanieFan11 a chance to work on it. Subject of the article currently lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Draftify.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Information Technology Bogra[edit]

Institute of Information Technology Bogra (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 originally PRODed this claiming Sources are all primary. Does not appear to meet WP:NORG. On second thought, this is probably ineligible for PROD due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Information Technology Bogra(IITB), but my original reason for deletion stands. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NORG fail. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No effective sources. There was a report in the Times or Guardian several months ago about the lack of rigourous control of the education sector particularly pop-up education establishments offering degrees and whatnot that not worth the paper they are written on. I think this is probably one of them. Outwith that, there is no sourcing. scope_creepTalk 08:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

2000 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (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 significant coverage found in reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:NEVENT. Cited sources (which are rather dubious in terms of WP:RS) are just simple score results with no prose or independent analysis. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means send that article to AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

2005 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (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 significant coverage found in independent, reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:NEVENT. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a somewhat niche sport, but this competition is widely regarded as one of the most important ones in this sport. As a side note, I am starting to believe you are on a journey to spread misinformation about this sport and delete other people's hard work because of your lack of familiarity with this topic. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All wikipedia articles have to follow the notability guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand your point. The notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix has never been challenged before, so why are the results with documented sources challenged now? How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Where are the sources that show WP:NEVENT is met for this event? Find them and I'll immediately withdraw the AfD. (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not WP:NEVENT, but WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:GNG. As per WP:NGYMNASTICS, the event meets the criteria. As per WP:GNG, the sources are independent from the subject, once they are not taken from an official website from the Grand Prix organization. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGYMNASTICS does not cover notability of events. Simple database sources with start lists and/or scores do not count towards GNG. (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGYMNASTICS clearly states what an elite event is. WP:GNG states that scores are not enough to establish the notability of events, however the notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit has been established before. Proving the relevance of each event in a circuit with 100+ tournaments, especially for competitions which happened 20 or 30 years ago, is extremely difficult. Would creating a single list with all medalists in these 100+ tournaments, from 1994 to 2023, meet your criteria for notability, instead of lists for every year? Do you have any other suggestion to keep the results in a separate article so that the original article about the circuit does not become too big? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the individual competitions and circuits are not notable, then the complete list of medalists and scores is information that is not suitable for Wikipedia (unless it's relevant to an individual's biographical article). This is meant as an encyclopedia, not a complete database of sports scores. There are other websites where this type of information is more suitable. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the circuit has never been challenged, similar events exist in different sports and lists of medalists exist as different articles. The point of the lists is to inform the medalists, not the scores. Besides, almost all of the medalists each year have their own articles on Wikipedia, and you can check some biographies to see that the medals earned in Grand Prix events are mentioned in different biographies. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Procedural close of an AFD started by a sockpuppet which has no support for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies: Bite-Size Life Lessons[edit]

Cookies: Bite-Size Life Lessons (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 book Injury Attornies (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Weightlifting at the 2008 Summer Olympics. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pongsak Maneetong[edit]

Pongsak Maneetong (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 weightlifter. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Star Mississippi 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Eton Boys[edit]

The Eton Boys (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)

Insufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. Mainly passing mentions. Fails GNG and WP:BAND. X (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Tomasi[edit]

Carlo Tomasi (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)

Appears to be a non-notable driver. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mellodee[edit]

Mellodee (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 singer that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Was rejected in draftspace and the author who happens to have a WP:COI and has moved it to mainspace after being advised to submit through WP:AFC. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Muente[edit]

Sandra Muente (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:BLP of a singer, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim stated here is that she came in third in an Idol series 15 years ago, which is not an instant notability freebie all by itself -- but there's virtually no claim that she's done anything else of note since then ("has appeared in various TV shows", without sources, being the sum total of the rest of the article).
This has, furthermore, been tagged for notability and sourcing issues since 2010 without improvement -- and given that the subject is from Peru, I checked es to see what was there, and found that an article was deleted in 2010 for advertorialism and notability issues and has never returned since.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more Spanish-language skills (and access to archived Peruvian media coverage from 15 years ago) than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but keep Draft:Jenna Davis for now. Editors can request history merging if need be. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Davis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jenna Davis (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)

Previously deleted. Still not finding extensive coverage in RS. The Austin Chronicle is ok, People is a brief few sentences under a photo. Rest of the sources are interivews. Oaktree b (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was able to find a teen vogue article on her and she has extensive coverage in albeit relatively local news stations. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the other AfD was result in draft, which is where the actual sourced article is. (Draft:Jenna Davis) Probably should check for drafts before creating an article, especially one that is unsourced. Still I don't see extensive coverage for her, which is why the article went to draft in the first place. In four months, nothing has changed. If you !vote keep, it would be nice if you provide the actual sources for this "extensive coverage". Thank you. Mike Allen 13:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge any new content in this article to the current draft article and delete this one. This article should never have been created based on the last AfD and the existence of the work-in-progress draft article that can be improved. WP:G4 also applies as reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldo Perez (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice – subject clearly does not pass WP:NACTOR. She seems to have one notable role that has garnered coverage, but WP:NACTOR requires "multiple significant roles" (which would be 3 or more). Subject is well short of that. In addition, as MikeAllen points out, it is Draft:Jenna Davis that has precedence, so if the subject is deemed notable, it is that version that should be in mainspace. This article was created by a WP:DE editor who was subsequently blocked partly for "out of process" article creations like this one – this version needs to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but keep the draft for now I don't think much has changed since the first AfD. She's still very young and could become notable in the near future so keeping the draft makes sense. Pichpich (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borderline notable, but Draft:Jenna Davis is superior. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The prior AFD concluded on 4 January 2023. All the cites in the current article (including two i just added) are from after then, and are in legitimate news outlets. The coverage is not the same anymore. M3GAN has done box office of over US$ 175 million, that's quite big. In my view, we have a bit of a bias on Wikipedia (not entirely unfounded) against young social media "stars", because we've all seen articles on non-notable hopefuls. This is why lonelygirl15 was originally deleted in on 4 August 2006 and kept on 31 August 2006. Yes, I like my analogies to be almost 17 years old. Sure, copy whatever we want in whatever fashion from the Draft article, but the topic is notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that get her to "multiple significant roles" as per WP:NACTOR? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in the extra information from the draft.
The proposed AfD centered notability, but as @Nagol0929 and @Milowent have pointed out, there are additional sources that back WP:SIGCOV, including some in the Draft page, they are just not in the article yet but could be added and curated using curation tags.
She was also just nominated for the best Movie Villain for M3GAN in the MTV Movie Award for Best Villain, which happen in 3 weeks.
If this page was now deleted, then it would just necessitate another duplicated discussion in the AfC following shortly, that is not necessary.
Also counterpoint to @IJBall's argument above that it requires "3 or more", the WP:NACTOR guideline doesn't say 3, it says multiple ("more than one"), but also it doesn't limit it to one category, so between her roles in various shows including first listing for Treehouse Detectives as well as her role for M3GAN, both of which have articles on Wikipedia and have themselves been accepted as noteworthy. She has thus acted/voiced multiple significant roles in noteworthy movies/shows. Raladic (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. That is not how it is supposed to work – the draft has precedence. If the subject is deemed notable, the draft should be moved into mainspace, and this version deleted (or moved to draft in its place). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to the AfD process so please don't WP:BITE me, but I can't seem to find anything in the AfD guidelines that mentions a that you must delete and then raise the Draft again. The article was nominated on the grounds of notability, which can be addressed through copy edit.
As I mentioned in my comment above, I would recommend merging the Draft in (which I understand, an Admin could also merge in the history if that's what your concern is), but I also understand no one owns content, so for the sake of simplicity, it might be easier to just copy edit the merged content since both articles now have a WP:PHIST since the article in question itself has been improved during the AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are new, you don't understand – whoever created the article first should get the credit for it (in this case, whoever created the draft and is adhering to the WP:AfC process), not the now-blocked editor who disruptively ignored an existing draft and "cut in line". If there is any content from the new version that is worth keeping (which I'm doubting), that gets merged into the Draft version, and the Draft gets moved into mainspace. Not the other way around. Do not reward editors who circumvent normal process and try to WP:Game the system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting a WP:HISTMERGE, that is sometime done in cases like these. But I don't think it's worth doing in this case. It would be up to the admin, I guess. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Cutting the line" happens frequently among celeb/meme type articles -- draftifying something that the unwashed masses of the internet think is worthy of an article rarely succeeds. E.g., I am credited with creating articles like Annoying Orange even though i simply wrote a decent article after 10 awful ones got deleted. (This analogy is only 13 years old, thank you.)--Milowent • hasspoken 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a decade+ ago (before I think Draftspace even existed – or that was very early on in its development). Nowadays the proper process should be respected.
Not respecting that process is a good way to drive good faith-editors right out of editing – What is the point of properly following procedure and trying to create a solid, well-sourced article through AfC, if some numbnuts troll is just going to create a trash article, and it's allowed to stand?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lychack[edit]

AfDs for this article:
William Lychack (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)

Coverage of Lychack in secondary sources is relatively minor. Much of the sources seem to stem from primary sources (i.e. libraries which have published his works). Does not fulfill criterion (1), (2), or (4) of WP:AUTHOR, no evidence of (3) so far.

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Alawi[edit]

Ali Alawi (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 any evidence of passing WP:SPORTBASIC. Every Wikipedia that has an article on him only uses database sources, which do not confer notability. I can find plenty on Ali Allawi but nothing about the footballer of this name. Even his Goalzz page makes no suggestion of notability, only showing 2 goals from over a decade ago in the 'Syrian Youth League', which does not give me any confidence that we will see significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Tong, South Sudan[edit]

Tong Tong, South Sudan (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)

Contested PROD, because "WP:GEOLAND Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." But there is nothing to indicated that this is a legally recognized place - it may even be a hoax. We should not be creating WP articles based on a single tag/term from Google Maps (which is contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well IMO). If this is a real populated place, we might keep a redirect to the legal jurisdiction it is part of. P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not a good enough citation, and searching indicates that this is a person/organization name; I get nothing decent indicating a place. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a spot on a Google map is insufficient to satisfy verifiability and I could not find anything else to even verify. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed to find sources. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is short and vague, saying, "It is an old village filled with greenery and huts and is situated nearby similar villages called Langogu/Gbutugu and Kopalli." This reads like something out of a guidebook, not an encyclopedia, and nothing is offered to readers about why Tong Tong is a notable place.TH1980 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Mojo Hand (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Enthroned (Cima da Conegliano)[edit]

Christ Enthroned (Cima da Conegliano) (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)

Disputed draftification. Immediate moving back to mainspace after draftification with no improvement. Requires substantial sourcing to remain here 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Christianity. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per nom. Sourcing is presently deficient and this seems like a good-faith effort to build out an article on a potentially notable subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sourcing exists to verify both where it's held and who it's by, both of which virtually guarantee inclusion. Draft warring aside, this seems like process wonkery. Star Mississippi 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify unfortunately this article creator often only puts a single source on their creations. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale given. I wish the creator wrote better articles, with more sources, but most of our painting articles are like this, and at least these Russian ones are useful for English-speakers. Given the colossal literature, all significant Old Master paintings will have many sources, but not all online. The owning museum is typically the best sources though, and the great majority of our paintings articles mostly use these, and rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to keep this article, but I had trouble finding sourcing searching online in English, German, or Italian. Granted, I couldn't search in Russian, but usually I can find more than just the museum catalog. Jahaza (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most literature on Cima is in Italian, but quite what it would be called in it is a question. Since it is supposed to be a predella section, somewhere there are bound to be long papers trying to tie it to other sections of the original altarpiece. These probably won't be online, except perhaps on JSTOR. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Johnbod, a major source for paintings is the museum listings, which verifies the work and location. Mainspacing this article both warranted and a nice addition to several Wikipedia collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There undoubtedly will be substantial sources on this sort of significant artwork by a notable artist held by a major collection, if only someone goes looking for them in the right places. The work was in Italy, then Germany, and now in Russia for a century, so those sources may not be in English or online, but they will exist. For example, here is Cima's Segnender Christus in 1883.

    Distressingly, other stubby articles by the same editor on significant works by other major artists in major collections have also been unnecessarily "draftified", which everyone knows is the slow and quiet way of hiding them away until they are deleted. Examples: Picasso in the Pushkin; Gaugin in the Hermitage. When did Wikipedia become so hostile to new content? Theramin (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theramin: Took the words out of my mouth. All this editors creations should be speedily reintroduced to mainspace. Wikipedia has began to have a major problem with lack of WP:BEFORE and aversion to stubs/"bad" but notable articles in recent years.★Trekker (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Dovhyi[edit]

Oleksandr Dovhyi (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:SPORTBASIC #5 states that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This is the bare minimum threshold and, in reality, we need more than just the one good reference. Despite that, I can't seem to find even one good source about Dovhyi and the creator has only used RSSSF and Soccerway, neither of which are of any use whatsoever.

In Lithuanian sources, the best that I can find are Muge and Atvira Klaipeda, neither of which are even close to being good. A Ukrainian search only seems to give results about Ukrainian military rather than anything about this footballer. This article is not even remotely suitable to remain in mainspace. I considered sending to draft but the creator has been reverting such moves anyway so that seemed redundant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Cadet Special Activities[edit]

List of National Cadet Special Activities (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)

We have a main article at National Cadet Special Activities, but we also have this quite outdated list of activities from 2008. Selectively merge any useful links to the main article and delete this list which provides too much detail. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Birmingham City School District. Sourcing is insufficient depth. History remains under the redirect should that change Star Mississippi 14:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Covington School[edit]

Birmingham Covington School (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 GNG, source in article is primary, BEFORE showed normal local school news and database entries, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few reasons why I believe BCS passes Wikipedia:Notability specifically. Clearly, it is a state building and school, and I do not believe it needs to completely adhere to general notability guidelines. It does have a few articles written about it and/or providing significant historical details about it:
Secondly, it is a Michigan school with 630 some kids coming from and to every single week, 5 times a day. I believe that BCS should be considered notable enough to have a page, this is not counting some of the notable BCS alumni. BuiltByBromine (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source you offered is a non-working link. Do you have a link that works? Cbl62 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the second source, the history of Birmingham schools doesn't even mention Covington except in a directory at the end of the article, simply noting that it transitioned to a 3rd-8th districtwide school in 1995. This is not the depth of coverage that would be needed to support a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third source does have depth of coverage, but I'm not familiar with hometimelife.com or whether it qualifies as a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth source is something I saw in my search. The article is about an award-winning teacher. Iffy to me as to whether this qualifies as coverage of the school where he worked. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not. It's been held here on Wikipedia for years that individual achievements of students and staff are not the achievements of the school and shouldn't even be mentioned in a school article. Also, i believe "Hometownlife" is an advertising rag and as such not reliable. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . consensus is spinout is needed. I'll admit this was not your usual AfD discussion. Refreshing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure episodes[edit]

List of Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure episodes (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'm nominating this to stop a WP:BLAR edit war. Some editors think this should be a standalone article, others think it should be a redirect to Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. I note that the content in this article is identical to the content in Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. Personally I think this should be a redirect, since the exact same content is already included in Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. That is a small article and this does not need a WP:SPINOUT yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Anime and manga, and Lists. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep I barely see any actual discussion on either this or the main show's talk pages. Deletion is not being asked for and not even close to consideration here (the most expected decision will be redirect in a normal AfD discussion), and this is the wrong forum for what seems to be a clear editor dispute. Take it back to the talk pages and actually discuss things. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    he never really reads Talk pages and he has a lot of edit wars on his talk page Ckng9000 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLAR mentions AFD as a legitimate forum for disputes over blanking and redirecting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, after any attempt to come to consensus on the talk page has been completely exhausted. As there's zilch on either and we don't consider edit comments an acceptable substitute, this nomination is horrendously premature. I stand by my rationale; discuss and use talk pages. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who created many episode list for many Pretty Cure episodes in a new article that comes from main article in my page: User:Ckng9000#Articles Created Ckng9000 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and he comes and redirect my episode list says not notable even though there is notability warning already I have included notability warning when I created each new episode list for different Pretty Cure shows because I know someone is going to fix it later BaldiBasicsFan Ckng9000 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected once again. Ckng9000 continues to split articles of shows without consensus and this behavior needs to stop. Heck, they created a sockpuppet even if their original account isn’t banned, and recently, I suspected this user having another sockpuppet under an IP account. At this point, a WP:SO should be applied on this user if the IP is confirmed to be a sock. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I and other users have created WP:SPINOUT even though Pretty Cure shows were running live and before they aired Ckng9000 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
look at this one from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hug!_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=823882581 episode list created at air date February 4, 2018 never redirected was there when the anime was airing. Ckng9000 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also created one for healin' good procure episode list when it first aired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Healin%27_Good_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=938818625 Ckng9000 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i also created this episode list of Delicious Party Pretty Cure in March 3, 2022 with only 5 episodes showing and never got redirected. Here is the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Delicious_Party_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=1075017726 Ckng9000 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There is no policy-based reason to delete, but based on the format I believe these articles about Pretty Cure anime installations should be treated akin to television seasons in the Western world, where the episodes are listed in the main article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Granted, this split was done a bit too early, and the contents needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but what's the point of shoving the episode list back into the main article again if it's going to being spun out either way in a matter of weeks? The main problem is more: deciding and reaching consensus when the right time is (in terms of season progression and episode list size) to split off an episode list. See also: WP:SIZERULE which might be a better rule of thumb, also the anime MoS. Any other of the 19 prior seasons also have separate 'List of xyz Pretty Cure' episodes' lists, splitting off its episode lists was more of a given, eventually. Rctgamer3 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of Pretty Cure shows had episode split during their air time Ckng9000 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked word count for most Pretty Cure articles and they range from 2,700 - 5,100 word count so why did they split them in the first place. A lot of Japanese anime have less than 15000 words from Wikipedia:SIZERULE and they do create episode split Ckng9000 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Article fails LISTN and serves no CLN/AOAL purpose. OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a reason to create or keep an article that does not meet notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have a sock free week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While technically the list is currently short enough to merge back in right now, this is an long airing series so it'll have to be split out pretty quickly anyways. Better to save valuable editor time to keep it split even if its early. Jumpytoo Talk 20:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid spinoff article. Dream Focus 16:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is no way another 46 episode installment is going to fit in the main article. To give an example... Survivor: Nicaragua has 15 episodes (although the long plot summaries there would probably make up for like 25 Pretty Cure! episodes). It still would be a mess... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to 2019 Ronde van Drenthe. I also see a consensus to do a series of mergers and moves to make the names consistent. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race)[edit]

2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a duplicate of 2019 Ronde van Drenthe, which was updated after the event has took place. The 2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) article has not been updated since the event in 2019. All the relevant information has been moved onto the 2019 Ronde van Drenthe page. Turini2 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any connection between my text and the awkward text that appeared under it so I will skip this "reaction". gidonb (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you propose merging 19 articles? What do you mean by "unjustified spinoffs"? Turini2 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And I will also skip this one. I had sealed off the bullying against me and was ready to open a new slate. This was undone. As a result, if I now continue the discussion, as if nothing happened, it could be understood that I condone someone's gender-based bullying. I do not. gidonb (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for clarity in your wording, which I hoped you could explain. I think we can move on. Turini2 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know: bullying your peers at Wikipedia will not make you any friends. gidonb (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2007 Novilon Internationale Damesronde van Drenthe → 2007 Ronde van Drenthe
2010 Novilon Eurocup Ronde van Drenthe → 2010 Ronde van Drenthe
2014 Novilon EDR Cup → 2014 Ronde van Drenthe
2015 Novilon EDR Cup → 2015 Ronde van Drenthe
2013 Drentse 8 van Dwingeloo → 2013 Ronde van Drenthe
2014 Drentse 8 van Dwingeloo → 2014 Ronde van Drenthe
2015 Acht van Westerveld → 2015 Ronde van Drenthe
2016 Acht van Westerveld → 2016 Ronde van Drenthe
2007 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2007 Ronde van Drenthe
2013 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2013 Ronde van Drenthe
2014 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2014 Ronde van Drenthe
2015 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2015 Ronde van Drenthe
2016 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2016 Ronde van Drenthe
2017 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2017 Ronde van Drenthe
2018 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2018 Ronde van Drenthe
2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2019 Ronde van Drenthe
2021 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2021 Ronde van Drenthe
2022 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2022 Ronde van Drenthe
2023 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2023 Ronde van Drenthe
gidonb (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Later added:[reply]
Dwars door Drenthe → Ronde van Drenthe
gidonb (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing 2016 onwards (potentially naming any men's race articles in the same period to men's race, women's race. The issue with the first eight on your list - is that those races aren't Ronde van Drenthe. They were adjacent events on the same weekend - hence the different names. Turini2 (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Turini2's support, Merge from 2016 to the non bracketed title. Plus all the previous versions to the targets as requested as per the main article the women's events used to be all stages of one race so one could argue they are part of a series. This is cleaner and simpler than my proposal. Having both men and Women's results for each edition in the year page is fine although if the Women's event does get expanded greatly then I would agree to it being stand-alone. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first edition of the Ronde van Drenthe was in 1960. Since 1998 the race caters women. My proposal will also allow simplifying the following template.
gidonb (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of this that you have added needs to be a separate proposal. This proposal should have been introduced when this AFD was opened, not on the day that it should be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, it's not a new proposal. Just putting it down clear and square and easy to work with for whoever closes. The AfD was opened on April 13. On April 14, Paulpat99 said this is what we need to do with 2 articles. I joined on April 18 and said we should do this with 19 articles (as counted by nom). On April 19, pburka agreed and provided important additional rationale. On April 20, I fleshed this out as I did here with Sandstein and you providing governance. If PaulPat99 says this is what they intended or support, the AfD can already be closed as a merge/rename all per community consensus. And even if not, my proposal, as I see it, would still be the leading proposition among 4 participants in a first relist. If the claim is that the 20th article is a bit of an afterthought, I would agree. It belongs with the rest but was not immediately indicated. No problem to list this later. It would then become part of the template cleanup. gidonb (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orthodox churches destroyed as part of the recovery of churches in the Second Republic[edit]

List of Orthodox churches destroyed as part of the recovery of churches in the Second Republic (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)

Unsourced for almost 10 years, clearly not notable. The page is but a list article version of a category from WPpl, by the author's own admission here and here (WP:CIRCULAR, WP:SPS). I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malhama[edit]

Malhama (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)

"Malhama" ('saga') is a transliteration of an Arabic word. None of the 3 entries on this page is known as "Malhama" and the page is made up of only WP:Partial title matches, and so should be deleted as a disaambiguation page. There is no wikt entry for a soft redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Although perhaps "moot" would be better: the article has been so extensively been expanded after the nomination that the reasons given in it no longer apply. Sandstein 20:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone in United States history[edit]

Telephone in United States history (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 weird hybrid kind of WP:COATRACK article with basically just one sentence about the history of the telephone in the US (the AT&T issue), and nothing about the role of the telephone in the history of the US (which is what the title awkwardly suggests). The one source is from 1988, but is used to make claims about the "current" situation of women and phones, which is for such rapidly evolving topics (both the use of telephones, and the role of men and women in society) not acceptable. WP:TNT if people believe this title could host an acceptable article, or simply delete if even the title is not really worth keeping (or at most as a redirect). Fram (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Seems like it is still an ongoing creation-in-progress, but I agree that it's not appropriate in mainspace in its current state. Would benefit from incubation in draftspace so the creator, who is an experienced editor, can continue to work on it. Curbon7 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I just started the article today--and started by making links to current articles (most of which deal with the electrical technology), plus the working bibliography I am using to find historical material. As for "current" -- this is a history article and so far there is only one sentence on post 2000 developments like the smartphone. It is cited to the standard history. As a work in progress it is already well advanced in terms of bibliography and links--and it covers a major topic that somehow got missed.Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, yes, this is what draft-space is for. This article has the potential to be fascinating, well-referenced, and exactly the sort of stuff that an encyclopaedia should contain. But although Wikipedia articles don't need to be perfectly finished in main-space (WP is a work-in-progress), draft-space is the nursery in which articles can be nurtured until they're sufficiently well-grown to stand on their own two feet (even if someone comes along later and adds a few more feet...). Rjensen, if your worry about draft-space is that you don't want to go through AfC, you don't have to. You can move your draft to main-space yourself, when it's ready. Elemimele (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The arguments against this article appear to be "it's not very good". I fail to see any procedural argument on NOTE or similar grounds, and the editor appears to be actively editing it. I'm inclined to give the editor some time, it's not like there is any particular hurry here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... I should add, although I went with draftify, I'd have no problems with a weak keep. I intended the use of draft-space to protect the article from excessive criticism while it's still half-finished. I would not favour draftify as a covert-deletion; I want to see this article back in main-space as soon as it's ready. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title "history of the telephone in the United States" does sound a bit better, but it indexes under "history" along with thousands of articles....Putting "Telephone" first solves that problem. More importasnt is that the page is not about phones as objects in themselves--rather it's about how their spread and use fit into the social and economic history of the U.S. Rjensen (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, please keep the title as it is. The history of the telephone in the united states is a completely different subject, it means the history of the phone, not an article about how the phone has influenced history. This may be one of those rare examples where we should have an article whose title begins "The", as, were you writing a book, you would undoubtedly entitle it "The Telephone in United States History". Elemimele (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the subject may be notable–how can the telephone's impact not be notable, and which has certainly been covered by many authors, such as John Brooks–this article provides no sensible overview of history, nor impact of the telephone on American society. Especially the profound intertwining of Bell System practices and policies with development of telecommunication in general and American corporate philosophy and regulation, from the patent system to the implications of the Kingsbury commitment and the telecommunications act, labor relations, industrial management and workforce practices are ignored, and it does not appear that the author appreciates those aspects. The text does not convey a theme for the article. This is instead a random assemblage of factoids covered probably better already in various WP articles, and I suspect adapted from them. The language is often not encyclopedic, nor enlightening. An article with such a vague and open-ended title needs to have a clear vision of its subject matter and scope, otherwise it will become a bottomless pit of stuff, which it seems already. A junk pile. kbrose (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the topic of the impact of the telephone on American society & culture and has not been covered. John Brooks book was sponsored by ATT and it focuses on the ATT leaders down to 1970, with very little on the phone's impact on USA. The best cultural history (by Fischer) covers three small town in California before 1940. So there is no published model to follow. I have not tried to create my own interpretive history--that would be original research. However I have tried to report what many diverse experts have written, and I have tried to provide a good bibliography that will help editors and readers do their own further research. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cover that however, in any manner or hint. A superficial notion of notability of a topic is not a reason to start an article without real supporting content, especially if you think that the topic has not actually been covered comprehensively. WP is not a place to start that, so the article should indeed be deleted. One reason for the lack of a comprehensive history is that the topic is too large. Telephony and telegraphy are disruptive technologies, just like the Internet, that cannot be covered comprehensively, as the entire society and national order and practices are reinvented or reshaped. The has been true for all communication technologies in human history. kbrose (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On April 23 Kbrose wrote (above): that it has "certainly been covered by many authors." but today all those authors are mysteriously gone--despite Kbrose's "certainly". Now he says that really big topics like the telephone and the internet are too big for Wikipedia. Well in fact dozens of scholars have written about subtopics on the telephone and I have been summarizing their published results-- I think that is what Wikipedia does best. (perhaps this is the "real supporting content" that Kbrose asks for.) An article that cover the telephone in 192 countries would be "too big" but I limit this to USA (plus a touch of Canada). Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable topic, has enough sources to remain in mainspace, needs cleanup but AfD is not for cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk  16:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toronto Blue Jays home run leaders[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG; there is no reason for the Toronto Blue Jays to have their own article listing the players in franchise history with the most home runs. We cannot realistically extend this to every other MLB team with every other stat (RBIs, wins, putouts, etc.). Songwaters (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abbas (actor). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Ali[edit]

Erum Ali (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 costume/ fashion designer. Has styled her husband in some movies and was the lead costume designer in one movie. All her notability is inherited from her husband and fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 15:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Abbas (actor). Not too concerned whether or not she got her start in films due to nepotism; that's hallowed tradition in film-industries worldwide :). But I agree with the nominator that the subject fails WP:GNG at present. The two main sources cited are an interview with the subject and a short, soft-focused piece of the type that is typically written and distributed by publicists to accompany a film opening. A web search didn't find anything more substantial that would be needed to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Since the subject and her career as a fashion designer are already mentioned in Abbas (actor)#Personal life, a redirect would be justified and should suffice for now. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing notable found in New Zealand where she is a realtor - NealeWellington (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails GNG but a redirect to her husband is appropriate as her work is mentioned there. Schwede66 19:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Abbas (actor). BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Notability is not inherited.  // Timothy :: talk  01:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . "It's interesting" isn't a policy-based keep reason. On the other hand "It's not well known" is not a policy-based keep reason. The only policy-based argument is that it meets GNG, although it is not shown how this is met. Therefore I'm not finding consensus, and I don't think a third re-list for a fourth go-round is advisable. Should this topic be re-nominated, it should be clearly demonstrated that the topic does not meet GNG to overcome the lone policy argument. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PascalABC.NET[edit]

PascalABC.NET (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)

1. I do not believe the topic is notable enough to warrant a Wkipedia article. This programming language has some significance in some communities, but it isn’t well-known in general. The first few Google pages for the language’s name tend to be low-quality, auto-generated, or language-author-written things. Only 10 StackOverflow questions exist for the language. The language’s GitHub contributors list as well as issue/star counts also suggest this is a small project.

2. The article focuses a lot on showing code examples, instead of a more high-level look at the language and its history, as seen in e.g. the C#, Java or Python articles (which contain one or two examples). The code blocks, which make up the majority of the article, do not have any references, so they may constitute original research. I don’t think this style could be dramatically improved.

3. For a long time, most of the article’s content was written by two of the authors of the PascalABC.NET programming language, which is a conflict of interest. The article was rewritten by someone whose account was created after I placed a proposed deletion tag on the page (see Special:CentralAuth/Smart_squirrel_2020), and who only contributed to the PascalABC.NET articles on en.wiki and ru.wiki (see https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=Smart+squirrel+2020) - this behaviour is suspicious to me. Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I think the article is interesting because it isn’t well-known in general. I learnt about the project thanks to the wikipedia article. It is a project where many people has been working and is therefore a project with technological value.
    2) I agree that more information can be added, but I don't see that the existence of code examples is a reason to delete the page. I don't think the code blocks must be referenced while they are correct.
    3) Firstly, someone who knows the language must write the article, I don't see how someone who doesn't know a programming language is going to write an article about it. Secondly, the article is not claiming the language is better than other languages. Lastly, the tool is free, it is an open project, you can download all the code, so there is not any commercial interest behind this article. I don't see any conflict of interest.
    I don't see any good reason to delete this page. Sergodel (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This programming language has some significance in some communities, but it isn’t well-known in general." --Kwpolska
This is interesting, because it brings into question whether there is bias, relative to what is significant to who. Which can be related to language or demographics. This is an article that met previous standards, that is now being challenged. There also appears to be lots of information from Russian sources, as oppose to its English equivalent. Something else that I noticed, is that various programming language communities are old enough or for various odd reasons, may not be concentrated in the same places as newer languages. GitHub or StackOverflow may not be representative metrics for such or certain languages, though of course this is a matter of debate.
In the case of Object Pascal/Pascal, the language is "fractured" into multiple dialects, but those dialects are close enough to each other where arguably sites, books, videos, and various other sources can be used. Instead of StackOverflow, users of the programming language may use the plentiful alternative sources available from close dialects (as PascalABC has similarities to Delphi and Free Pascal), not to mention those sources of a particular language.
Wukuendo (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I’ve been able to find out, this language is primarily, and perhaps exclusively, used in schools in Russia. I was unable to find any other uses of the language. For a language that first appeared in 2007 (at least that’s what the Wikipedia article says), it seems to be quite unpopular and not well known. Go is of similar age (2009), but there are 68k questions with the “go” tag on StackOverflow (and there might be Go questions missing tags). Zig, which first appeared in 2016, has 152 questions (but it regularly reaches the front page of the orange site, and its GitHub has a significant number of people who care about it). PascalABC.NET also has an announcement Telegram channel (archive link) with 1080 subscribers — again, a small number of people care about this language (and Telegram is quite big in Russia). Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 22:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search of PascalABC on YouTube, starts to show the tremendous reach of the language, as there are numerous videos with very high view counts. Also there are many instances of the language being referred to as Pascal (Паскаль), but the videos show/demonstrate usage of the PascalABC dialect.
In general, Pascal/Object Pascal and its dialects/variants, can be hard to quantify in the same way as newer languages. This is because Pascal/Object Pascal has such a long history, thus a tremendous amount of learning materials and books already written on it. To elaborate further on the point that I touched on previously, those seeking to learn about or use PascalABC, can also draw upon their knowledge of or resources from other Pascal/Object Pascal dialects. A person who has used Delphi or Free Pascal previously, read books on Pascal/Object Pascal, or used Object Pascal/Delphi websites such as Delphi Basics, would arguably have little trouble understanding and using the PascalABC dialect. Pascal/Object Pascal dialects can "feed off" each other, in terms of learning resources. Their need for StackOverflow could be negligible and their users go elsewhere.
Various newer languages such as Zig, Nim, etc... don't or didn't have their GitHub discussions open or forums for their users to discuss problems or get help. Consequently it appears or an argument could be made that their users turned to sites like StackOverflow, Reddit, etc... to seek help and congregate. Users of languages like Pascal/Object Pascal, that existed before the popularity of those sites, may seek help or resolve questions elsewhere (at forums of particular websites) or through alternative ways like books, videos, etc... By contrast, there appears to be no published books on Zig (as of this post), where for Pascal/Object Pascal the list of books is very long.
Another related point, is that newer languages like Zig, appeared to have moved to GitHub (and used other popular American social media sites) very early in their history. Allowing them more time and momentum to generate followings on those specific platforms. Languages like PascalABC which came about before GitHub's rise in popularity and under different spheres of cultural influences, moved to GitHub much later in their history and where their users already had other alternatives. Free Pascal, for example, uses GitHub only for mirroring purposes and primarily uses GitLab. Programming languages have different histories and cultures, which should be taken into account.
"...this language is primarily, and perhaps exclusively, used in schools in Russia." --Kwpolska
I'm not sure in what context that this is meant, but as PascalABC uses .NET, applications created using the language would be nearly indistinguishable from other .NET languages such as C# or F#. PascalABC can be used commercially, and outside of academic circles.
Wukuendo (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I think the article is interesting because it isn’t well-known in general. I learnt about the project thanks to the wikipedia article. It is a project where many people has been working and and is therefore a project with technological value.
2) More information can be added, but I don't see that examples of code is a reason to delete the page.
3) The article is not claiming the language is better than other languages. Obviously someone who know the project should write the article there is no option that someone write an article about something what he or she unknows. The language and the tool are not comercial, they are free. Sergodel (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on whether the available sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, being a university-born language created for educational purposes in the mid-2000's, PascalABC.NET started being discussed mainly on different Russian forums, and the main and "official" (if we can say so) resource for discussions was the institute's forum, where various people came, not only from the institute itself. I personally met PascalABC.NET in 2008 when I started studying programming at school and then continued at university (it worth be mentioned that StackOverflow was almost a newborn then). Up to now, the main platrorms for discussing PascalABC.NET are different forums historically uniting Russian programmers and people who study programming. For example, here is a special topic on CyberForum appeared no later than 2010 (note that the topic about Pascal ABC, the predecessor of PascalABC.NET, is alive from 2008 and up to now; also note that surfing this website without AdBlock is quite painful), and here is the special topic on the institute's website. Unfortunately, the latter one starts from 2015. In the days of my studies it lived on another web-resource of the institute, which was reorganized. Also as @Wukuendo outlined, PascalABC.NET is noticiable enough on YouTube, where a number of multipart educational tutorials exist (by comparison, Oxygene, whose notability is not currently questioned, has only a few mentions on YouTube). There is also a Coursera-like platform for online education called Stepic, and multiple free cources are presented there. Note that on both YouTube and Stepik some tutorials refer to PascalABC.NET as "Pascal" so searching "PascalABC.NET" anywhere you can't be sure that you get all the available info, as for many people "Pascal" may be equal to "PascalABC.NET".
As for GitHub, PascalABC.NET came there in 2015, when the language communities were formed already on other platforms. So yes, it is less notable on GitHub comparing to some younger languages, but more notable (if we compare the issues) than, for example, J language, whose notability is not questioned on Wiki, again (besides, I noted that precise references to documention for the code snippets extensively used in the J article are not demanded). Smart squirrel 2020 (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources in the article pass GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  06:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkic scholars[edit]

List of Turkic scholars (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:CROSSCAT & WP:UNSOURCED for over 11 years. Judging by its title, its original opening sentence and its current categories, this list tries to be multiple things at once, and by lumping lots of different things together, it fails at all of them:

Note that in modern English, "Turkic scholars" usually refers to Category:Turkologists, i.e. scholars of Turkology / Turkic studies (ergo, occupation + field of study), not scholars who just so happen to speak a native language belonging to the Turkic languages family, which is what the title of this list appeared to be aiming for.
  • A series of recent CfDs including "Category:Turkic rulers" recently confirmed per WP:OCEGRS that people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.
  • The precedents have also established that a person having a native language that belongs to a certain language family is WP:NONDEFINING for that person's career. Even Turkologists don't need to have a Turkic language as their native language in order to be able to carry our their profession.
  • There is no reason to presume all so-called "Turkic scholars" were Central Asian and Muslim, and "Turkic" is not a "nationality".
Therefore, except for arbitary cross-categorisation without any RS to back it up, this list has no discernable legitimate purpose, and probably also cannot be given one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Insufficient coverage of Simpson Star Mississippi 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Elyse Simpson[edit]

Hannah Elyse Simpson (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 enough notable person. I read the sources and found them only to have passing coverage/mentions. Forbes contributor is also depreciated on Wikipedia, so I would remove such links but let the community decide. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable Jewish Transgender Woman, Journalist, Activist and Advocate. Much of this wiki has been vandalized by people that are discriminatory against transgender people. I made this wiki and used information about this person through google searches and the such. I added her writings and cited her accomplishments. I do not agree with many of the edits that were done on this wiki.
This entire section was vandalized and deleted
== Journalistic Writings ==
The Advocate Online[1]
July 24, 2018 - Israel's Right Turn Isn't an Excuse to Air Your Anti-Semitism[2]
June 13, 2016 - How Should We Respond? We Have to Love Our Lives Even More[3]
February 5, 2016 - Chicago's Creating Change Conference Was a Mess[4]
July 31, 2015 - Op-ed: Why This Trans Woman Doesn't Want to Ban Drag, But Say 'Thank You'
Refinery29
December 28, 2015 - 2015 In Trans Rights: The Stories You Might Have Missed[5]
May 10, 2016 - What It’s Really Like To Be A Trans Woman Using A Public Bathroom
HuffPost
April 3, 2017 - Governor Cuomo Lights The Night For Trans Visibility, And You Probably Missed It[6]
April 11, 2017 - 10 Transgender Plagues Of Passover -- Collapsing Parted Seas And Gender Binaries[7]
Bustle
June 14, 2017 - I Am A Transgender Zionist & An Anti-Israel Ambush Won't Stop Me[8]
The Times of Israel
September 22, 2015 - Reintroducing yourself on Yom Kippur[9]
The Guardian
November 11, 2016 - Trans people are terrified of what lies ahead. We must look out for one another[10] Jlopez2555 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need articles about the person, not stuff they've written. Not every "advocate" for xyz subject is notable. Most of these are non-useful. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlopez2555, trimming or removing content like this is not "vandalism". I say this as a trans editor who is very familiar with transphobic vandalism on Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete puff article. Pressing coverage at best, own journalistic/blog writings do not count towards notabilityGugrak (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Hannah Elyse Simpson". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  2. ^ "Israel's Right Turn Isn't an Excuse to Air Your Anti-Semitism". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  3. ^ "How Should We Respond? We Have to Love Our Lives Even More (Video)". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  4. ^ "Chicago's Creating Change Conference Was a Mess". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  5. ^ Simpson, Hannah. "Beyond Transamerica: The Stories You Missed This Year". www.refinery29.com. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  6. ^ "Governor Cuomo Lights The Night For Trans Visibility, And You Probably Missed It". HuffPost. 2017-04-03. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  7. ^ "10 Transgender Plagues Of Passover -- Collapsing Parted Seas And Gender Binaries". HuffPost. 2017-04-10. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  8. ^ "I Am A Transgender Zionist & An Anti-Israel Ambush Won't Stop Me". Bustle. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  9. ^ Simpson, Hannah. "Reintroducing yourself on Yom Kippur". blogs.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  10. ^ Simpson, Hannah (2016-11-11). "Trans people are terrified of what lies ahead. We must look out for one another". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecodan[edit]

Ecodan (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 a notable topic. It is written like an advertisement, and most of the page is unsourced. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 14:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The three sources used for this, one is the company's own site, another is an article written by the product manager for the product, and the third mentions the brand as an aside. So no sign given of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . ✗plicit 14:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Food Detectives[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2017 DonaldD23 talk to me 03:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Selection of two sources:
      1. Camacho, Melissa (2022-07-01). "Food Detectives. TV review by Melissa Camacho, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The review notes: "The show's unique combination of food science, pop culture, and experimentation creates an amusing formula that offers entertaining but teachable moments for both kids and adults. Granted, watching food techs slice, dice, eat, run, spin, and even sleep in the name of science may not sound very interesting, but Allen's quick wit adds flavor to what could be considered bland technical conversations. Kids and adults who are interested in science and/or cooking will certainly find this show appealing. Trivia buffs will also be engaged. "

      2. Hale, Mike (2008-08-05). "TV Review: 'Food Detectives'. Private Eye for the Food Guy: Cuisine Sleuths on the Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The review notes: "With Mr. Allen straining to add some levity, “Food Detectives” will live and die by the questions it asks. In the premiere last week, it hit one for four. A test of what cools down your mouth after eating spicy food was interesting. (Bread and dairy products help; soda and beer only make things worse.) But the other three segments were thuddingly unsurprising: [explanation] ... Those who complain that the Food Network’s best days are in the not-too-recent past you know who you are, and you’re blogging right this second will only feel more disillusioned after watching “Food Detectives.” If they’re acolytes of David Rosengarten and his former show “Taste,” they may be positively depressed."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. "Allen is your 'Queer Eye' turned food spy". Quick. 2008-07-29. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "...  launches Food Detectives to explain the science behind what we eat. And rather than lecture his audience like some boring chemistry teacher, Allen plans to inject plenty of humor into the learning.  Tonight's episode explores how to best quench the burn of a hot pepper, the most effective way to keep a refrigerator smelling fresh and if there is any validity to the "five-second rule" concerning dropped food."

      2. "As seen on TV: Ted Allen likes to play with his food". Miami Herald. 2008-07-28. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "Allen is finally the star. Food Detectives, which premieres 9 p.m. Tuesday on the Food Network, explores the science of eating, probing such mysteries as the five-second rule. Allen calls it "MythBusters meets Good Eats meets [Watch] Mr. Wizard.""

      3. Rosen, Jill (2008-07-16). "All Eyes on Foodie Ted Allen – 'Queer Eye' Star, Food-Show Judge Shares Culinary Know-How at Baltimore Event". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "On his new show Food Detectives, which debuts July 29 on the Food Network, Allen will investigate the truth of food myths - like whether an apple a day keeps the doctor away or if swallowed gum really takes seven years to digest. In the first episode, which was filmed in Baltimore's Little Italy, chef Jerry Pellegrino of South Baltimore's Corks is asked to make the hottest hot wings he can muster so that Allen's team can try to cool mouth fire. Also, a Johns Hopkins biologist will help Allen test the five-second rule regarding dropped food."

      4. Collins, Michael (2008-07-29). "Allen, 'Food Detectives' are going on the prowl". The Press of Atlantic City. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "In fact, Allen doesn't really cook on "Food Detectives," which debuts at 9 tonight on the Food Network. The show's focus is on science as much as it is on food. The series promises to explore the connection between science and food by revealing the answers to some of the world's most puzzling food mysteries. With the help of editors from Popular Science magazine, each half-hour episode will involve experiments designed to answer age-old questions like, "Will an apple a day really keep the doctor away?""

      5. "Ted Allen takes on food facts, fables". United Press International. 2008-07-28. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "Allen's show, Food Detectives, attempts to address questions, myths and rumors about food and answers or debunks them through scientific experiments. ... Food Detectives, which debuts Tuesday and previewed Sunday, uses culinary technicians and the scientific know-how supplied by the science and technology magazine Popular Science to conduct experiments to find the truth behind most food myths."

      6. "Food detectives search for truth". Townsville Bulletin. 2011-03-01. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "The 23 episodes cover just about everything you can think of when it comes to puzzling food questions the first few episodes covered topics such as "Can I really eat something off the floor if I pick it up in less than 5 seconds? How do I stop my mouth from burning after I've eaten spicy food?" and "Is the baking soda in my fridge doing anything?""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Food Detectives to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Cunard found two in-depth sources an additional coverage, meets GNG. matt91486 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William R. McGuiness[edit]

William R. McGuiness (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 subject was a state judge on a regional (non-statewide) mid-level appellate court. No indication that this meets WP:NPOL, and this has been a one-line stub referenced for many years solely to the subject's non-independent state biography. BD2412 T 13:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 As-Suwayda clashes[edit]

2022 As-Suwayda clashes (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:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Khashab shooting[edit]

Abu Khashab shooting (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:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Damascus bus bombing[edit]

2021 Damascus bus bombing (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:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 Israeli missile strikes in Syria[edit]

February 2021 Israeli missile strikes in Syria (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:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club[edit]

Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club (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)

Single ref on the page with only passing reference to the subject. I see various potential sources that look to be reliable but are only passing mentions. I don't see anything substantial that meets the GNG or NORG JMWt (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are no reliable, independent sources. The first reference cited is a conflict of interest because the paper's author is affiliated with the subject of this article. The second source is an obituary, for which editors can write obituaries based on public requests and/or submissions. The third source is a book in which the author may be financially connected to the subject. Reliable sources need to be added, if they exist. Multi7001 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously trying to suggest that an article in an academic journal by the leading historian Sir Brian Howard Harrison FBA who was only six at the time the organisation in question disappeared is not a reliable independent source? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he may well be reliable but it is debatable if he is independent when attempting to find sources to show notability. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that an academic who is close to the subject (in terms of working at Oxford Uni) believes it to be important because they have a connection. Absolutely understandable but perhaps those who are not closely associated with Oxford University think that we need more than one Don writing about a small part of the history of the students of that institution to show that it meets the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no shortage of sources here: they are just mostly books and sometimes a little hard to track down. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been tagged for notability for many years. It is now important that we have RS that consensus agrees meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I have added five reliable sources since the AFD started. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Low Down Dirty Shame (soundtrack). Star Mississippi 14:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get the Girl, Grab the Money and Run[edit]

Get the Girl, Grab the Money and Run (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 GNG and NSONG. Sources in article are database and stats. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject - the single - directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Low Down Dirty Shame (soundtrack): The one other piece of usable coverage I could find was this single review written by Larry Flick for Billboard. While it was a nice find, that alone does not reach notability standards. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Absolutely nothing wrong with the nomination, and the reality is sources are an issue for someone who played a century ago. However consensus has emerged that there is sufficient sourcing on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 14:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ryan (footballer)[edit]

Charles Ryan (footballer) (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)

Notability tag was removed without improvement. WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. There's not enough in-depth coverage to do that, and searches did not reveal any, so fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inclined to keep Although Crystal Palace were classed as non-league in Southern League from 1906 to 1909, does not negated London press and publication. If the stats add up, there will surely be more offline sources. The article isn't that old, the nominator hasn't given any time to for others to go find sources and populate the article. AfD is not cleanup. Govvy (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as author. Palace were professional from 1906, and as the author of the GNG I'm not going to comment on one person's subjective reading of it. Am also disappointed nominator has not responded to the below on the article talk page, nor why they have ignored the editing policy.
The notability tag is a concern. As a main driver and author of what is now referred to as the GNG it feels like the idea behind the GNG has got lost. We're here to build an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge, and we should be discussing the way this article informs people rather than whether it meets a subjective set of wording. That was the idea behind notability, that we ensure that we hold the information to account, that we ensure that we engage with each other and peer review what we do. We shouldn't be tagging an article and not leaving a message on talk about why; specifically, not engaging with the idea behind what Wikipedia is. It's open, it's collaborative, it's informative. Show the harm in the article. Then think about Summary Style and organisational theory. How does the encyclpedia fit, is a link to a separate page better and more concise than information subsumed into a larger entity, harder to find and link to? Choose what's best for the purpose, for the reader, for the knowledge. Hiding T 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with what GNG is now or with our requirement that athletes meet it, take it up at vpp. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I did a search in the British Newspaper Archive and the best I found[37] was a single line on him being signed by Crystal Palace "Charles Ryan, the Nunhead centre-half, has signed a professional form for Crystal Palace". Being a professional footballer does not equal notability and unsubstantiated claims of there WP:MUSTBESOURCES are just that; unsubstantiated claims. Alvaldi (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Umm @Alvaldi: However you did find one source on your first search which tells us there was something to find, I said inclined to keep, on the possibility, you kinda helped there. It's not a far ask to believe in the possibility of other offline sources!! Govvy (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy There is a massive leap from having a single unsignificant line to your name to having multiple significant sources over a significant period of time to it. If this and a couple of mentions of a Ryan in match reports is everything we can find, then there is is absolutely no indications that the individual was notable. Alvaldi (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
  • Stats >> 1.  "Ryan, Charles William" (PDF). Retrieved 7 April 2023.
  • Mention, routine sports annoucement, no SIGCOV >> 2. ^ "London Flashlights on amateurs and amateur doings". Football Chat and Athletic World. 4 September 1906. p. 2. Retrieved 22 April 2023 – via British Newspaper Archive. Charles Ryan, the Nunhead centre-half, has signed a professional form for Crystal Palaceclosed access
  • Name listed, stats, no SIGCOV >> 3. ^ *King, Ian (2012). Crystal Palace: The Complete Record 1905-2011. Derby Books Publishing Company Limited. pp. 550–1. ISBN 978-1-78091-221-9.
Keep votes provided no sources or guidelines.
BEFORE showed nothing but stats and listings, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject direct and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - recentism strikes again. There are days where I wonder if commenters to deletion discussions know what a book is, much less a library, a newspaper, or micro-fiche. I think we're being way too reliant on google for notability. I think you all should read over Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Biases_to_be_aware_of and try again. - jc37 09:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No sources showing notability were found in newspaper archives, do you have sources or is this another SOURCESMUSTEXIST complaint about editors following notability guidelines?  // Timothy :: talk  10:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 I specifically stated that I used the British Newspaper Archive to search for sources. The little that can be found about him there gives no indications that he was a notable player, perhaps not surprising since he seemingly was a career non-league player. Alvaldi (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. You'd stand more chance of finding him with initials than first name. There's ongoing London/Surrey-based newspaper non-SIGCOV of his club and county amateur career from about 1903 onwards, mostly at the namecheck level, plus the odd detail to make it a bit more interesting. E.g. South London Mail March 1904 (link is to the subscription site British Newspaper Archive, which I haven't got an account with so am struggling with snippet searches) finds him selected by both the London and Surrey County Associations for a match between the two; free-access clipping from Surrey Advertiser of January 1905 finds Southern United having 2 points deducted because they played Ryan when he was already registered with Hitchin (the "E.W." Ryan is a typo); free-access clipping from the Surrey Mirror March 1906, not long before he turned pro, that praises him to the skies as the only decent defender Nunhead possessed.
  • As to COV approaching SIG, there's a pen-picture in the Athletic Chat Nov 1908 that's quite informative (BNA paywall again, I'm afraid). And a pair of free clippings, from a long piece in the Peterborough & Hunts Standard of Oct 1910 about Peterborough City's new ex-pros and why they signed: the first has biographical details; the second explains that fighting to get his fee reduced, as Ryan had done, meant none of the better clubs would want to sign him, and also mentions him being a pro cricketer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pen picture of C.W. Ryan article in Athletic Chat is rather detailed and the article in The Peterborough and Hunts Standard is not great, not terrible. Changing my !vote to Weak keep. Alvaldi (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability, and showing COMMONSENSE. Another flawed AFD from this editor. GiantSnowman 22:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 82 starts in the top division of English football - there's no way on earth this would ever be a delete. Not surprising that sources were found above. BEFORE failure, and another time-wasting nomination from this editor. Nfitz (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nfitz: - he never played in the top division of English football. Throughout his stint with Crystal Palace, the club played in the Southern League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks User:ChrisTheDude for the clarification; I misinterpreted the Crystal Palace article. I've struck my Keep, but may opine again, once I've had time to review the references, and look in the BNA. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure where commonsense comes into it, or where Mr Ryan's appearances in the top division of English football came from. This player has 0 (zero) appearances in the Football League, so would have failed the old NFOOTY, and coverage of individual players in his day wasn't wall-to-wall. I spent half of yesterday (literally) looking for sources, and found a couple of half-decent ones. If the nomination had really been flawed or time-wasting, loads would have turned up on an initial search, one or two of which might even have been reliable sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was nothing wrong with this AfD nomination, from my prospective Onel had every right to nominate this article from what it showed. @Struway2: Southern League at that time was fully professional as they were trying to compete against the Football League. There wasn't any true top division at the time. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Incredibly frustrated that the debate is a sea of comments about notability and not about how the article informs readers. Feels like Wikipedia has lost sight of the WP:PURPOSE. Are we here to leave a reader informed and inspired, curating knowledge and putting together a jigsaw of knowledge that summarises sources? Surely we're not here to block access to knowledge? Hiding T 10:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three of the four Newspaper.com and BNA references that are in the article go towards GNG. The 1908 in the BNA is particularly good! Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niggs Creek, Tennessee[edit]

Niggs Creek, Tennessee (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)

Geographical feature, without demonstration of notability per WP:NPLACE; draftified but quickly moved back to mainspace without adequate improvement. To avoid 'move-warring' a discussion is now needed. 'Naive' search does not reveal additional SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Joyous! Noise! 03:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe A. Hanson[edit]

Joe A. Hanson (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:BIO. Sources in the article are 1) Primary by author, 2) Mention in diagram credits, 3) Primary by author. Before showed nothing from WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth and there appear to be no reviews of their work.  // Timothy :: talk  12:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without links or explanation for acronyms such as GNG, BIO, and SIGCOV, I cannot fully understand why this article fails to meet community norms. To make these criteria legible please define them or link to their definition. I trust that these criteria are important, but from this side of the fence, this comment is simply insider gate keeping. Average-cyanobacteria (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added links.  // Timothy :: talk  18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Joyous! Noise! 03:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Cost Accounts Service[edit]

Indian Cost Accounts Service (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)

Contested draft without a single in-depth reference from an independent source. Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see the pdf file published by Ministry of Finance, Government of India on this link https://cac.gov.in/PDF%20Material/Brochure.pdf which may serve as a reliable in depth reference. News references will be available in the form of recruitment to Indian Cost Accounts Service (ICoAS) or transfer/postings of officers(Ex.https://www.indianbureaucracy.com/kanav-dua-icoas-transferred-to-office-of-chief-adviser-cost/ ). ICoAS is a Central Civil Service under the Indian Government. Similar articles pertaining to other Central Civil Services under the Government of India is available on Wikipedia (Ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Audit_and_Accounts_Service , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Accounts_Service etc.). As such, the article may be retained. 117.202.199.96 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article are primary, BEFORE showed no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  04:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owl City discography#Studio albums. ✗plicit 03:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Moon[edit]

Coco Moon (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)
BLARed this but it was undone so now we're here. To quote my reasoning from before:

Outside of charting, this page sources only to the band's social media and press releases from the site PMStudio, which I believe to be a wholly unreliable source. I found no other coverage for this record, and the charting alone is insufficient to meet WP:NALBUM.

As it stands, the article has not changed since then aside from a couple adjusted time stamps. I still stand by PMStudio being unreliable and even brought up a query about it here. My vote is to restore the redirect I made earlier, though if anyone wants to take what's here and expand the prose in Owl City#2022–present: Return of Owl City and Coco Moon then that would be an even better target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.easyrock.com.ph/news/owl-city-announces-new-album-coco-moon/
https://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/voices/2023/03/27/owl-city-wrote-a-6-minute-song-about-rapid-city-south-dakota-dinosaur-park-skyline-drive-coco-moon/70051769007/
https://news3lv.com/news/local/owl-city-to-perform-at-brooklyn-bowl-in-las-vegas-this-fall-nevada-tickets-on-sale-friday-augustana-fireflies-you-would-not-believe-your-eyes-october-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shout4Serenity (talk • contribs) 06:46, April 14, 2023 (UTC)
  • The first and third links are both based on press releases so are essentially WP:PRIMARY. That's the same issue as with PMStudio. The Argus Leader article, however, looks to be quite useful. Good find. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Argus Leader is the only review I can find. Is one review enough for MUSIC? Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're talking about the article linked above, that's about just one song and hardly mentions the album beyond the one track. And generally, I've seen a lot of albums with single reviews from much more notable publications (especially AllMusic) die in AfDs, so I'm gonna say no. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, I guess it's a delete for me then, for the lack of sourcing/reviews of the album Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something something WP:ATD-R means redirecting is preferred so the delete vote can essentially be substituted with a redirect vote as well or however that works (or @Oaktree b could just throw explicit support behind redirecting as an option). As for the target, Owl City discography#Studio albums might be the better of the two since it already also mentions the album charting and users can navigate more quickly to other releases from there.
It is also worth noting that no new coverage appears to have come in for this album and it is now nearly a month old so I doubt any more reviews will be cropping up. Unless it hits a sudden sales spike and charts far more impressively, or makes a bunch of mid-year best albums lists in a few weeks, I don't see this reaching notability anytime soon. Keepability seems like a complete non-question to me, regardless of what other option we end up with. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not opposed to a redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have found a recent source talking about Owl City's new album Coco Moon. I have added it in the article for now, however, I am unsure if its still sufficient to keep the page around, but I'll leave the link here in case anyone wants to review it.
https://popcrush.com/owl-city-the-tornado-screamo-reactions/ Shout4Serenity (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prayagraj#Police administration. Joyous! Noise! 03:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prayagraj Police Commissionerate[edit]

Prayagraj Police Commissionerate (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)

Another contested redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Rai[edit]

Alisha Rai (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)

Likely to fail WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG

Not to be confused with Alisha Rai (author). KH-1 (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ghaziabad#Law and order. Joyous! Noise! 03:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaziabad Police Commissionerate[edit]

Ghaziabad Police Commissionerate (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)

Another contested redirect without improvement. Gets mentions, but can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ghaziabad#Law and order. There is already an undeveloped section in the primary article, this is an unneeded CFORK that fails GNG and ORG, no IS RS with SIGCOV about the subject. No properly sourced content for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  04:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Shoolagiri. ✗plicit 11:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady Of Velankanni Church, Shoolagiri[edit]

Our Lady Of Velankanni Church, Shoolagiri (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, sources are not independent or not indepth. Fram (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). Clear consensus to keep this.‎ . (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League records and statistics[edit]

List of Indian Premier League records and statistics (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 massively overdetailed WP:NOTSTATS violations, every single table is just a copy of ESPNcricinfo data, rather than sources showing why these stats are necessary for a separate article. And we also have most of the same stats for each team individually in separate articles such as List of Chennai Super Kings records, so there's literally no point duplicating this content with more additional random stats in a complete IPL stats mess article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I am well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but there is a good precedent for this type of article. Premier League records and statistics, List of Cricket World Cup records (a Featured list), List of NHL records (individual), List of Test cricket records (another Featured list). Sure, at the moment this article doesn't do it very well, but we judge the subject, not the content. A quick Google search for "IPL records" shows there there is plenty of notability of this subject. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "IPL team-wise records exist, so there's no need for this" isn't a valid rationale for deletion. There's even a featured list for this type of articles- List of Cricket World Cup records. With a simple google search, we can find many sources which discusses about IPL records (sometimes as a group). And often we see news/coverage like this- X player scored the fastest century in IPL. Y team records the highest total in an innings in IPL and so on. So, article clearly passes WP:NLIST. Since cricinfo is the best and most reliable source for stats, it's normal that the list will be copied or taken from Cricinfo. If the explanatory text in the lead can be a bit more expanded, it will also meet the requirements of WP:NOTSTATS. RoboCric (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that we can make encyclopedic content about the Cricket World Cup statistics doesn't mean that we can make encyclopedic content out of IPL stats. WP:OSE. Also, the team ones are relevant, because this is just duplication of them, we don't need both sets of duplicating statistics. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you get the idea that this is a duplication of team stats. Suppose, KKR have recorded the highest ever team total (by any team) in IPL. Then, can a random reader find this record or know about the highest total in IPL match by going to the stats page of CSK or any other team. Team records stay within the team. While this list is a collection of full IPL tournament stats, who is the overall highest run-scorer, highest wicket-taker etc... And as said, IPL records have plenty of coverage in news articles or other websites. RoboCric (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Article subject is notable enough, and passes WP:NLIST. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the above. It is not unreasonable to have the overall records and statistics for a competition. Perhaps in places it needs to be tidied, and any team statistics perhaps redirected here. StickyWicket (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure if the nominator understands how cricket statistics work. StAnselm (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPA. Yes, I understand how cricket stats work, you can disagree with me without questioning my competency. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anybody wants to see ipl records, they get all the records on this page.
Also, most people use Wikipedia for information purposes, so why do they want to waste time by scrolling random websites?
In international cricket there are also different pages for overall international records and team records, but I don't think you understand that both are different. That's why you consider articles for deletion. Bhargavkc0089 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say this list is worthy of keeping from the number of IPL lists there are as it more easily condenses information for the reader, having this in the main IPL page would make it of undue length. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 05:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Abbas Mousavi Motlagh[edit]

Seyed Abbas Mousavi Motlagh (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 obviously elected (not sure what an activist or observer of the Guardian Council is; it has clerics and jurists, and he is neither), nor is their obvious evidence of significant coverage in other forms, such as significant international reporting, from a WP:GNG perspective; just some local stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keeppasses N:POL as an appointed member of a key constitutional body in Iran. Being appointed rather than elected doesn’t matter. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mccapra: Hey - what's he a member of? Genuinely asking. Is this the Guardian Council part? - I checked that page and he's not mentioned there as a member past or present. (And there's obviously no in-line citation for any of this.) Iskandar323 (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies you’re quite right and I misread the article. He’s not a member of the GC so is not an NPOL pass at all. He just seems to be some kind of commentator. He may pass GNG but I’d need to look at the sources more closely. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fa.wiki has a draft article on the subject here but it looks like an abandoned draft from 2020. He seems to have authored a number of books, but trying to determine whether he passes WP:AUTHOR in Farsi is beyond me. I hesitate to vote delete but tbh I don’t see anything screaming notability to me. Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh and he’s got 99 followers on Twitter. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a ringing endorsement. I might even have that much on my long dormant account. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Farsi news sources seem fairly trivial. It looks like he's authored books for sure, but without evidence of some serious reviews, I can't see how we can qualify WP:AUTHOR. If even the Farsi draft was abandoned, that's a bit telling. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anyone is able show why there is sufficient sourcing that I’ve overlooked. Mccapra (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article is ineligible for soft deletion due to a previously contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are all primary, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  05:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stanford University#School of Engineering. History remains for whatever needs merging. Star Mississippi 14:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford University Computer Science[edit]

Stanford University Computer Science (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)

Shouldn't this be merged as well, just like the similar departmental articles such as [Stanford Department of Electrical Engineering ] and [Stanford University School of Engineering]. These were discussed in AFD and the results were "merge." Similar action should be performed on this too. X (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't opened this discussion, you could have done that BOLDLY and used AfD as a fallback if you encountered pushback. Just sayin'. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: as proposed by nom.  // Timothy :: talk  05:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Palpatine#Family tree. ✗plicit 11:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine family[edit]

Palpatine family (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)

Incredibly niche article of very little interest even to Star Wars fans. Entirely sourced by primary sources and non-reliable sources. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 06:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ by an Admin per WP:G4. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Coach Henry E.V.K[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Coach Henry E.V.K (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 was deleted via deletion discussion on April 13, 2023. It was nominated for CSD as a trivial recreation of a page previously deleted via discussion. Improbably, that CSD was contested. So now we're here. Just like last time, the page fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. There is a single short article in the Daily Trust that does not meet "significant" coverage and is not "multiple" sources. "Beautiful Arewa" does not appear to be a reliable source (appears to be a blog at best). The remainder of the sources are just links to tracks on Apple Music which are not reliable sources. Google does not bring up any missing sources, nor does there appear to be any new material since the last deletion discussion. Delete and salt. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just thought I'd mention that the CSD tag was removed by an editor with 17 edits. So, it's not like an administrator disagreed with your assessment. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks @Liz: I'm trying proactively to not gatekeep solely based on edit count, but it didn't go unnoticed. I'm trying to get better about assuming the best from new users except when it's obvious shenanigans. Thanks for everything you do. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4 clearly applies in this case.-KH-1 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maximum the Hormone. ✗plicit 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nao Kawakita[edit]

Nao Kawakita (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)
Daisuke Tsuda (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Futoshi Uehara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ryo Kawakita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not finding any signs of independent notability. Her name comes up in articles about Maximum the Hormone but only in passing, and certain search terms bring up more results for the fluffy mascot who took her place one time a few years ago than for her. Unless she's getting more coverage in Japanese media that I don't have access to, I think this page should be redirected to the band's. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Per PerfectSoundWhatever's mentioning of them below, I went and looked at the articles for the band's other three members and have determined that they run into the same issues as Kawakita's, so I have expanded this AfD to include them as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying MichaylaGussler's from the talk page they just posted it on:

    Nao Kawakita is relevant, but the sources aren't haven't been provided. Therefore, I feel that as long as more information is added to the article, the article should stay. Most of the sources and relevant news stories about her are in Japanese, and probably haven't been added as they are less likely to appear in English search results. I did also see, however, that even a simple English-based search on news about Nao Kawakita that there were articles about her involvement with the city of Kuroishi City, Aomori-ken in the north where farming is common. According to the articles, including this one by Vice, Nao Kawakita has been performing under the name Nyango Star, a cat-apple hybrid mascot (known as yuru-chara in Japanese) who is working to fight the decline in agriculture in Japan by performing songs and getting children excited about farming and food. I would say that is at least one example of a few other articles she could be linked to. And there's not to mention, much of Maximum the Hormone's history and influence on Japanese Nu Metal culture isn't detailed or linked to as well. MichaylaGussler (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    From now on, please leave your comments on this discussion page where they're meant to go. And if you have access to those Japanese sources you mention then please provide them here. I couldn't even find coverage that identified Kawakita as Nyango Star so if such a piece exists, it would be very helpful. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also worth noting that jp:川北奈緒 is a redirect to the band's page where there is a section on Nao but without a huge amount of promising coverage, and most of what is there revolves around her marriage and pregnancy which is the same fancruft which was removed earlier. Perhaps a merger similar to what the Japanese page has would be the better option. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maximum the Hormone per QuietHere. I don't see a reason why she should have a seperate page on enwiki if she doesn't even have one on jpwiki. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maximum the Hormone. I happen to be very familiar with Nao Kawakita and her band, Maximum the Hormone. She is a very influential and well-respected figure in Japanese rock music, and she is indeed involved in extra educational and charity endeavors. I can attest that these are frequent topics of discussion among those in-the-know. However, for Wikipedia purposes it is fancruft that is not only absent from reliable journalistic sources, it's not particularly encyclopedic either. Until/unless Kawakita's non-band activities become the focus of significant media coverage, there is no problem with a brief mention at the band's article. By far, her notability is within the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the additional nominations after my first vote, I think all four members can be redirected to Maximum the Hormone. Singer Daisuke Tsuda has some extra info of interest as the host of a radio show, but I will simply add that to the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / redirect to Maximum the Hormone. The sources indicate she is not notable. We should also look at the band members' articles, as they are in similar shape. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PerfectSoundWhatever as I wrote above, you inspired me to include the other three bandmates. Just wanna let you, @Doomsdayer520, @Bensci54, and @MichaylaGussler know about the change in scope in case that may affect your opinions at all (though I don't believe it would unless you hold some opposition to the multi-AfD process or something like that).
    I will also note that Michayla has added two new sources to Kawakita's page regarding this Nyango Star character, neither of which appear to confirm that she is the one playing the character, so I don't believe those are acceptable until such confirmation is also provided. Of note, jp:マキシマム ザ ホルモン does not appear to mention Nyango Star at all, let alone confirm who's inside the costume. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maximum the Hormone per above. I don't see proper sourcing for a merge, but no objection to merging properly sourced content if there is a consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  05:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Discussion about the specific inclusion criteria of the list and a possible page move may be had at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional frogs and toads[edit]

List of fictional frogs and toads (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)

How does this list meet WP:LISTN? "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This does not appear to be the case, instead this is a list version of WP:NOTTVTROPES/WP:IPC. Not sure if anything here can be rescued into a merger with Frogs in culture. IF this is kept, then at minimum we should redirect the fork List of fictional frogs and toads in animation back here (and if this is not kept, that fork should suffer the same fate as the main list nominated here). PS. If this is kept, then it needs major gutting as many - most - entries here don't even adhere to the list official inclusion criteria ("It is restricted solely to notable frog and toad characters from notable works of fiction"), with plenty of red of black links to non-notable fictional frogs and toads. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don’t need lists for everything Dronebogus (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEEDED Dream Focus 16:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Have added two sources which consider the topic in general. Note that this list is one of a whole hierarchy of Lists of fictional animals (shown in the footer navbox), some of which could usefully have better sourcing while some such as List of fictional badgers are scholarly and well-sourced. PamD 07:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD Thanks. The list of amphibians source seems to be a different (broader) topic still in need of a list of fictional amphibians. The Guardian article seems reasonably relevant. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the equivalent French list (also not well sourced) seems to include quite a bit which isn't in this list and could provide inspiration for expansion, with careful research to find some sources. PamD 07:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some entries need to be removed. Discussion on inclusion criteria should on the talk page of the article. If they have their own Wikipedia article or if they are mentioned in reliable sources, of course have them. If they are most or all episodes of a notable show, or are just briefly there, or don't do anything at all, should they be there? Trevor was someone's frog in one of the Harry Potter novels, but did it actually do anything at all? Someone had a pet frog in a book, does that mean anything? Dream Focus 15:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Some entries need to be removed" is certainly an understatement, as most of the entries need to be removed. Very few of these entries actually meet the criteria of being "restricted solely to notable frog and toad characters from notable works of fiction" (my favorite probably has to be that someone put in "frog" from Symphony of the Night, a generic enemy in the game). That said, there are at least somewhere around ten or so unquestionably notable examples with articles listed here. And while the added sources aren't the greatest so far, they are enough to make me think that this list should stick around for the chance of a major cleanup and subsequent further discussion. So I'm probably willing to recommend a Weak Keep on this, provided that the list is pruned down to just those notable entries, and it does not preclude the possibility of a merge to a broader, better sourced topic, such as the mentioned possibilities of Frogs in culture or an eventual list of fictional amphibians. That pointless List of fictional frogs and toads in animation spinout definitely needs to go, though. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, frogs and toads do have a long history of usefulness in literature, and their frogginess/toadiness is essential to their role. There are a lot of notable frogs and notable frog-stories in this list, and the cultural significance of frogs and toads is definitely notable. Provided no one gets silly about this, and starts listing everything vaguely frog-like that's ever got a passing mention anywhere - i.e. provided it's restricted to notable literary amphibians - then I think it's a useful list. Imagine a kid asking himself/herself whether fairy-stories with frogs are just the tip of a frogberg in literature in general (which is a good question for an encyclopaedia-user): this list would help them find their answer. Elemimele (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, but move to List of fictional amphibians and remove any non-bluelinked entries. The current title and inclusion criteria are totally arbitrary. I also support merging any bluelinked entries from the animation list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly change scope to List of fictional amphibians, if notability is clearer then. To add to the secondary sources put forward by PamD, to show that there is enough material for frogs and toads in fiction and therefore WP:LISTN: Amphibians Their Care and Keeping, p. 148, has a section on amphibians in fiction section. And a full (old) books exists for Reptilien und Amphibien in Sage, Sitte und Literatur (Reptiles and amphibians in legend, custom and literature), containing a 39-page-chapter on "Frogs" and a 22-page-chapter on "Toads and other creatures". Daranios (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios For the record, I would expect amphibians in fiction/popular culture/literature to be a notable topic. (One of the sci-fi encyclopedias I am familair with has an entire chapter or mice and rats in sci-fi). I do think, however, that this needs to be rewritten as a prose rather than a list, and WP:TNT is needed for articles that gigantic TVTropes lists. Alas, the consensus seems to be to keep this (and will anyone even try to remove the unreferencec cruft...?). Frankly, maybe I'll find time myself to write an article on this (red-linked here), and then in x months/years we can discuss if this list is necessary (as I have serious doubts it will see any improvements in foreseeable future...). PS. But perhaps such a list is better than nothing, given that the proper prose article doesn't exist yet. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: As usual, I think this list has worth as an overview of appearances of the topic at Wikipedia (which would remain in parallel to the existance of a prose article). Thankfully, SilverTiger12 has already done a significant amount of cleanup :-). Daranios (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tōmei Expressway. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotemba Interchange[edit]

Gotemba Interchange (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 GNG, and an interchange like this is ordinary and would likely not have any additional sources. Rschen7754 05:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . I'm persuaded by those arguing for saving this article. The argument for those advocating deletion seems to rest on whether The Oregonian is a "local" or regional newspaper. Those arguing to Keep state that it is a major newspaper for Northwest U.S and I'm persuaded by their argument. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucier (restaurant)[edit]

Lucier (restaurant) (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 restaurant that only existed for 7 months. Fails GNG, coverage is only local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable, based on the extensive coverage it received. WP:AUD is wrong. Notability can be established through coverage in local media, particularly when the local media have an excellent reputation for reliability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is WP:AUD wrong, it is part of an official guideline. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." LibStar (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, yes? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: LibStar, You may be interpreting "local" for the location of the publication, but for newspapers and magazines, WP:AUD clearly implies the area of circulation, hence the terms regional and statewide. This article clearly meets WP:NORG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). I agree with Eastmain, the topic is clearly notable based on in-depth reporting in multiple independent and reputable major publications. Based on their nominations (and even some withdrawals), I think nominator is pursuing AfD before completing thorough assessments of available coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but local coverage. No evidence that it meets NCORP. And the likelihood a restaurant that was open for 7 months is actually notable is pretty much nil. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course "the likelihood a restaurant that was open for 7 months is actually notable is pretty much nil", but this venture received significant coverage. I strongly disagree with your assessment of secondary coverage in major publications. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did it get any coverage outside of Oregon? LibStar (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We've already been over this. I am not going to keep repeating myself across the many (30?) articles by me you've tagged for deletion recently. You keep throwing around "AUD" and dismissing The Oregonian as a "local" paper when the publication has statewide circulation. It is also the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. If you want to have a wider discussion about whether or not The Oregonian counts as a regional/state source, fine, but in the meantime please stop targeting me and tagging entries, some of which are (IMO) very clearly about notable subjects. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And we've already been over the fact that many editors don't agree with you that coverage only in even TO of a Portland restaurant rises to the level of NCORP. I've said the same for NYC restaurants covered only in the NYT. If a restaurant is notable, it will get coverage outside its home publication, no matter how important that publication is to that local area. Valereee (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we've been circling the WP:GNG vs. WP:AUD vs. WP:NCORP drain for months now. I've asked for a wider discussion about this because I'm tired of restaurant articles I've started getting nominated for deletion, yet most often kept. (I've probably been through 50 or so in the past year. Didn't help a now-blocked sock puppet was contacting editors to falsely accuse me of being paid to edit the entries, but let's set that aside for now.) You can keep saying "many editors don't agree with" me, but most of the articles involved in these discussions have been kept. I've even promoted a handful to Good article status after they were nominated for deletion. So, perhaps many editors don't agree with you. Doesn't matter, my point is we're all exhausted by having this same discussion over and over and over. I wish we could address this in a way which doesn't have me defending multiple entries at a time, all the time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need a more general decision on how to handle restaurants. They're sort-of the opposite of academic professors: Restaurants always generate a lot of stuff in newspapers because people like to go out to eat, so a major role of a newspaper or magazine is to review places where you can do it, review the new restaurants, regret the closures, announce the changes. Celebrities eat too, so wherever they go, they leave a trail of restaurants basking in the reflected publicity. We need some general guidance on what makes a restaurant stand out from the crowd as a really notable institution. Elemimele (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sheer number of references are irrelevant and misleading. Most are trivial: a single sentence in articles about other subjects only tangentially related to this restaurant. Those that are substantive are all in the categories of (1) it's opening and (2) it's closing 7 MOS later. Under WP:NORG none of this amounts to substantive coverage that would establish notability. This is comparable to a one-day news story that got purely local coverage, and was picked up by one statewide newspaper. A restaurant that went out of business in seven months is simply not notable for an encyclopedia, molecular gastronomy,$25 martinis and Dale Chihuly glass sculptures notwithstanding. Banks Irk (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banks Irk: Yes, there are sources which discuss Lucier for just a few sentences, but you've disregarded multiple, in-depth pieces and reviews by Oregonian journalists and food critics (several of which are paywalled, to my frustration). A search for "Lucier" in the Oregonian archives yields over 100 returns; I am currently sifting through those to try to expand the article further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't overlooked or ignored the non-trivial articles, nor the dozens of new refbombs added today (the vast majority of which are indeed trivial and probably should be stricken as excessive coatracking) Whether X used to work there, or Y bought the building or Z is the new restaurant the owners opened lateris not notable. Such trivia is representative of how the restaurant could get over 100 Google hits in The Oregonian for a 7 months run.) None of these references establish notability for a purely local defunct eatery that cratered almost immediately after it opened. So, there are some longer restaurant reviews by local critics that the setting was spectacular, but the pricy food sucked. Again, that just doesn't establish notability. Banks Irk (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk I would like to know, how were you able to review all of the paywalled Oregonian sources? I'm asking because I'm accessing them through the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library, which makes verification difficult for other users. There are quite a few in-depth profiles specifically about Lucier, which I'd like others to be able to access, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lexis-Nexis. You're wasting your time. 99 44/100% are completely trivial. The others are, as I wrote earlier, "it's being built... opening soon...finally opened", "pretty building, pricy food sucks", and "it closed (we're not surprised because the pricy food sucked)". A newspaper does not generate 100+ substantive articles on a restaurant that was only open 7 months. Banks Irk (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming. With all due respect, I strongly disagree. I find the amount of thorough coverage by multiple reporters quite impressive for a short-lived restaurant. We clearly see things differently, but I happen to think most editors who have access to these in-depth profiles would be inclined to vote keep. Seems I won't be able to sway your vote, so I'll move on to other things. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Business was open for a whopping seven months, and yes, sources are all local with no outside third-party coverage, while not proving why the subject is actually notable for Wikipedia article despite the borderline refbombing. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beemer69 Again, The Oregonian is not just a "local" paper. It offers statewide reporting and regional circulation, and has the second largest distribution in the Pacific Northwest. Can you clarify what you mean by "not proving why the subject is actually notable" -- how is the subject not notable when it has received so much in-depth coverage, both in the form of reviews and pieces focused on the restaurant's operational history? Since your vote, I've worked to expand the article further, using some very in-depth articles which are (unfortunately paywalled), if you're able to take another look. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes both GNG and NCORP notability guidelines per multiple, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications, here [38], here [39] and here [40]. All three count towards notability as set out in WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. The Oregonian covers the regional requirement in WP:AUD. Rupples (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will assume good faith, but I find it hard to take these refs as much more than a joke. One is not an RS, and the others are trivial. Banks Irk (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generous of you to assume good faith. Your opinion is welcome and valid. Each of us interpret the sources presented in our own way and all that can really be said is that my interpretation differs from yours. I see the very fact that this business folded in such a short time as significant. The take I'm getting from this article is that the owners introduced what seems to be the most expensive, high end, glitzy, upmarket restaurant that Portland had ever experienced, but the concept failed. That to me is notable. You are free to disagree.
    Which one of the sources do you deem not reliable? Rupples (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first 2 seem very local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer the question I asked, unless you are presupposing "very local" sources as inherently unreliable. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rupples, don't worry, even if you supply a dozen in-depth profiles published by major publications like The Oregonian and other glossy magazines, you'll still be told those don't count... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:AUD states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. I haven't seen anyone holding the position that Oregonian is anything other than a statewide paper, at least, or contradictory information. Since this was the sole reason given in the nomination, and it has apparently been mooted, could the nominator then concisely state their policy based reason for deletion, if it exists?
In other words: WP:AUD was mooted, what reason for deletion remains?☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD, as has been indicated also above. gidonb (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's been more than two days since my comment above asking what policy reason should govern deletion here, with no response. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, @Bri, didn't see that you'd asked for clarification. Just because a newspaper covers an entire state doesn't mean NOTHING it covers is "local". The Oregonian, published in Portland, is for Portland a local source. Just like for NYC, the NYT is. Literally nothing outside of Portland seems to be in the now-81 local sources. This restaurant was open for 7 months and had no coverage other than local. It was open for 7 months. Valereee (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an expansion of the literal words at WP:AUD. I don't even know how you would formulate that. How does one tell the difference between "local coverage" and "non-local coverage" from an indisputably regional or national source? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I don't understand Valereee's interpretation of AUD. The Oregonian is most definitely a regional publication and not "of limited interest and circulation". I'll reiterate my request to have a wider discussion about this (AUD vs GNG vs NCORP) instead of having this same debate over and over across dozens of AfDs. Also, Valereee, how long the business operated is irrelevant. What matters is sufficient secondary coverage, which Lucier has very clearly received. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I as well disagree strongly with this interpretation of WP:AUD. In addition, this guideline is about organizations and companies. A restaurant is a cultural institution beyond simply one company. ɱ (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if a restaurant opens in NYC with reviews published in The New York Times, The Villager, and AM New York Metro, none of those would meet WP:AUD, because they are published in the same location as the restaurant's locale, but if a review were published in New York Daily News it could count toward AUD because it's published in New Jersey?? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, ever. This article passes all relevant notability criteria. If anything, the surprising story of closure has led to more press, and thus more notability. To say that something is short-lived is not a valid excuse, and not part of any policy or guideline. Do you want to delete the New York Crystal Palace article? That only lasted five years. I dare you to try. ɱ (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 03:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up and Eat[edit]

Shut Up and Eat (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 closed restaurant that only gets coverage in local media as per WP:AUD and fails GNG. There is in fact a restaurant of the same name in New Jersey. https://www.nj.com/food/2023/04/shut-up-and-eat-inside-njs-wackiest-restaurant-with-servers-in-pajamas-and-a-sea-of-kitsch.html LibStar (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). The article now has approximately 30 sources, ranging from books and major newspapers/magazines (The Oregonian, Portland Monthly), to local publications (Portland Mercury, Portland Tribune, Willamette Week), to industry sites (Eater, The Daily Meal), and other media outlets (Thrillist). I'm satisfied with the amount of independent secondary coverage and I've not yet searched the Oregonian archives. This seems to be yet another nomination submitted before a proper source assessment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these sources may come under WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Note Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, how many times do we have to go over The Oregonian not being just a local paper? Surely The Oregonian qualifies as a regional or state publication, being the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this restaurant get any coverage outside of Oregon? It does for a different restaurant in New Jersey. LibStar (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not having this discussion again. I gather you understand my position and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I would encourage you to start a wider discussion at an appropriate venue about WP:AUD and specific sources (specifically The Oregonian) instead of mass tagging for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD. gidonb (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: closure has nothing to do with notability, ever. This article passes all relevant notability criteria. ɱ (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of locomotive classes[edit]

List of locomotive classes (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)

Is a random, far from complete, list of locomotives. E.g. under British Railways and Great Western Railways only 3 or 4 out of dozens are randomly mentioned. The list lacks structure with some of the section listing locomotives by manufacturer and other by operator and random individual locomotive articles.

Then there are whole continents that are not even mentioned (Africa) or only given minimal coverage (United States). There are plenty of Locomotive by manufacturer or Locomotive by country lists, combining them into one article that would have thousands of entries is not of much benefit to anyone. Only one cite is provided, that would only cover the Canadian section, but the article doesn’t have one, so effectively the list is uncited. Hoekiema (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close as out of process. Hoekiema, it sounds like you're looking for one of the options listed at WP:ATD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, I was looking for a delete at the time of nomination, that hasn't changed, so no need to close the discussion prematurely. Hoekiema (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    no Disagree this page is a result of a split of the page list of locomotives. As a result, this list is technically still under construction. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment withdrawn Delete per nomination. Completely unecessary duplication. If anything is need it is simply a list of lists of locomotive classes. It also hurts me to see such a badly formatted article with links used in section headings. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was recently created per consensus at talk:List of locomotives#Splitting proposal. Yes it needs improvement, but AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline. I'm not sure what 10mmsocket thinks this is a duplicate of, but the point of split was to reduce duplication. The work to enact that hasn't fully happened yet, but again that's not an AfD matter. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The consensus reached on an AfD on another article doesn’t give a pass for a below par article to exist elsewhere. It appears that as a result of the AfD, that article was improved and the issues moved here. If editors feel that the article can be improved, but not within the timespan of this AfD, they can propose to move it draftspace and then put it forward for publication when done.
Wikipedia doesn't have list articles for every football stadium, railway station or school around the world because they would be too large and unweildly. Instead there are more manageable list articles with boundaries, e.g. by city or country, or in the case of locomotives, by builder or operator. If the article does remain it should solely be a list of lists, e.g Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway etc, and not a list of individual locomotives as in the New Zealand Railways and Victorian Railways sections, each having 60 locomotives, and by global standards neither are big operators, so their would be even larger lists for others. There are thousands of locomotive classes globally, listing every single one in a list that would go for a mile would be of no real benefit. Hoekiema (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound like a better idea than making this page endlessly long. I'll make a separate list for the Australian locos (currently just Victorian Railways). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Almost certainly meets NLIST. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets NLIST, recently created per consensus, provides some context and references for items. gidonb (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It is in the process of being created. Let that happen. De Guerre (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to ongoing expansion of the article. TH1980 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The extent of locomotive classes is not so large that the list is doomed to be indiscriminate, and this passes WP:NLIST. While it was not in great shape at the time of nomination, WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Editing can improve the page—and has recently improved the page a good deal—so I see no reason to delete at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's raining! gidonb (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House (season 6). Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Private Lives (House)[edit]

Private Lives (House) (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House (season 6). Redirecting as an ATD. This is a common resolution in AFDs for articles about individual episodes of a TV series. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyrant (House)[edit]

The Tyrant (House) (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House (season 3). Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top Secret (House)[edit]

Top Secret (House) (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there is only 1 RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House (season 3). Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning (House)[edit]

Meaning (House) (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2023_April_21&oldid=1152855018"